Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 22 May 2008

Huggle

Hi. If you have complaints or suggestions regarding Huggle – rather than the people who use it – I would love to hear them. Failing that, though, it's a little like saying web browsers should be banned because they are used for vandalism. And if you want Huggle banned, you can do that yourself, though you may have some explaining to do. Thanks -- Gurchzilla (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In a sense, my attitude towards Huggle isn't a criticism of your writing it - which you did an excellent job of - but of the way it's used. I view Huggle (and to a far lesser extent, Twinkle and rollback) in much the same way as I view firearms; they have the potential to be extremely useful in the right hands, but given their potential both for abuse and for accidental misuse, should be banned from general distribution and only given to people who've demonstrated that they can be trusted with them. As I said on WT:RFA, which I assume is the discussion that led you here, any tool that enables a good faith and experienced user to rack up twelve separate complaints on their talkpage in a couple of weeks is seriously flawed. Even AWB, which is far slower, is restricted to users who've demonstrated some familiarity with editing and is regularly removed from users who abuse it, whereas Huggle and Twinkle access is given to brand-new users, some of whom openly admit to using in a "high-score" style edit-race. As User:Betacommand can tell you, even our most experienced users can come to grief using automated tools at high speed, and I'm starting to get thoroughly fed up with having to warn Huggle users for inappropriate reverts. — iridescent 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that use of such tools by inexperienced users can be a problem. I have been wondering how, short of a process similar to adminship requests, it would be possible to identify such users; I would not, for example, have considered Aitias to be inexperienced (and certainly not a 'brand-new user'), yet it would seem his use of Huggle has been an issue. Do you have any suggestions? – Gurchzilla (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it ought to have as a minimum the AWB criteria (500 mainspace edits, with those edits at least briefly reviewed to check appropriateness, and a demonstrated proposed need for it) before access is granted. As Huggle basically performs the same functions as Twinkle, albeit faster, I'd go further and have a criteria of at least a month's use of Twinkle/rollback and 500 Twinkle/rollback edits with no legitimate complaints about incorrect reversions in that time, to demonstrate that the proposed user understands just what they're dealing with. Take, for example, an obvious good-faith but misguided user of automated reversion tools; the collateral damage from users like this is very high, with inappropriate content re-added because all they see in the diff is content being deleted; knee-jerk reversions of anything containing the work "penis"; reverts to vandalism because they don't bother to read what they're re-inserting; deletions of appropriate content because it's being added by an IP] etc etc etc. For every reverted editor who bothers to get back to the reverter and discuss the matter, there are likely many more who are driven off the project in disgust when their good-faith contributions are reverted as vandalism, not to mention editors who didn't watchlist the page so aren't even aware the content has been reverted.

At the very least, I think it needs to be made clear (as AWB and rollback already do), that any abuse or incorrect use will result in immediate loss of the tool without warning and it will need to be reapplied for. I know this can already be done by blanking & protecting the .css page, but I (and I assume others) are reluctant to do so as there's not a clear policy on it. I've no idea if it's possible, but would there be a way to restrict Huggle to (perhaps) 1 edit every 30 seconds? This would force people new to it to actually read what they're reverting, and hopefully put a stop to the editcount-racing mentality. (When I see your users setting themselves edits-per-day targets, I freely admit that my finger hovers over the "block" button.) The speed restriction could be removed once they've made perhaps 1000 valid reverts with no legitimate complaints, thus demonstrating that they understand what they're doing.

And — while it will never happen short of a ruling by Jimbo — I don't think a Misplaced Pages:Requests for automated tools along the lines of the BAG would actually be a bad idea. — iridescent 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent out a new version of Huggle. In response to your feedback, I've added a notice displayed when the application starts up which states the need for care and the consequences of misuse. It also contains various small fixes which have recently been requested, which I wanted to get out quickly, as developing some sort of approval system will take much longer. It would, of course, have the same problem as AutoWikiBrowser – anyone can modify the application to not require approval.

There is no need to be reluctant in removing access; not everything has to be laboriously explained in policy, and /huggle.css subpages aren't used by anything else, so the protection is harmless. I am considering leaving a message on the administrators' noticeboard outlining the need to deal with abuse and the steps for doing so. Is there anything I should mention that isn't already covered here? -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting an firmer warning on the WP:HUGGLE page as well, along the lines of the warning at WP:AWB and WP:TW ("Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in the software being disabled."/"Never forget that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Misplaced Pages policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked.) That way, not only does it hopefully make it clearer to the users that it's a privilege, not a right; it also means admins who come across someone using it inappropriately but aren't familiar with Huggle can see right away that the users have been warned. If it's possible, I'd love to see Huggle automatically add "using Huggle" to edit summaries (as Twinkle, Friendly etc do), to make it more obvious if any problem edits are coming via Huggle or normal point-and-click rollback. — iridescent 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added such a notice. It is possible to tell that Huggle is being used by looking at the source text of user warnings -- as with the standard warning templates, the template name is given in a comment at the end of the message; Huggle's templates all have "huggle" in the name – Gurchzilla (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good - hopefully that will clarify the situation to users. (By an odd coincidence, I've just revoked someone's Huggle access for the first time less than 10 minutes ago.) — iridescent 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Huggle -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it work?

How do you get that pretty flashy pattern to appear behind the Misplaced Pages logo, on your user and talk pages? I can't figure it out. The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Paste <span style="background:#ffffff;position:absolute;top:-45px; left:-165px;z-index:-3">]</span> at the top of the page. Don't use any large files (I'd say 120kb maximum) as it'll make the page lag horribly on a dialup connection otherwise. There are plenty of animated images here to pick and choose from.

Strange - you're the third person to ask me that this week, yet it's been like this for a year now. I've obviously somehow come to notice... — iridescent 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BloodSweatTeacover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than delete this idiocy as I usually would, I'm leaving this here so any visitors to this page can see it, as the image in question is perfectly tagged. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria 10, the policy this bot is throwing around, specifically does not require that the image page includes a "link to all articles where the image is used", but this bot is continuing to tag images that fail to meet this non-existent "policy". As the bot operator's attitude to anyone pointing out this error is that they are "small minded fools", I do not intend to engage in debate on this one but, if this happens again under these circumstances, will shut this bot down. Note to everyone else receiving warnings from this ridiculous vandalbot; whatever the dire warnings at the top of its talk page, you are totally within your rights to revert its edits; Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia that only a self-declared inner circle who think that policy doesn't apply to them" can edit. — iridescent 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi there! I am in need of a second opinion on User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching the questions that I answered under the what-if questions section. Thanks, Razorflame 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thanks for the consideration, but I think that I am going to ask a different user. Thanks, Razorflame 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to MTR has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Tombomp (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)