Opabinia regalis's edit statistics using X!'s edit counter as of 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC). (posted by North America 1000 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
Funny, I just clicked on that link and it said she has 0 edits. Then I clicked on it about a minute later and it started working again -- weird.
Speaking of edit counts, some interesting comments are being made about them. Apparently 7k total edits and 100-200 edits/month is too few. I have heard elsewhere that 7000 is roughly the number you need in order to pass, but this no longer seems to be the case -- do you need 10k, perhaps? As for edits per month, it's a bit strange that this RFA is being opposed for too few per month and yet the last one was opposed for too many. What is the correct editing rate? ekips39❦ talk 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I had checked a few recent RfAs and posting a static copy on the talk page doesn't seem to be A Thing anymore, so I didn't. But I think it's useful for exactly this reason, so here's the relevant XTools general stats in case the counter hiccups again. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit count stats
|
---|
Live edits: 6,332 Deleted edits: 832 Total edits: 7,164 Edits in the past 24 hours: 7 Edits in the past 7 days: 74 Edits in the past 30 days: 234 Edits in the past 365 days: 1,100 Ø number of edits per day: 2.2 Live edits: Unique pages edited: 2,739 Pages created: 709 Pages moved: 163 Ø edits per page: 2.3 Ø change per page (bytes): extended Files uploaded: 11 Files uploaded (Commons): 78 (Semi-)automated edits: 202 Reverted edits: 3 Edits with summary: 6,315 Number of minor edits (tagged): 1,140 Admin actions Block: 3 x Protect: 17 x Delete: 1,415 x Import: 0 x |
I'll admit that I do not really know the procedure surrounding this, and a brief search did not come up with anything, but the response to Opabinia's answer to Question 14 should be struck, in my opinion, as that IP has been blocked as a proxy. Inks.LWC ( talk) 05:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Randykitty is reminded that using admin tools (in this case page protection [1]) to gain advantage in a dispute (in this case, regarding the IP's comment which he wanted gone) is not allowed. Randykitty is also reminded that not everything that Randykitty disagrees with is 'trolling' and that referring to good-faith contributions ( WP:AGF) as 'trolling' ( [2]) is in violation of WP:NPA. Randykitty is also instructed that indefinite page protection wouldn't be justified in this case even if page protection itself was called for.
Randykitty should immediately undo the page protection, and either explain the removal of the comment by addressing the edit summary of the edit that brought it back (which reads: 'drive-by' comments aren't against policy and the block had nothing to do with the comment anyway - also, deletion is not how you redact such comments') or failing that also undo Randykitty's revert of the comment. 223.87.3.145 ( talk) 10:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis's edit statistics using X!'s edit counter as of 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC). (posted by North America 1000 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
Funny, I just clicked on that link and it said she has 0 edits. Then I clicked on it about a minute later and it started working again -- weird.
Speaking of edit counts, some interesting comments are being made about them. Apparently 7k total edits and 100-200 edits/month is too few. I have heard elsewhere that 7000 is roughly the number you need in order to pass, but this no longer seems to be the case -- do you need 10k, perhaps? As for edits per month, it's a bit strange that this RFA is being opposed for too few per month and yet the last one was opposed for too many. What is the correct editing rate? ekips39❦ talk 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I had checked a few recent RfAs and posting a static copy on the talk page doesn't seem to be A Thing anymore, so I didn't. But I think it's useful for exactly this reason, so here's the relevant XTools general stats in case the counter hiccups again. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit count stats
|
---|
Live edits: 6,332 Deleted edits: 832 Total edits: 7,164 Edits in the past 24 hours: 7 Edits in the past 7 days: 74 Edits in the past 30 days: 234 Edits in the past 365 days: 1,100 Ø number of edits per day: 2.2 Live edits: Unique pages edited: 2,739 Pages created: 709 Pages moved: 163 Ø edits per page: 2.3 Ø change per page (bytes): extended Files uploaded: 11 Files uploaded (Commons): 78 (Semi-)automated edits: 202 Reverted edits: 3 Edits with summary: 6,315 Number of minor edits (tagged): 1,140 Admin actions Block: 3 x Protect: 17 x Delete: 1,415 x Import: 0 x |
I'll admit that I do not really know the procedure surrounding this, and a brief search did not come up with anything, but the response to Opabinia's answer to Question 14 should be struck, in my opinion, as that IP has been blocked as a proxy. Inks.LWC ( talk) 05:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Randykitty is reminded that using admin tools (in this case page protection [1]) to gain advantage in a dispute (in this case, regarding the IP's comment which he wanted gone) is not allowed. Randykitty is also reminded that not everything that Randykitty disagrees with is 'trolling' and that referring to good-faith contributions ( WP:AGF) as 'trolling' ( [2]) is in violation of WP:NPA. Randykitty is also instructed that indefinite page protection wouldn't be justified in this case even if page protection itself was called for.
Randykitty should immediately undo the page protection, and either explain the removal of the comment by addressing the edit summary of the edit that brought it back (which reads: 'drive-by' comments aren't against policy and the block had nothing to do with the comment anyway - also, deletion is not how you redact such comments') or failing that also undo Randykitty's revert of the comment. 223.87.3.145 ( talk) 10:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)