Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot

575:

editors to edit the project in the way they see fit. If an editor becomes a problem they can be counseled or sanctioned. Whether a link is spammy or not is a case-by-case decision that depends on a lot of subjective factors. It would be hard to simply blacklist certain sites. I've had one or two perfectly good links I added reverted by shadowbot. It's hard to argue with a determined bot - there's no deliberation, no appeal, no judgment. Is there going to be a way to get around the bot if an editor has considered the question, and personally feels the link in question is not spam? If it can be more like the vandal bots, I don't think anyone questions their operation. They're extremely useful and have a low error rate. A really good bot that removes bad links but allows more experienced editors to override it on a case by case basis would be fine.

3145:. I am afraid I am unwilling to assign a Bot flag to this account at this time given that Tawker's approval above is clearly equivocal. The Bot Approvals Group is presently responsible for determining both the technical suitability of a proposed Bot and the consensus that it is compliant with policy. It seems to me that Tawker is only willing to sign off on the former of these. Unless the community (or BAG) intends bureaucrats to take a more active role in the Bot approval process, I cannot see that this is a valid approval. Agreement needs to be reached on the desirability of this Bot (not just that its code is sufficient to perfom the proposed task without adverse server consequences). The "politics" need to be sorted as well as the technicalities before crats are asked to flag Bots in my opinion... 1993:(all (parts of) policy). The links on the revertlist, or on the blacklist are generally in violation of one of these. If the violation is total, it gets (meta-)-blacklisted, if the majority of the sites is in violation, but not everything on the domain, then it gets reverted by this bot, after which the editor, or another, uninvolved editor, can have a second thought about it (e.g. revert the bot while leaving out the questionable link, discuss on talkpage first, etc.). Yes, it sometimes reverts too much, but after the first (good-faith) warning, the editor can repair that part of its edits (the VoABots also revert all edits by an editor the bot thinks is vandalising a page). Feel free to join us on 2185:. There another admin will evaluate what the user was doing, decide if a block of the account is in place to persuade the editor to discuss more, or that it is better to evaluate the edits and perform them properly (the admin's account will be older than 7 days, so the bot will not revert; and probably the admin is already on the whitelist of the bot, in which case it will never be reverted). Since spamming is something that is actively happening, those links get added without discussion first, if you see how many edits have to be checked, it is impossible to handle those cases by hand (we don't have enough manpower to handle that). 1787:

the link you have added (which is clear if the addition gets reverted and warnings are posted on a talkpage), then discuss it first on the talkpage. The community consensus is in these policies and guidelines. I know that that may result in good links being placed on a revert- or blacklist, but if there is no discussion from the persons pushing the link, and there is no appropriate use, then the consensus has already been reached (per the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia). I would invite you to assume some good faith on the people who are active in a.o.

1682:, there are parts of certain sites that are appropriate. Yet, many people who are not familiar with wikipedia use that loophole to add links on those same servers that are not appropriate. E.g. the largest majority of youtube is bad, the files are copyrighted, or totally unreliable. Still we can't blacklist it, because there are several files there that are appropriate. Reverting the additions of unestablished editors and making them reconsider, and telling them why they probably should not add the link closes that floodgate of links, which otherwise 1501:

links should not be on that list, though I assure you that most of the links that were added by unexperienced editors which get reverted should not have been added, but if the percentage of good-link reversions gets too big (say more than 1-2%), then either we already remove it ourselves, or indeed it can be removed after remarks of editors (and put it on an attention list i.s.o. a revert-list). One of the powers of the bot is that it works directly, not after a blacklist discussion, and that is necessery for the blatant cases of spam.

3217:; to catch active blatant spam or those links which are too often in violation of policy/guidelines, according to the suggested 1:200 error-rate). If the load on the systems is going to be too much I will have to switch back to the off-wiki RevertList. In that case the RevertList will be published regularly, and then we need a review process of rules which are questionable (i.e. which result in too many good links being reverted). How does this sound? -- 1260:

community (this can be done by an independent program if necessary). Given the recent concerns about things that happen off-wiki, I prefer the list be out in the open and subject to community review. Until we get the dump written, the patterns which were matched can be seen in the revert edit comments in the bot's edit history.. There are very few domains in the database right now (compared to what was there when the old AntiSpamBot was running). --

1537:

I've seen too many cases in the past where a bot was approved with a relatively narrow mandate and that mandate was later unilaterally expanded by the operators to do something that didn't have consensus and where the bot wouldn't have been approved if it had been disclosed from the start. This should not be approved until and unless a reasonable cross-section of the whole Knowledge (XXG) community — not just the Bot Approval Group — says it is OK.

2394:

to a page in the last 30 hours, and in those 50 edits there is one XLinkBot revert. It may on a super-heavy edited page that there are more than 3 reverts by XLinkBot .. but that would approximately mean 4 reverts within 30 hours where the page in question has about 150 edits in that same time. Note that it are 3 reverts, not 3 reverts on the same editor or 3 identical reverts. Please drop a note if it still does it wrong, hope this helps. --

1001:(regexes on that list get only reverted by SquelchBot if the linkwatcher reports it, so it needs bot-operator attention) I have one concern though, the bot is used to catch active spammers (that is, editors who only add links without discussion, it does not always mean that the link itself is bad), which results that links on that list maybe there without a previous on-wiki discussion. I would like some opinions on that. -- 2297: 2236: 3333: 284: 1973:. External links that are in violation of these guidelines (generally, where users push an agenda, where the links are added to improve traffic to a site, or where links are added to material which is in violation of copyright), then these links should not be there. Moreover, wikipedia is not a linkfarm. We are writing an encyclopedia here! That is the procedural consensus there. Read 3052:" something, I recommend that you honestly re-examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across? Perhaps secretly inside you enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation, but to everyone who is busily trying to work together harmoniously to build an encyclopedia, that becomes an impediment.-- 2862:

to the same conclusion. Instead of merely admitting that you did this, you continue to reposition the argument, avoiding any inference that what you did was inappropriate. Which is why Knowledge (XXG) needs people, fighting for free speech, to counter-act those who want to smother the other side in conflict by process-tools. That is not what the blacklist is for.

1599:, which prevents saving a page which contains a link to a blacklisted site. This bot is actually a "step-down" from that level of exclusion. It allows established editors to add links as they deem appropriate. Since the old AntiSpamBot stopped functioning reliably about two months ago, there have been a few instances where we've had to use the 3202:(an impossible task), or we accept a 'reasonable' rate of errors by the bot (the bot reverts, and warns the involved user that there may be/are concerns with the added link (the first time with a good-faith warning, which does get stronger after persistent addition); the edit can always be reverted, the bot does NOT block a link-addition!). 3190:

template, category, i.e. 116 diffs to parse per minute, which is the difficult work for the bot); 31 added links per minute; in 4.8% of the edits, 5.6 edit per minute concerns some form of link-addition, i.e. true addition, or changing a link). (data for 51 minutes activity of the linkwatcher, i.e. link-statistics, not revert-statistics)

1581:

appropriate articles should not be being classified as spam, they should be being addressed on the appropriate policy talk pages. Until the community can discuss these cogent issues, I would be against any bot activation, and be in favor of deactivating any bots we have that are using the blacklist as their functional instruction set.

2825:

admins involved in content-wars should not be aggressively trying to tool-silence critics. I'm still waiting for that link to where all the evidence is stored for why certain sites are blacklisted which you say is on-wiki. As you can see this particular link was added with no evidence, merely based on one request with no evidence.

1814:, where a published book reference was removed at the same time as a Myspace link. To top it off, the Myspace link might actually be acceptable in this particular circumstance, since it's supposed to be the profile of the same musician whose page this is. (However, the link was a 404 when I clicked on it.) This is not encouraging. 1997:, and see for yourself that there are about 20 external links added per minute, I don't dare to guess which part is questionable there, what I do know is that there is only a small percentage of the reverted links actually appropriate. But if you are going to shoot this bot for that reason, then I ask you to apply the same to 3198:(where the above statistics are based upon), this includes the links added by established/whitelisted editors, which don't get reverted). There are links amongst those questionable domains (e.g. blogspot, myspace, wordpress, youtube) which are appropriate. There is a choice there, either all these edits are checked 3071:. The community defines and interprets rules, and they can change as new situations arise. I don't see a lot of activity by you on our policy pages, perhaps you're not too conversant with them yet. I'd recommend you review them a little more. I don't find your approach to this issue to be harmonious. 2983:

Which is why Bc the entire process, from A to Z, from start to finish, from top to bottom should be open, at any time, without permission granted, to anyone who wishes to review any part of it. That is, in my own humble opinion, part of the entire ethical basis for the project. That is why we don't

2861:

while this was going on, tried to do an end-run around policy and consensus to use the blacklist to win a content-war, claiming without any evidence that it was being used to attack Knowledge (XXG) editors other than the BLP article. Other uninvolved editors, who have reviewed the situation has come

2856:

Wrong, as stated above. Hu12 its fairly evident from your posts that you, created an article, which was then criticized off-wiki. There was an ongoing content-dispute over that, including the potential for ArbCom intervention. That ArbCom was only put on-hold because the Kingofmann decided to leave

2621:

