sotnd conservaleaks

2009-01-07 ZB1 Jacqueline Kasun
2009-01-07 ZB1 More non-Conservapedia entertainment
2009-01-07 ZB1 IW handbook & passive socks
2009-01-07 ZB1 User:HaoLe
2009-01-07 ZB1 More entertainment

IW handbook & passive socks

"kotomi.tan...@gmail.com" <kotomi.tan...@gmail.com>, Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:17:50 -0800 (PST):

I was reading the Information Warriors handbook Terry uploaded here
and I came across this line: "6.   newsocks – passive socks which have
logged on, at least once, but have made no substantial edits, and are
simply lying in wait."
This had me thinking (maybe not a good thing!) but I seem to see many
new sign-ups that do not post. That is not a bad thing in itself, as
they might be looking around, getting a feel before editing. The
problem is, once they drop off the recent changes page they are
forgotten about.
I wonder if it would be possible to write a bot or something that
would automatically block users who have been inactive for, say, 3
months or more? I would not do a full IP block, just the user name, as
we do for "recreate your account".
I am suggesting a bot, because to sift through the user creation log
manually would probably take forever.
Any ideas?
Jessica

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:28:23 -0600:

Myself and Dean have occasionaly removed unused accounts as recent as 48
hours, but like you indicated that takes time and is tedious.

Would "Edbot" be configured for that?

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM, kotomi.tan...@gmail.com <

"Bill Bagot" <wbag...@san.rr.com>, Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:50:18 -0800:

I would recommend only doing this with users who have never edited.  Those
who have can take breaks for more than 3 months before coming back.

Bill  (Learn Together)

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:09:39 -0800:

I think that is an excellent idea, Jessica.  In fact the incomparable
Justine did just that, manually, months ago.  I doubt one in one-thousand
would have the perseverance!

It is my habit to do just that as I come across them, but compared to how
many there are, ineffectual.

*      
        Terry

"TerryK" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:43:40 -0800:

I can partially agree.  Those who have merely created their user/talk pages,
over 90 days ago,  should be deleted, in my mind, and those who created an
account to make a beeline to a "hot button" issue only to talk, talk, talk
should as well.  It almost has to be done manually on other situations like
Bill wisely notes, because we could be insulting a potentially good editor.

More than once I have followed inactive users, and found them to be "good
socks" inserting something factual, or a string of minor punctuation edits,
burying insertion of parody or wrong facts entered by another.  When I
checked the IP's of the editors, some of them are from exactly the same IP..

*       Terry

"Justine Allen" <enitsujne...@gmail.com>, Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:40:03 +1100:

I think it was August of 2007, the time around I protected most of the
images and templates. Probably around 95% of them. Since then, most admins
have protected uploads and new templates, but there is probably a few lying
around. This isn't too big of a deal, considering that they are probably not
used in popular pages, and that they would be hard to find.

2009-01-07 ZB1 Jacqueline Kasun
2009-01-07 ZB1 More non-Conservapedia entertainment
2009-01-07 ZB1 IW handbook & passive socks
2009-01-07 ZB1 User:HaoLe
2009-01-07 ZB1 More entertainment

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.