Wjhonson, that log includes all output from the link watchers also, 99.9% of that data is on wiki. the irc logs that I have contain ALL information in the channel. that includes the recent changes feed about links. if you want to understand the workings of the anti-spam users you should see what they

2601:

from A to Z. All of it should be open. Not just at this moment, but all of history as well. At the moment, there is no way for any person to find out why www.blahblahblah.com was added to the blacklist. None. Zero. That's not an open, consensus-seeking society. It's simply not the way we operate

2432:

as we all know will occur, is a bad idea. We've already seen examples of links added to the blacklist based on content-wars. All content issues should be taken to the relevant boards. The blacklist is not the place to solve content-warring between involved editors and admins. IRC is *not* an open

2393:

I have tweaked the bot (now testing, which is a matter of waiting for a similar situation), it will not revert if it has reverted more than 2 times in the last 30 hours (that is a pretty strict 3RR), as there are some problems in detecting that, it will also not revert if there are more than 50 edits

2269:

Re the 1RR. If the bot reverts a link-addition, and someone decides to add the link again, then it will not revert (that is for the same user, or for another user, even if both are 'new'!). If a 'new' editor then does a next edit in which the link gets changed, then that edit may result in a second

1627:

add sites, even though listed here or blacklisted, and somehow the Bot knows that a link has been added by an established editor and by-passes squelching it? If that is what you're saying, it isn't very clear. Are you stating that implementation of this bot would effectively eliminate the blacklist

624:

It won't revert the same page twice in a row nor will it revert users who are "auto-confirmed", unless a human tells it (via IRC in #wikipedia-en-spam) to 'override' on a specific URL. This is only done when there is an onslaught of persistent spammers for that URL. As operator, my approach is that

3193:

The problem now is, a lot of links are OK (already 4.8% of the added links match rules on the current whitelist, as are 0.7% of the users), but we know that there are also a lot of links added which are questionable, especially by new/unestablished editors (1.2% of all added links match rules on the

3189:

It is possible to work with an on-wiki revertlist, though I do not know as yet what impact that will have on the performance of the involved bots (especially the linkwatchers, the en-specific linkwatcher swallows at the moment about 160 edits per minute, of which 116 in the watched namespaces (main,

3161:

This bot's edits should always appear in recent changes.. so at least for the time being a bot flag is unnecessary.. If we move to using the 'rollbacker' style of rollback, we may need it for technical reasons, but we'd manually tag the edits so they appeared in the recent changes anyway (as ClueBot

2208:

For the blacklisting (which is a more rigorous approach to blocking links), generally first a request has to be made, which is evaluated by other editors (sometimes persistent/true spam is added without discussion, but that is after the original additions have already resulted in blocks on users, or

2029:

gets added to the blacklist and how it gets removed. That process, which has great potential for disruption is not, in my humble opinion, well worked out and implemented. Would you have a problem in having a system where proposed links are validated by community consensus? I'm not sure why you're

1603:

to stop persistent inappropriate addition of links to specific sites by new and IP users, even though certain pages on those sites also had appropriate uses on Knowledge (XXG). This has frustrated a lot of people. If this bot (or it's predecessor) had been running, we could have added those domains

1555:

did for 44,000 edits (and yes, again, bots make mistakes, all bots do). It did what it described to do, revert external link additions which are generally not wanted or plain spam, and its working has merely softened over time (originally it was reverting all the time unless a user was whitelisted,

1480:

appropriate the bot can be reverted. You are off course free to check all reverted blogspot additions by hand (which is the majority of the reverted edits by SquelchBot), you will see that the over 99% of these should indeed not have been added (per above mentioned guidelines and policies, and yes,

1259:

The on-wiki list is still a work in progress.. as Beetstra comments above, it may prove to be technically impractical to use a wiki page as the blacklist due to the volume of RC traffic the bot deals with.. It is certainly possible to dump the list to wiki on a schedule so it can be reviewed by the

608:

which is what this bot does, it mainly targets new users/annons who add the links and typically only reverts a single time. (there is a method to have the bot revert aggressivly but that is used very very sparingly). Most of the links that the bot targets are crap sites for the most part. youtube is

2988:

for why information is being withheld, should not be withheld. It should be opened up for independent review. The basis of a free society is that anyone can review the actions of the government through public records. We are supposed to be aiming to be even better then any existing democracy, in

2214:

For XLinkBot, another thing is that editors do get warned pretty soon that there are/may be concerns with the links they add (I'd like the warning to be there within 30 seconds, don't know if I can technically reach that). That is much better than first have the edits there for some time, and when

2180:

OK, that is fair. The process was described above. For the revertlist: If the operators see 'bad' links being added by an account, then we have a look, revert, and warn the user. If the user decides to ignore those warnings, or changes IP or whatever, then we add the links to the revertlist, and

1722:

A bot owner is responsible for the operation of a bot. Like every other editor on the project, the bot is obliged to follow community consensus. As bot operator, I am responsible to see that it does so. I welcome the input of the community with regard to the content of the bot's RevertList. The bot

1575:

I am concerned by the apparent ease with which a site gets added to the blacklist, and the extreme difficulty in getting one removed. There is apparently no policy to handle this situation adequatly, and no place to discuss the issue, outside of OT conversations on related boards. I would like to

1285:

is overseen by the community. However, manual commands in IRC to override its default feature of not reverting more than once and not reverting auto-confirmed users is NOT something that can be overseen by the community. Since the "blacklist," which is really a "greylist," is going to contain links

833:

a URL, they would still be able to edit pages containing the URL without being reverted. Auto-confirmed users won't be reverted by the bot and can add links to domains blacklisted on the bot whenever they feel the link is appropriate.. If it would reassure people, I'm sure we could program the bot

2824:

And there was long discussion and consensus about that as you know. This site was added, due to a specific content-war in which the requesting admin was the creator of the article. I'm sure you can see how that is inappropriate. The community has dozens if not hundreds of times pointed out that

2065:

Wjhonson, there is no CABAL. please get that through your head. IRC is open, the #wikipedia-en-spam channel is logged. if there is any day that you would like to see Ill be glad to send you those logs or post them. Misza13 runs logging tool, so there is no percevied cabal. Due to the sheer size of

1786:

11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC))). I am sorry, if they are reverted first by hand, and then still insist in performing their edits without wanting to discuss, then either the revertlist or the spam-blacklist (local or meta) is there. All policies and guidelines say that, if there are concerns about

1744:

such requests to gain consensus, along with an archive of past discussions. We should not create a new place where editors can block sites without additionally giving confirmatory evidence of the site's negative impact on the project. The evidence should be clear and permanent. I agree with the

1536:

opposed to having bots make content decisions, which is basically what this amounts to. And, quite frankly, given Betacommand's history of brusque and abrasive interaction with other users, I don't want any more bots started up that he is associated with. The name is also unfriendly and unhelpful.

1488:

Also, the first warning is a good-faith warning. As the bot will not revert that link again, there should be no next warnings, and the bot 'forgets' that it warned a user after a couple of hours, and the user should not get reverted after a couple of days (IPs have to be explicitly whitelisted).

1484:

This bot only closes the floodgates a bit, and I have tried to write a friendly remark that the link that there may be concerns with the links the editor added. So no, the link is not bad (that is what we have the blacklist for), but there are too often concerns with them, of which we expect that

1012:

I now see that adapting the linkwatchers is going to be difficult (that bot is chewing a high number of page edits, at the moment from in total 722 wikipedia, from which it has to extract the added links and check if they are blacklisted via an on-wiki blacklist). Also, there are several problems

926:

etc. When blacklisted these links can NOT be used at all anymore, which would be a loss since there is a significant number that is appropriate, which is between having to check every addition by hand (as many editors do), and not being able to use the link at all anymore. I hope this explains a

3125:

merit I'm approving the bot. From a "don't break the site, won't overload and serves a useful purpose (spam sucks) and it will take care of it in a pretty graceful manner. Yes, the task may be a little controversial, but hey, people hated Tawkerbot2 when it first started operating and nowadays

2800:

which are here being flauted in such an extreme manner. When a particular admin goes on a mission to destroy my reputation that I do take particular issue with it. Many editors are in agreement that process and consensus were violated in this case. Since the community is not in consensus here,

2780:

Fine. It's not technically a spam site, so it does not technically belong on the spam blacklist. However, it is unacceptable as a source or an external link, as described to you many times. Therefore, there is no pressing need to take it off the blacklist, is there? ... Thatcher 13:18, 1 February

2714:

DGG, if there are questions about a link anyone is free to ask or question a rule, and then we can explain it. As with any issue there is always more to it than what it seems, so please dont assume too much. the evidence that you want does exist on wiki, its just not as obvious. there are filters

574:

I'm concerned by this, and don't think we should be running this kind of bot without a technical and policy discussion on the subject. There's potential for rule and bureaucracy creep. Who is to decide which links are useful and which are not? Normally we assume good faith and allow individual

1500:

antivandalism bots that we have are working from an off-wiki revert list (and the VoABots do also revert imageshack and similar generally wrongly used external links). As Versageek says, we can make sure that the revert-list of SquelchBot is published regularly, and it can there be discussed if

1093:

Zenwhat, your complaints really dont have much ground. We had a anti-spam bot operational with 40K edits without any real issues. This is a copy of that same bot with a few code fixes. Unless there is something besides the fear of the "CABAL", there are no reasons to change the time tested code.

359:

been reserved for vandalism, and I think it is not appropriate to extend that tradition to the automatic reversion of the addition of external links. I will soon be away from my computer, but later plan on leaving neutral notices (i.e. not with my editorialising) at several relevant locations.

2311:

Do I also personally need community consensus if I revert, by hand, the majority of blogspot.com/myspace/etc. links that get added? I think I make the same editorial decision as when a bot does it, and I am sure I will also make some mistakes in doing that, and I will probably also revert more

2050:

are not stored, they are not permanent, and they are not being shared with the community, IRC completely circumvents the open policy we have here. For each link there should be a link to a discussion where the evidence of wrong-doing by that URL is shown. I'm never going to support the secret

2282:

blogspot links. But we would then apply it to e.g. 'johndoe.blogspot.com' (which is most probably only added by that one pushing editor). That list gets cleaned when there are no occasions of additions of that link anymore (links for which override is necessery will probably be reported to a

1492:

And when a user insists in adding good links, which are caught by the revert list of the bot and hence reverted, to a number of pages, then that should, though the editor works in good faith and is not doing someting really wrong, still be of concern, we are writing an encyclopedia here, it is

1661:

in the first place? If a blacklist entry prevents addition, then there are no links to revert because they were prevented. It seems like you are saying this squelch list is an additional place where admins can freely ignore community input and do-as-the-please until cornered. Until we have

1580:

blacklist should address clear cases of spamming the project, not simply sites which fail on content grounds. That is, sites which are spamming us, with many links completely unrelated to any content they are falling into. Sites however, which have content issues, and are placing links into

397:

Not crazy about this. If a link isn't on a mandated and community-approved blacklist, it's up to people to decide what to include. For example, this thing will block blogspot.com. What if it's the official blog of a BLP? Do we have to edit war with the bot? Bad idea. More human, less machine.

1707:

to my way-of-thinking is simply a no-starter. Our community is not based on the consensus of admins, but the consensus of the community. Without community involvement, this bot has the potential to simply become one more place where valid complaints by the community can be ignored without

1647:

No, the two are serving a different purpose. The Blacklist prevents everybody from using the link, this bot sees who adds a link, and if that user is new, or a (not whitelisted) IP, then it reverts if that link is on its revertlist. So yes, the bot knows that the link has been added by an

1799:

to discuss with the involved editor(s). And the links on the revertlist are not links that are widely used appropriate, there certainly are many concerns with them, and they generally simply should not be used (the good use being more an exception than a rule)!! I hope this explains.

1157:

All we are doing here is replacing the previous successful anti-spam bot with an identical antispam bot. I see no reason for any drama or disagreement. How about we give this a months trial to check that the code works OK and then review if there are any concerns raised in the meantime?

2473:

Wjhonson, IRC is open, and upon request I will send any days log to who ever wants it. and if you want I could set it up that you get it sent to you daily. due to the sheer size of the logs posting them are difficult. but you can review them if you want. Wjhonson remember we are not a

882:

First, it is technically possible to create that function as described above, using a fully protected wikipage instead of an off-wiki SQL database (though it is not completely trivial). I'll have a look into that, it is actually an interesting possibility. But I don't think that the

2894:

It was an appropriate example. It illustrates the core problem quite nicely. That a person can get a site black-listed, with no evidence, and then turn around and use that very blacklisting to try to win an ongoing content dispute. That's an inappropriate abuse of the blacklisting

850:

Please do that. Without that there is absoloutely no oversight from the community. How about the bot calls the blacklist on a regular basis from a fully protected page, similar in operation to the spam blacklist in that only admins can add and remove but there is community oversight.

1739:

I'd like to see clarity that sites are only added to Squelchbot's blacklist by community consensus, and should not be added simply by a disaffected editor, no matter how highly they are placed in the hierarchy. That is, there should be a place to request an addition, and place to

1489:

Only if a user insists in adding links which have a concern to several pages it will get to a point where administrators will be alerted (still the editor is allowed to edit, and will not be blocked, only when an administrator shares the concerns a preventive block may be applied.

1475:

It will not revert these editors a second time, that is reserved those moments where someone insists to add a really bad link, though probably a regular editor/administrator will come to that first. That means that if the editor reads the warning, and then realises that the link

2277:

Both do have an override, but that gets only used in rare cases. If an active spammer insists too much, then his specific link may get onto that list. Because of risks that will never happen with broad rules (e.g. reverting blogspot.com), because that is of effect on

2514:

Okay beta command, please send the day's log from every day back to the beginning of Knowledge (XXG). I will then post each one of them in-Wiki for all people to review, which is what should have been going on from day one. BetaCommand you know perfectly well that

1829:

where good sources were removed along with questionable ones. This kind of thing is precisely why I don't want any automated tools trying to perform these functions. Only humans can accurately make determinations as to what belongs in an article and what doesn't.

2095:

approved URLs being added is a perfect idea and would address many of my own concerns, especially if the bot was limited to 1rr for any one URL on any one article. And not 1rr per day--I mean period, so that the bot wouldn't come back each day for it's 1rr fix.

2357:). The Myspace page that was being removed is ostensibly the band's official page, which, if this is true, means it's probably an appropriate external link. What bothers me the most about this is that human editors were jumping on the bandwagon, assuming that 2433:

public proxy. It simply isn't, it never has been. It's a secret, closed, system, with no history, no policy, no linking. There is no way for me, to go back into IRC history to review *why* a link was added. So if I protest I get, oh it was added in IRC,

2519:

of readers and I dare say the vast majority of editors would have no clue whatsoever how to access IRC. So effectively, a large part of the control of the system is shunted into a secret corner where only the elite ever view it, or would ever even know

2728:

can occur, I will never support the use of SquelchBot. The link was added merely on the whim of an involved admin, with no consensus, no input from the community, no anything at all. This admin has been aggressive seeking to ban this link based on a

2300:, then I invite you to help us by hand in the spam-channels. What you suggest makes the whole bot superfluous. You obvious don't see how much spam gets added to this wikipedia, and that there is currently no way to keep that in hand. I am sorry. -- 3208:

I will try the on-wiki revertlist (mainly to see how the bots react), where links can be added and removed on demand by administrators. Seen that some spam has to be dealt with directly, things may go on there without previous discussion (without

1199:

spam. It just might be used that way. Spam links should be added to the blacklist. As clarified above, you want to create a bot to revert suspicious links en masse and you want to be able to control it through manual commands in an off-wiki IRC.

1013:

with on-wiki blacklisting (which are similar to those for the normal blacklist). Here a faulty regex would bring down the bots (as a faulty regex in the spam-blacklist could make it impossible to edit certain pages or perform certain edits). --

2200:

Sorry, I don't think that consensus first for the revert-list is a good plan, I'd think that we should abide by abovementioned policies and guidelines, and if there is too much error with a rule, then indeed it has to be removed and handled by

2404:

I'm satisfied that the plans for the bot's reverts are sane, that the operator is responsive to needed changes etc. This is an area the enwikipedia needs some assistance - there simply isn't enough manpower available to do this task manually.

883:

anti-vandalism-bots have this option either, as for here, addition of text should be considered to be in good faith, but if in a certain edit certain data is added these antivandalismbots will also revert, without the same community oversight.

273:. We will start fresh with an empty blacklist. The main benefit of this bot vs the local Mediawiki blacklist, is that it is possible to allow established editors to add links to certain sites - while removing those added by new or IP users. 2643:. All of that data should be on-Wiki, all-the-time, with history. I am not, and never was referring to, anything else. Without the ability for any editor to review that information, we are asking for a level of trust that is simply too high. 2073:

or the channel. if you have questions about a particual link feel free to ask a bot operator, or join the IRC channel, or leave a note on WP:WPSPAM. this is one of the more open methods. we dont need more paper pushing and sources of drama.

625:

this bot provides a community service. While those who monitor the bot in real-time may add domains to the blacklist to deal with an active spammer, the community certainly has input into what stays on the blacklist and what gets removed. --

1753:

and that is my main concern. Blacklisting without appropriate community involvement, even for one minute, serves to cause dissension, not cohesion. Pre-emptive blacklisting based on a minority report would not serve the project's

2204:

Removal can be discussed on the talkpage of the bot, I am sure the operators will remove the rule if it can be shown that there are a significant number of good links being removed (relative to the total being reverted under that

2274:, even if it is only one character, if the link does not change, then it is not observed as an added link). The same goes if an editor uses one of the official reverts (the undo button, e.g.). Those edits will NOT be reverted. 2215:

the questionable edits are finally found by an editor and get reverted, and the spammer gets warned, the 'spammer' is already asleep or has changed IP, resulting in the often not getting the warning (or the effects of a block).

1779:

I saw that you are involved in such a case, where this bot would have been a less violent solution than the now meta-blacklisting of a link. Links are sometimes useful, yes, but we are not a linkfarm, and not an advertising

2121:

Lawrence it only reverts once per link addition. not once per day. once the bot reverts it will not revert to its own edit. intead another editor will have to edit the page and then add add the link again for it to revert.

1776:

That defies the function of the bot. Spammers do not wait for consensus when they add their link, as do people who want to push their agenda by adding a certain external link (and yes, that sometimes includes good links.

2839:

Wrong as stated above. Wjhonson, its fairly evident from you posts that your attempting to advance "your" agenda by using this discussion as a mouthpiece for that adjenda and purposefully derail and disrupt this approval

1550:

Re Crotalus horridus: Bots don't make content decisions, that is done by the operators. That goes for this bot, that goes for the other antivandalism bots, what, it goes for all the bots. This bot does the same as what

864:

I really like Viridae's suggestion - that the contents be listed on a protected page and that the when an admin edits that page, the bot picks up the edit (whether a removal or an addition) and applies it to the filter.

770:

No, bots are annoying. Granted, I think it's better when they're REMOVING rather than ADDING content, but still... In this case, the spam blacklist can already deal with the problem and it's far easier to keep track of.

3029:

Your argument there is without merit, as anyone who reviews the evidence can plainly see for themselves. The few references to my site have in each case, been upheld by community consensus. You can continue to try to

2697:

The point is IRC logs are not acceptable for WP decision making/ Everything that does not have real reasons for confidentiality MUST be on-wiki. There should be no WP process requiring IRC to participate or to observe.

1932:

the blacklist represents consensus. Quite a few links got onto the blacklist really without any community input at all. Hopefully opening this discussion to the wider community can address some of that discrepancy.

2570:

majority of people don't even know how to access the internet. The vast majority of people don't know what the internet is. Most people on the planet have never made a phone call. Please don't take us down this road.

3066:

No I don't feel this is about winning. Do you? I recommend you review your own motivations. It seems like you've used process to overrule consensus. We are not a bureaucracy as you know. Rules do not supercede

2755:

that the statement is accurate. No one adding the link made any attempt to verify that the statement there presented was accurate or based on any evidence whatsoever. And yet additions of this source can have a

1949:, etc. However in some cases content issues are going directly to the blacklist. Until this problematic situation is ironed out, I can't support any bots making the appearance that we have procedural consensus. 897:

It normally only reverts once, if it gets reverted, an off-wiki alert is generated, and a human editor looks into it. There is an option to make it override always for persistency in spamming, but it is not used

1504:

I hope that we can assume some good faith on the people who have access to the bots, these people do have a long-time experience in fighting spam, and trying to keep the external links on Knowledge (XXG) in good

1863:

Yes, I know. The problem is that a valid book reference (complete with citation template and page numbers) was removed at the same time. This is why I don't want bots doing work that needs to be done by humans.

2540:

Wjhonson, I am not going to do that as you should not be adding that much data to wikipedia. its between 600Kb and 2MB of data per day. there is just no point in uploading that much data that is not needed.

3126:

people don't give anti-vandal bots a second glance - they take them for granted (and complain when they're offline). So, I'm not touching the politics, but on technical grounds, it has the green light. --

1454:, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators 2427:

This bot will essentially be in-control of a very large important section of the system. Leaving it under automatic control, by any admin to block, at any time, any site they care to, and then claim the

1927:

about spam, spammers, and the blacklist, but very little in the way of defining what is spam, who is a spammer, and how the blacklist should and should not be used. I disagree that merely putting a link

796:

a blacklist that can deal with the problem, what's the point of this? What's the benefit about giving a handful of bot-owners the authority to collude on off-wiki IRC, to make up their own badsites list?

678:, and the name will only compound problems. It might as well be called WeDon'tRequireYourServicesBot. The task itself I am not convinced about, but the name makes it impossible for me to support. — Carl 333:

In working out some bugs, we've crept slightly past 50 edits. I'd like to extend the trial run to 1000 edits (500 revert/warning pairs) to ensure that features such as reporting to AIV work correctly. --

3011:

Its fairly evident that this is not isolated. This appears to be just a variation in a long term pattern by you, using wikipedia as a platform for promotion and advancing "your" adjendas. please see

2038:

for each additional one. Then at some point, we can simply archive the old blacklist process and use your bot instead. If you plan to start from the blacklist, I can't support that. The blacklist

906:

This bot is indeed a step below the spam-blacklist. E.g. a lot of the blogspot links that are added to wikipedia are in violation, or at least questionable, of one of the policies or guidelines of

891:

It only reverts accounts which are less than 7 days old, and IP accounts. These accounts are generally don't know too much about the wiki policies and guidelines, especially for the these links.

2801:

what is the standard for removal? Consensus is the standard. Do you deny that consensus should hold? The community is in consensus that the spamlist is for spam, not for content-related wars.

1923:

Actually Dirk, if you could find the policy that controls the blacklist explicitely I'd like to see it. That is part of the entire problem, in my humble view. So far I've found lots of people

2783:

just because a user does not participate in a conversation does not mean that they dont follow it. so please assume good faith and not attack good standing users without any shred of proof.

1623:(OD) If admins have no compunction about using the list here to squelch sites, we're no further ahead than currently. I'm confused by your above. Are you stating that established editors 2909:

Both inaproriate and a clear mischaracterization of the facts. Please stop using this discussion as a mouthpiece for you adjenda by attempting disrupt and derail this approval process.--

3374: 2030:

having such an issue with what to me is our standard operating procedure. You're starting from a corrupted database and asking for approval here. Instead I suggest you start from a

3186:

I think it is time to move forward. I have in the last couple of days performed some adaptations to the bot-code (some parts still in testing mode) to address some of the concerns.

2131:

OK (sorry, this page exploded since I last took a good look). So if I add a link today, bot reverts once, I re-add, it stays. The bot won't come back tomorrow and take it out again?

1031:

It must only affect unregistered users and accounts less than 7 days old, and that it NOT overturn this based on manual commands given by a handful of users in #wikipedia-en-spam

997:

The part for SquelchBot itself works, adapting the linkwatcher is going to be more of a task. All I can do for that at the moment is keep that list up to date with SquelchBot's

1690:). Also, blacklisting is bad for spammers, being reverted and warned may make them think twice before they further spam wikipedia, and risk being placed on the blacklist. -- 986:

needs to access to the blacklist .. which is the non-trivial part of the system ... that one now still relies on the SQL-based blacklist. I'll get to that if this works. --

1038:

dealing with blatant spam URLs (which should be blocked completely with the spam blacklist), but "generally suspicious" links used for subtle linkfarming and violations of

2926:, if anyone is being disruptive re this process, it's you. Please adhere to project goals, your attitude attempting to subvert consensus editing is anti-project. Thanks. 3227:

Beetstra, a thought how about a hybrid system, have the current offwiki system, while having the bot grab the list from its own user.js subpage say every 30 minutes. ?

425: 3313:

I doubt we'll be able to move forward until the specific issues brought forth, are addressed clearly and directly. I haven't seen any serious attempt to do that yet.

2455:

Lawrence Cohen above is exactly correct. All blacklist additions must be on-Wiki, community-approved additions. With history and examples of why the link was added.

137: 2597:(OD) That's a null argument Mike. I have always been speaking solely of the readers and editors to our project. It's not only the articles that should be open, but 609:

a good example. what fraction of youtube is non-copyvio and reliable? 0.5% maybe? and the bot does report. see #wikipedia-spam-t and #wikipedia-en-spam on freenode.

2209:

the edits are performed by a widespread IP-range which repeat additions on the same page several times; that should suggest to them that the links are not wanted).

2046:, never achieved community consensus. Twenty links per minute simply cannot be verified. What is the proof that these aren't being added maliciously? Since the 1203:

If the "manual commands in IRC" feature is nixed, allowing community oversight, and "it only affects new users" is set in stone, then I'd have no problem with it.

2680:

Wjhonson, if it would have been a reasonable request and not one every log, I would have sent them but you dont need to be uploading 500Mb of data to wikipedia.

590:

It would help if the operator(s) described, in depth, the function of the bot (interface, behavior, etc.) for those not familiar with how Shadowbot worked.

2239:

then on the whole bot. Unless the Community has absolute control at all times on this for what counts as a bad link or URL I don't think it's a good idea.

751:

All of the anti-vandalism bots depend on off-wiki IRC as well. This is nothing new. AntiSpamBot/Shadowbot had over 44,000 edits.. This is the same bot.. --

355:

I regard the implementation of this bot as a significant and (in my opinion) undesirable change to the editing process. Automatic reversion of edits has

2156:

it will make a note in IRC about the fact that you added the link again but it WILL NOT REVERT. that goes along with if a second editor reverts the bot.

1144:

thing. That you disagree with and dismiss them does not mean that they are not good suggestions, or that they will remain unsupported by others. --

792:

Ouch, it uses an off-wiki IRC? No, I'll have to definitely oppose this one. Granted, I admit I'm probably paranoid about cabals, but if we already

2815:

Wrong, Jimbo himself had blog.myspace.com black listed on meta due to reliability issues. that is a content decision. so please learn your facts.

21: 2499:, because he isn't misrepresenting your position. He is, however, bringing up legitimate concerns which should not be so readily dismissed. -- 2345:

The comments above state that the bot is not supposed to revert repeatedly. However, this doesn't correspond with what is currently happening.

1903:

This was a bug in the code, where it failed to recognize the URL was contained in ref markup. Thanks for pointing it out, it has been fixed. --

1120:

thing. An on-wiki page editable by administrators, as opposed to an off-site SQL database edited by someone with little or no oversight, is a

2958:

everyone, the point is that this can apply to any article that is disputed. That's why it's good to have things visible to everybody on wiki.

829:

of a URL, a page can't be saved if it contains a URL which is on the Mediawiki blacklist. This bot would only prevent IPs and new users from

485: 2253: 2145: 2110: 1340: 961: 412: 560:

Will the bot edit-war with a user who repeatdly inserts the same blacklisted link? Could it sense that and report it to a central place?

2984:

have secret email lists and secret closed-door meetings. Any aspect of the project, anywhere, where a solid clear and compelling reason

1564:, and BAG does have community consensus of a reasonable cross-section of the whole Knowledge (XXG) community to make these decisions. -- 505: 3205:

I am going to give an opening shot for the error rate: an average of 1 revert on an appropriate link in 200 reverts on a certain rule.

2733:

which has nothing to do with spam at all. Dirk did it. It was completely inappropriate. This sort of no-input-addition has to stop.

89: 3012: 500: 1467: 2192:

good, then the editor can add it again (though it will generate an alert and probably someone will have a look). Still, the link

1136:

thing. Links, that ought be blocked completely (or, as said above, "aggressively pursued"), being put on the spam blacklist is a

157: 2478:

the way that the previous bot was handled had no problems. so get over the fact that there is no cabal and that IRC is open join

1576:

propose a meta page to discuss how the blacklist is implemented and what it should and should not address. In particular imho a

84: 309:

There appear to be a lot of unanswered questions. Can we please get some more discussion before a bot approvals group-fiat? --

444:

caused photobucket images to be readded that the reverted editor had removed at the same time as they added the external link.

441:

this has the effect of removing any good content that happened to be added at the same time as the ext. link. Also this revert

225:

Revert additions of external links deemed to be unhelpful and/or spam. (eg: "squelch spam", for those curious about the name)

3271: 535: 438:

Just a couple of concerns, it's unfortunate that the bot reverts the whole edit and not just the inappropriate external link

152: 3300:

XLinkBot just refused to revert for the fourth time within a 30 hour period, the 3RR-protection seems to work correctly. --

674:

I don't support running any antivandalism bot under the name SquelchBot. These edits will already going to be perceived as

982:. I am testing it now only with blogspot.com .. the problem is that Squelchbot is dependent on the linkfeeder bot, which 119: 2622:

see. not only what they say. Please walk in the shoes of the anti-spam users. instead of complaining look for your self.

1994: 1463: 1431:

from Knowledge (XXG). If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the

520: 1557: 2370: 2010:

I indeed (hope I) repaired the referencing, template and remark problem, that's why we are in test-phase, I guess. --

1889: 1865: 1831: 1815: 1538: 187: 104: 1432: 2188:

The same for links where the general majority is rubbish, it is better to remove that, and when the link is actually

3267: 1518: 27: 2792:

Your argument is moot. The spamlist is for spam, not for any unreliable site. The pressing need to remove it is

834:

to output a list of domains on the blacklist to a wiki page on a regular basis, so the content can be reviewed. --

2566:

majority of people don't know how to edit Knowledge (XXG) either - it's a total black box. Furthermore, the vast

1811:

Already I'm seeing problematic edits, even though the bot hasn't officially been approved yet. For instance, see

1287: 1282: 1226: 998: 979: 172: 2429: 3249: 3195: 2580: 2437:. This is not satisfactory. Never was, and never will be. That is not the way the rest of the project works. 2414: 2247: 2139: 2104: 1600: 1596: 1451: 1334: 955: 822: 406: 2524:. That's not something to be overlooked. No one group should ever have that kind of control over the system. 1788: 1678:

We are merely re-creating. No, there are many links that can not be blacklisted so that they can not be used

3343: 3322: 3304: 3295: 3288: 3284: 3278: 3260: 3240: 3231: 3221: 3173: 3156: 3135: 3098: 3080: 3061: 3043: 3024: 3006: 2978: 2969: 2935: 2918: 2904: 2889: 2871: 2849: 2834: 2819: 2810: 2787: 2769: 2742: 2719: 2709: 2684: 2675: 2661: 2652: 2626: 2615: 2587: 2545: 2533: 2503: 2486: 2464: 2446: 2421: 2398: 2384: 2375: 2336: 2323: 2304: 2287: 2259: 2222: 2160: 2151: 2126: 2116: 2078: 2060: 2014: 2005: 1958: 1914: 1894: 1870: 1858: 1836: 1820: 1804: 1763: 1734: 1717: 1694: 1671: 1652: 1641: 1615: 1590: 1568: 1543: 1525: 1512: 1435:

you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Knowledge (XXG).

1367: 1355: 1346: 1313: 1290:

while allowing users to issue manual commands on an off-wiki IRC does NOT allow for community oversight, as

1271: 1254: 1241: 1219: 1183: 1162: 1148: 1087: 1017: 1005: 990: 967: 936: 869: 859: 845: 813: 787: 762: 742: 725: 709: 690: 662: 636: 613: 602: 584: 568: 554: 515: 462: 453: 432: 418: 390: 364: 344: 322: 313: 304: 291: 2724:

I content this statement that the evidence exists on wiki. If it exists provide a link to it. As long as

3340: 3253: 3228: 2479: 2157: 2123: 2075: 610: 510: 429: 99: 3086: 2332:

on Knowledge (XXG) is disruptive (even if well-intentioned), and should at least discussed somewhere. --

1990: 1978: 1687: 1459: 1455: 1409: 2975: 2816: 2784: 2716: 2681: 2658: 2623: 2542: 2483: 2381: 2181:

leave reverting and warning to the bot. If a user insists too much, in the end he will get reported to

1095: 1068: 698:

Yes, others have pointed out the name issue, and I've reserved User:XLinkBot to remedy the situation. --

658: 580: 495: 319: 301: 288: 94: 2070: 1847:

Invalid Friend ID. This user has either cancelled their membership, or their account has been deleted.

731:

A bot whose operation depends on off-wiki IRC is IMHO a violation of open wiki discussion of editing

2990: 2500: 2333: 1180: 1145: 866: 459: 387: 361: 310: 167: 79: 3142: 1986: 1023:

I'd have no problem with this, provided that the following are set in stone and the bot-owners must

901:

It does not revert when it detects that the link is used inside reference tags or inside a template.

471: 162: 3168: 3152: 2574: 2408: 2241: 2133: 2098: 2025:

a blacklist and populate it with something. I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing the issue of

1909: 1729: 1610: 1416:

have a good use (sometimes). That is why the bot warns these users with (in the case of myspace):

1328: 1266: 1191:

BetaCommand, this isn't an "anti-spam bot," because you're adding links that are clearly not spam.

949: 840: 757: 704: 654: 631: 576: 549: 400: 339: 203: 2923: 2067: 1560:. Also, the bot is Versageeks responsibility, not Betacommand. Betacommand was elected into the 1442:: rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): ....) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a 3318: 3076: 3039: 3002: 2931: 2900: 2867: 2830: 2806: 2765: 2738: 2671: 2648: 2611: 2529: 2460: 2442: 2328:

Well, I think that you should have community consensus to do mass link removal. Mass removal of

2056: 1954: 1759: 1713: 1667: 1637: 1586: 894:

Users and IPs can be (and are) whitelisted when deemed appropriate. Such users are not reverted.

717:

Since it doesn't seem like it will edit war or stop quality editting, I have no objection to it.

147: 2066:

these logs posting them to the wiki would be difficult. As for requesting a link discussion see

458:

That bot was approved one-and-a-half years ago, and has zero edits. Am I missing something? --

3256:. Only editable by admins, and both subject to change, depending on how the testing goes. -- 2361:

the bot must be right and the IP editor must be wrong. I think this is a serious violation of

1885: 1309: 1250: 1215: 1083: 855: 809: 783: 2366: 1970: 1942: 1428: 1397: 1385: 1039: 919: 675: 17: 3131: 3085:

Seems you feel you speak for what the community wants, perhaps you see yourself bearing the

1552: 475: 266: 2475: 2362: 2354: 2182: 1982: 1974: 1946: 1561: 1424: 1405: 1401: 1389: 923: 907: 1230: 591: 449: 55: 2602:

in any other facet of our existence. The idea that there are 2M of blacklist discussion

1966: 1657:

If you are prevented from *adding* a link at all by a blacklist entry, then what is left

1393: 947:

So with this idea, the bot's blacklist will be maintained on-wiki for any admin to edit?

915: 911: 2725: 3163: 3147: 3094: 3057: 3020: 2914: 2885: 2845: 1904: 1854: 1724: 1605: 1363: 1261: 1063:

Also, an alternative proposal is for this bot to run a similar algorithm, but to allow

835: 752: 699: 626: 544: 334: 198: 1938: 3368: 3314: 3301: 3292: 3275: 3257: 3237: 3218: 3072: 3035: 2998: 2965: 2927: 2896: 2863: 2826: 2802: 2761: 2734: 2705: 2667: 2644: 2607: 2525: 2456: 2438: 2395: 2320: 2301: 2284: 2219: 2052: 2011: 2002: 1950: 1801: 1783: 1755: 1709: 1691: 1663: 1649: 1633: 1582: 1565: 1522: 1509: 1376:

Re Lawrence Cohen. Yes, it reverts many links that do have a good use, but that are

1014: 1002: 987: 933: 738: 685: 270: 59: 2051:

government approach "We're just doing it for your own good! No really! Go away now!"

1662:

safeguards in place, I'm not comfortable with creating yet another hidden powerbase.

1297:

And there should be no "off-wiki" list. Any blacklist the bot uses must be on-wiki.

1175:

reasons (all the above reasons?) for "drama" or disagreement, but you simply do not

1304: 1247: 1210: 1159: 1078: 1049:

page that can only be edited by administrators and can be reviewed by the community

852: 804: 778: 719: 562: 283: 262: 3291:

enables admins to 'lock' reversions of XLinkBot to specific users resp. pages. --

2296: 2235: 2380:

I just did a quick search of the bands webiste, there is no results for myspace.

1466:. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see 369:

In the interest of disclosure, the following diffs show my requests for comment:

3127: 2715:

that report them in IRC about specific users/links that are tracked over time.

2606:

is mind-boggling to those of us who believe our project should be open-source.

2229:"Sorry, I don't think that consensus first for the revert-list is a good plan" 445: 1238: 1094:

Zenwhat I invite you to join one of the spam channels and see for your self.

599: 3090: 3053: 3016: 2910: 2881: 2841: 2496: 1850: 1359: 2960: 2700: 1291: 1112:

ground. In fact, they are quite reasonable. On-wiki collaboration is a

733: 681: 1319: 243:

n/a (on demand, when triggered by a regex match against the blacklist)

1556:

now it only reverts IPs and new user accounts). Please do not try to

3013:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2F.countyhistorian.com

1604:

here - and established users would not have been inconvenienced. --

2974:

and the same thing could happen with one of the MW blacklists too.

1703:

What is the effective community consensual input to this process?

3274:. Both should be used with care, as they are quite powerfull. -- 3248:

I am testing the last versions now with on-wiki revertlist (here:

2639:. Period. Nothing more. Why a link was added, why it was deleted, 2283:

spam-blacklist somewhere, as it is probably complete rubbish). --

1447: 1439: 3034:

by discrediting the other side, but it's simply not going to fly.

1782:(striking this out, this situation seems to be controversial. -- 1443: 3354:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1299: 1205: 1073: 799: 773: 1517:

Note: I have changed the place of the 'blacklist', it is now

932:

We'll have a go at using a wikipage for the blacklisting. --

3252:, and now also with on-wiki settings (like VoABot II, here: 3236:

Could be worth considering. I'll have a look into that. --

1034:

Its "blacklist" be renamed "greylist" to clarify that it is

2482:

and see for your self. otherwise quit bringing up strawmen

1791:, blacklisting or putting it on the revertlist is not the 1438:

The external links I reverted were matching the following

2880:

using this discussion as a mouthpiece for that adjenda?--

1708:

repercussions, because there is no policy controlling it.

1521:. It contains an almost up-to-date dump of the list. -- 1423:

was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

2997:

to be hidden works against the projects ethical basis.

2666:

I see the logs I was just denied any ability to access?

2346: 2316: 1884:

where a link to a Youtube video that was posted on the

1882: 1826: 1812: 1420: 1323: 1027:

to get approval if they change the following settings:

530: 525: 490: 442: 439: 384: 382: 380: 378: 376: 374: 372: 370: 182: 177: 142: 114: 109: 74: 2562:

Regarding IRC being opaque: Please note that the vast

1246:

It was started today, he may not have known about it.

318:

I am not approving this until the discussion is done.

3360:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2087:

I think the idea of a blank database to start, with

426:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot

49:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

3266:More transparency in the reverting of the bot: see 1493:

content that we are after, not external links only.

1128:thing. Affecting a minimal number of editors is a 261:The code is a copy of the most recent code used by 28:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/XLinkBot

3375:Approved Knowledge (XXG) bot requests for approval 1067:to make the final decision whether to revert. See 2021:You're addressing whether there was consensus to 1628:page entirely? That is, that blacklisting would 1508:I hope this takes away some of the concerns. -- 1322:? Where was myspace.com defined as a bad link? 43:The following discussion is an archived debate. 2778:Wjhonson, again you fail to understand per ANI 1648:established editor. I hope this explains. -- 1485:regulars know that they should take care with. 300:Im extending the trial for another two weeks. 2747:You will see in that link, some statement is 1354:I do know blog.myspace.com was meta BL'd Per 8: 1462:), or they are not written by a recognised, 1286:like Youtube and Blogspot, the existence of 2637:additions and deletions from the blacklist 821:The difference between this bot & the 424:Just a notice that this bot is a clone of 2196:be added, e.g. by 'established' editors. 1935:All content issues of any sort whatsoever 1481:other bots also make mistakes sometimes). 1937:should be going to our policy boards at 1686:to be removed by hand (per policy, e.g. 2657:That data can be found in the RC logs. 1595:Please don't confuse this bot with the 287:Bot trial run approved for 1000 edits. 269:, with some minor enhancements made by 2751:by the requestor. There is, in fact, 2635:As I've stated, I'm referring only to 232:(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run) 129:Please note, the bot has been renamed. 3339:with either on wiki or off-wiki BL. 1749:, but squelchbot also would serve to 653:Thanks. That addresses my concern. 7: 2353:in one day (in blatant violation of 1881:Here's another questionable revert: 2480:irc://freenode/%23wikipedia-en-spam 1052:That collaboration for this bot be 2857:Knowledge (XXG), but is now back. 2218:Hope this explains a bit more. -- 1380:bad (that is, their additions are 35: 2349:is a case where the bot reverted 1723:exists to serve the community. -- 3331: 2641:including the permanant evidence 2369:on the part of those reverters. 2295: 2234: 1558:extrapolate other bots onto this 1384:cases that are in conflict with 428:which was approved a while ago. 282: 2495:Um, Wjhonson isn't bringing up 2034:database, no links at all, and 211:Automatic or Manually Assisted: 3272:User:XLinkBot/HardOverrideList 1983:Knowledge (XXG):NOT#REPOSITORY 1888:official channel was removed. 1402:Knowledge (XXG):NOT#REPOSITORY 1: 3344:16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 3323:16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 3305:15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 3296:10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 3279:20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 3261:20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3241:18:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3232:17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3222:17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3174:22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3157:22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3136:05:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3099:07:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3081:06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3062:06:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3044:06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3025:06:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 3007:04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2979:03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2970:03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2936:03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2919:03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2905:03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2890:03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2872:03:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2850:03:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2835:01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2820:01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2811:01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2788:01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2770:01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2743:01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 2720:11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2710:09:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2685:11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2676:00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2662:00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2653:00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2627:00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2616:00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 2588:20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2546:21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2534:20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2504:20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2487:20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2465:20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2447:20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2422:20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2399:16:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2385:05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2376:05:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2337:20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 2324:18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2305:18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2288:18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2270:revert (but the link has to 2260:18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2223:17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2161:17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2152:17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2127:17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2117:17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2079:17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2061:17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2015:17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 2006:17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1959:16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1915:17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1895:16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1871:16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1859:16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1837:16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1821:16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1805:10:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1764:00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1735:00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 1718:23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1695:23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1672:23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1653:23:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1642:23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1616:22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1591:22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 1569:18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1544:17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1526:17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1513:15:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1460:Linking to copyrighted works 1368:13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1347:06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1314:04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1272:03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1255:02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1242:02:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1220:02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 1184:22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1163:20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1149:22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1088:20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1018:16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 1006:15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 991:14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 968:14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 937:14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 870:06:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 860:05:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 846:05:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 814:05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 788:05:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 763:05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 743:04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 726:03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 710:03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 691:03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 663:23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 637:02:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 614:01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 603:01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 585:01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 569:01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 555:02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 463:01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 454:01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 433:01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 419:01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 391:01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 365:23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 345:16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 323:04:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 314:04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 305:03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 292:05:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3048:If you feel this is about " 1789:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WPSPAM 1406:Knowledge (XXG):NOT#SOAPBOX 927:bit more about the working. 825:is that the Mediawiki list 3391: 3283:Some more control. Using 3268:User:XLinkBot/OverrideList 3213:, not necesserily without 3141:Tawker listed this Bot at 2001:the other active bots. -- 1965:What is spam is easy, see 1849:" on the myspace example-- 1795:measure we take, we first 1745:tauting of the ability to 1519:User:SquelchBot/RevertList 1991:Knowledge (XXG):DIRECTORY 1979:Knowledge (XXG):COPYRIGHT 1688:Knowledge (XXG):COPYRIGHT 1410:Knowledge (XXG):COPYRIGHT 1288:User:SquelchBot/Blacklist 1283:User:SquelchBot/Blacklist 1229:not community oversight? 1227:User:SquelchBot/Blacklist 980:User:SquelchBot/Blacklist 676:unfriendly or unwelcoming 3357:Please do not modify it. 3250:User:XLinkBot/RevertList 3069:what the community wants 2071:Knowledge (XXG) talk:SBL 1601:Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist 1597:Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist 1452:free web hosting service 1045:That its blacklist be a 823:Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist 219:Perl (perlwikipedia.pm) 217:Programming Language(s): 46:Please do not modify it. 3289:User:XLinkBot/PageLocks 3285:User:XLinkBot/UserLocks 3143:Knowledge (XXG):RFBOT/A 2435:go away and let us work 2175:Arbitrary section break 2036:get community consensus 1987:Knowledge (XXG):SOAPBOX 3254:User:XLinkBot/Settings 2993:. Anything that even 2924:Knowledge (XXG):KETTLE 2068:Knowledge (XXG):WPSPAM 1104:Zenwhat's suggestisn ( 247:Already has a bot flag 2315:Just as a reference: 1069:User:Zenwhat/Greylist 22:Requests for approval 2991:discursive democracy 2367:Knowledge (XXG):BITE 2312:established editors. 2091:community-approved, 1971:Knowledge (XXG):SPAM 1943:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV 1468:conflict of interest 1412:etc.) but that also 1398:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV 1386:Knowledge (XXG):SPAM 1040:Knowledge (XXG):SOAP 920:Knowledge (XXG):SPAM 241:Edit rate requested: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Bots 2363:Knowledge (XXG):AGF 2355:Knowledge (XXG):3RR 2183:Knowledge (XXG):AIV 1975:Knowledge (XXG):COI 1947:Knowledge (XXG):BLP 1390:Knowledge (XXG):COI 1326:where it happened. 1179:with them? :-) -- 924:Knowledge (XXG):COI 908:Knowledge (XXG):NOT 2760:on the community. 2042:not the blacklist 1967:Knowledge (XXG):EL 1394:Knowledge (XXG):EL 916:Knowledge (XXG):OR 912:Knowledge (XXG):RS 827:prevents all usage 2517:the vast majority 1939:Knowledge (XXG):V 1886:Hollywood Records 1632:have any effect? 1252: 857: 689: 259:Function Details: 223:Function Summary: 26:(Redirected from 3382: 3359: 3335: 3334: 3171: 3166: 3155: 2583: 2577: 2417: 2411: 2372:*** Crotalus *** 2299: 2258: 2256: 2250: 2244: 2238: 2150: 2148: 2142: 2136: 2115: 2113: 2107: 2101: 1912: 1907: 1891:*** Crotalus *** 1867:*** Crotalus *** 1833:*** Crotalus *** 1817:*** Crotalus *** 1732: 1727: 1613: 1608: 1553:User:AntiSpamBot 1540:*** Crotalus *** 1356:request by Jimbo 1345: 1343: 1337: 1331: 1324:this is the edit 1307: 1302: 1269: 1264: 1251: 1240: 1236: 1233: 1213: 1208: 1081: 1076: 966: 964: 958: 952: 856: 843: 838: 807: 802: 781: 776: 760: 755: 722: 707: 702: 679: 634: 629: 601: 597: 594: 565: 552: 547: 476:User:AntiSpamBot 417: 415: 409: 403: 342: 337: 286: 267:User:AntiSpamBot 206: 201: 48: 31: 3390: 3389: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3365: 3364: 3355: 3332: 3184: 3169: 3164: 3146: 3119: 3117:Big BAG Section 2986:cannot be given 2758:chilling effect 2581: 2575: 2415: 2409: 2254: 2248: 2242: 2240: 2177: 2146: 2140: 2134: 2132: 2111: 2105: 2099: 2097: 1910: 1905: 1827:another example 1730: 1725: 1611: 1606: 1464:reliable source 1341: 1335: 1329: 1327: 1303: 1298: 1267: 1262: 1234: 1231: 1209: 1204: 1077: 1072: 962: 956: 950: 948: 841: 836: 803: 798: 777: 772: 758: 753: 720: 705: 700: 632: 627: 595: 592: 563: 550: 545: 541: 474:was renamed to 413: 407: 401: 399: 340: 335: 279: 204: 199: 193: 125: 64: 44: 33: 32: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3388: 3386: 3378: 3377: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3362: 3349: 3347: 3346: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3308: 3307: 3298: 3281: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3183: 3182:Moving forward 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3118: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 2989:that we are a 2972: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2853: 2852: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2745: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2630: 2629: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2522:how to view it 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2490: 2489: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2450: 2449: 2402: 2401: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2313: 2308: 2307: 2291: 2290: 2275: 2265: 2263: 2262: 2226: 2225: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2176: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2082: 2081: 2063: 2018: 2017: 2008: 1962: 1961: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1898: 1897: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1840: 1839: 1823: 1808: 1807: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1698: 1697: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1572: 1571: 1547: 1546: 1529: 1528: 1515: 1506: 1502: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1436: 1425:unwanted links 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1318:What happened 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1166: 1165: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1099: 1098: 1061: 1060: 1050: 1043: 1032: 1021: 1020: 1009: 1008: 994: 993: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 940: 939: 929: 928: 903: 902: 899: 895: 892: 888: 887: 884: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 768: 767: 766: 765: 746: 745: 715: 714: 713: 712: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 617: 616: 588: 587: 559: 540: 539: 533: 528: 523: 518: 513: 508: 503: 498: 493: 491:Approved BRFAs 488: 481: 480: 479: 478: 472:User:Shadowbot 466: 465: 456: 422: 421: 395: 394: 393: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 278: 275: 229:Edit period(s) 192: 191: 185: 180: 175: 170: 165: 160: 155: 150: 145: 143:Approved BRFAs 140: 133: 132: 131: 124: 123: 117: 112: 107: 102: 97: 92: 87: 82: 77: 75:Approved BRFAs 72: 65: 63: 53: 52: 51: 39: 37: 34: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3387: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3361: 3358: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3330: 3329: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3302:Dirk Beetstra 3299: 3297: 3294: 3293:Dirk Beetstra 3290: 3286: 3282: 3280: 3277: 3276:Dirk Beetstra 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3259: 3258:Dirk Beetstra 3255: 3251: 3242: 3239: 3238:Dirk Beetstra 3235: 3234: 3233: 3230: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3219:Dirk Beetstra 3216: 3212: 3206: 3203: 3201: 3197: 3191: 3187: 3181: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3144: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3124: 3116: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2973: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2860: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2782: 2777: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731:content issue 2727: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2718: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2696: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2578: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2547: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2505: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2412: 2400: 2397: 2396:Dirk Beetstra 2392: 2391: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2373: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2338: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2322: 2321:Dirk Beetstra 2318: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2303: 2302:Dirk Beetstra 2298: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2286: 2285:Dirk Beetstra 2281: 2276: 2273: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2251: 2245: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2224: 2221: 2220:Dirk Beetstra 2217: 2213: 2212: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2195: 2187: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2137: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2102: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2072: 2069: 2064: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2012:Dirk Beetstra 2009: 2007: 2004: 2003:Dirk Beetstra 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1916: 1913: 1908: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1879: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1834: 1828: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1818: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1802:Dirk Beetstra 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784:Dirk Beetstra 1781: 1775: 1774: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1728: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1692:Dirk Beetstra 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1660: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1650:Dirk Beetstra 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1617: 1614: 1609: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1566:Dirk Beetstra 1563: 1559: 1554: 1549: 1548: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1523:Dirk Beetstra 1520: 1516: 1514: 1511: 1510:Dirk Beetstra 1507: 1503: 1499: 1496:Re Zenwhat. 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440:regex rule(s) 1437: 1434: 1433:external link 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1338: 1332: 1325: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1295: 1294:noted above. 1293: 1289: 1284: 1273: 1270: 1265: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1237: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1207: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1026: 1019: 1016: 1015:Dirk Beetstra 1011: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1003:Dirk Beetstra 1000: 996: 995: 992: 989: 988:Dirk Beetstra 985: 981: 977: 976: 969: 965: 959: 953: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 938: 935: 934:Dirk Beetstra 931: 930: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 904: 900: 896: 893: 890: 889: 885: 881: 880: 871: 868: 863: 862: 861: 858: 854: 849: 848: 847: 844: 839: 832: 828: 824: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 811: 806: 801: 795: 790: 789: 785: 780: 775: 764: 761: 756: 750: 749: 748: 747: 744: 740: 736: 735: 730: 729: 728: 727: 724: 723: 711: 708: 703: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 687: 683: 677: 664: 660: 656: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 638: 635: 630: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 615: 612: 607: 606: 605: 604: 598: 586: 582: 578: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 566: 557: 556: 553: 548: 537: 534: 532: 529: 527: 524: 522: 519: 517: 514: 512: 509: 507: 504: 502: 499: 497: 494: 492: 489: 487: 483: 482: 477: 473: 470: 469: 468: 467: 464: 461: 457: 455: 451: 447: 443: 440: 437: 436: 435: 434: 431: 427: 420: 416: 410: 404: 396: 392: 389: 385: 383: 381: 379: 377: 375: 373: 371: 368: 367: 366: 363: 358: 354: 353: 346: 343: 338: 332: 324: 321: 317: 316: 315: 312: 308: 307: 306: 303: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 290: 285: 281: 280: 276: 274: 272: 271:User:Beetstra 268: 264: 260: 256: 254: 251: 248: 244: 242: 238: 236: 233: 230: 226: 224: 220: 218: 214: 212: 208: 207: 202: 197: 189: 186: 184: 181: 179: 176: 174: 171: 169: 166: 164: 161: 159: 156: 154: 151: 149: 146: 144: 141: 139: 135: 134: 130: 127: 126: 121: 118: 116: 113: 111: 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 66: 61: 57: 54: 50: 47: 41: 40: 38: 29: 23: 19: 3356: 3353: 3348: 3336: 3247: 3214: 3210: 3207: 3204: 3199: 3192: 3188: 3185: 3148: 3122: 3120: 3068: 3049: 3031: 2994: 2985: 2959: 2877: 2858: 2797: 2793: 2779: 2757: 2752: 2748: 2730: 2699: 2640: 2636: 2603: 2598: 2596: 2572: 2567: 2563: 2521: 2516: 2434: 2430:oops defense 2406: 2403: 2371: 2358: 2350: 2329: 2279: 2271: 2264: 2228: 2227: 2193: 2191: 2092: 2088: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2026: 2022: 1998: 1934: 1929: 1924: 1890: 1866: 1846: 1832: 1816: 1796: 1792: 1778: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1705:Ask an Admin 1704: 1683: 1679: 1658: 1629: 1624: 1622: 1577: 1539: 1533: 1497: 1477: 1413: 1381: 1377: 1317: 1296: 1281:Gracenotes: 1280: 1202: 1196: 1192: 1190: 1176: 1172: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108:complaints) 1105: 1065:human beings 1064: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1046: 1035: 1024: 1022: 983: 886:Some points: 830: 826: 793: 791: 769: 732: 718: 716: 673: 589: 561: 558: 542: 423: 356: 263:User:Shadow1 258: 257: 252: 249: 246: 245: 240: 239: 234: 231: 228: 227: 222: 221: 216: 215: 210: 209: 195: 194: 128: 69: 45: 42: 36: 2753:no evidence 2599:all process 2476:bureaucracy 1171:Surely you 237:Continuous 3211:discussion 3196:revertlist 2840:process.-- 2781:2008 (UTC) 2501:Iamunknown 2351:five times 2334:Iamunknown 2027:how a link 1419:Your edit 1181:Iamunknown 1146:Iamunknown 867:Iamunknown 531:rights log 521:page moves 460:Iamunknown 388:Iamunknown 362:Iamunknown 311:Iamunknown 277:Discussion 213:Automatic 183:rights log 173:page moves 115:rights log 105:page moves 56:SquelchBot 3337:Approved. 3123:technical 2798:consensus 2749:presented 2582:lifeguard 2497:straw man 2416:lifeguard 2359:of course 1754:interest. 1751:blacklist 1747:whitelist 1659:to revert 1630:no longer 1456:copyright 1378:generally 1142:desirable 1134:desirable 1126:desirable 1118:desirable 1058:off-wiki. 1047:protected 1025:come back 526:block log 357:generally 196:Operator: 178:block log 110:block log 3369:Category 3315:Wjhonson 3162:does).-- 3073:Wjhonson 3036:Wjhonson 2999:Wjhonson 2928:Wjhonson 2897:Wjhonson 2876:So your 2864:Wjhonson 2827:Wjhonson 2803:Wjhonson 2762:Wjhonson 2735:Wjhonson 2668:Wjhonson 2645:Wjhonson 2608:Wjhonson 2526:Wjhonson 2457:Wjhonson 2439:Wjhonson 2330:anything 2243:Lawrence 2135:Lawrence 2100:Lawrence 2053:Wjhonson 1951:Wjhonson 1756:Wjhonson 1710:Wjhonson 1664:Wjhonson 1634:Wjhonson 1583:Wjhonson 1534:strongly 1330:Lawrence 1292:User:DGG 1193:Blogspot 951:Lawrence 655:Wikidemo 577:Wikidemo 501:contribs 402:Lawrence 153:contribs 85:contribs 60:XLinkBot 20:‎ | 3200:by hand 3089:also?-- 3050:winning 2895:system. 2794:process 2604:per day 2294:Re the 2093:on-wiki 2044:concept 2040:entries 1925:talking 1845:I got " 1825:Here's 1780:service 1742:discuss 1305:Zenwhat 1248:Viridae 1225:How is 1211:Zenwhat 1160:Spartaz 1110:do have 1079:Zenwhat 1054:on-wiki 853:Viridae 805:Zenwhat 779:Zenwhat 721:MBisanz 564:MBisanz 3153:scribe 3128:Tawker 2272:change 2205:rule). 2048:proofs 2023:create 1680:at all 1505:shape. 1382:mainly 1140:and a 1132:and a 1124:and a 1116:and a 1056:, not 898:often. 831:adding 3215:proof 3165:Versa 3121:On a 3087:Truth 2995:seems 2319:. -- 2201:hand. 2032:blank 1906:Versa 1793:first 1726:Versa 1607:Versa 1532:I am 1458:(see 1448:forum 1263:Versa 1235:notes 1232:Grace 1177:agree 837:Versa 754:Versa 701:Versa 628:Versa 596:notes 593:Grace 546:Versa 506:count 446:RMHED 336:Versa 250:(Y/N) 200:Versa 158:count 90:count 58:(now 16:< 3319:talk 3287:and 3270:and 3170:geek 3132:talk 3095:talk 3091:Hu12 3077:talk 3058:talk 3054:Hu12 3040:talk 3021:talk 3017:Hu12 3003:talk 2966:talk 2932:talk 2915:talk 2911:Hu12 2901:talk 2886:talk 2882:Hu12 2868:talk 2846:talk 2842:Hu12 2831:talk 2807:talk 2796:and 2766:talk 2739:talk 2726:this 2706:talk 2672:talk 2649:talk 2612:talk 2576:Mike 2568:vast 2564:vast 2530:talk 2461:talk 2443:talk 2410:Mike 2365:and 2347:Here 2317:diff 2089:only 2057:talk 1969:and 1955:talk 1911:geek 1855:talk 1851:Hu12 1760:talk 1731:geek 1714:talk 1668:talk 1638:talk 1612:geek 1587:talk 1578:spam 1444:blog 1429:spam 1427:and 1421:here 1364:talk 1360:Hu12 1320:here 1310:talk 1268:geek 1216:talk 1138:good 1130:good 1122:good 1114:good 1084:talk 999:list 984:also 978:See 842:geek 810:talk 794:have 784:talk 759:geek 739:talk 706:geek 686:talk 659:talk 633:geek 581:talk 551:geek 536:flag 516:logs 496:talk 486:BRFA 450:talk 341:geek 265:for 205:geek 188:flag 168:logs 148:talk 138:BRFA 120:flag 100:logs 80:talk 70:BRFA 3149:WjB 3032:win 2961:DGG 2878:Not 2859:You 2701:DGG 2586:| 2420:| 2280:all 2194:can 1999:all 1995:IRC 1797:try 1684:has 1625:can 1562:BAG 1498:All 1358:.-- 1197:NOT 1195:is 1173:see 1106:not 1036:not 734:DGG 682:CBM 511:SUL 255:No 163:SUL 95:SUL 3371:: 3321:) 3134:) 3097:) 3079:) 3060:) 3042:) 3023:) 3015:-- 3005:) 2968:) 2934:) 2917:) 2903:) 2888:) 2870:) 2848:) 2833:) 2809:) 2768:) 2741:) 2708:) 2674:) 2651:) 2614:) 2573:– 2532:) 2463:) 2445:) 2407:– 2246:§ 2138:§ 2103:§ 2059:) 1989:, 1985:, 1981:, 1977:, 1957:) 1945:, 1941:, 1930:on 1857:) 1800:-- 1762:) 1716:) 1670:) 1640:) 1589:) 1478:is 1470:). 1450:, 1446:, 1414:do 1408:, 1404:, 1400:, 1396:, 1392:, 1388:, 1366:) 1333:§ 1312:) 1218:) 1086:) 1071:. 954:§ 922:, 918:, 914:, 910:, 865:-- 812:) 786:) 741:) 684:· 661:) 583:) 543:-- 452:) 405:§ 386:-- 360:-- 3341:β 3317:( 3229:β 3130:( 3093:( 3075:( 3056:( 3038:( 3019:( 3001:( 2976:β 2964:( 2930:( 2913:( 2899:( 2884:( 2866:( 2844:( 2829:( 2817:β 2805:( 2785:β 2764:( 2737:( 2717:β 2704:( 2682:β 2670:( 2659:β 2647:( 2624:β 2610:( 2579:. 2543:β 2528:( 2484:β 2459:( 2441:( 2413:. 2382:β 2255:e 2252:/ 2249:t 2158:β 2147:e 2144:/ 2141:t 2124:β 2112:e 2109:/ 2106:t 2076:β 2055:( 1953:( 1853:( 1758:( 1712:( 1666:( 1636:( 1585:( 1362:( 1342:e 1339:/ 1336:t 1308:( 1300:☯ 1239:§ 1214:( 1206:☯ 1096:β 1082:( 1074:☯ 1042:. 963:e 960:/ 957:t 808:( 800:☯ 782:( 774:☯ 737:( 688:) 680:( 657:( 611:β 600:§ 579:( 538:) 484:( 448:( 430:β 414:e 411:/ 408:t 320:β 302:β 289:β 253:: 235:: 190:) 136:( 122:) 68:( 62:) 30:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot - Knowledge (XXG)

Index