Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChipWolf/Archive_2020.
Hi ChipWolf, the edits made to the World University Debating Championships were not made in jest - those were the topics from those tournaments and their holding in perpetuity would be of benefit to the university debating community.
Self-trout it was a late night edit, missed the context and saw the existing warning on the IP editor, I see you’ve reverted the change ~ Chip🐺07:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote
Dear ChipWolf,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield.
We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting
is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI ChipWolf/Archive 2020,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello ChipWolf. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Draft:Maisela Legadimana ' Sir Jovial. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), patent nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. ―sportzpikachumy talkcontribs00:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportzpikachu: thanks for leaving me this template. The main reason I marked that draft for CSD is due to it being autobiographical, as such it will not be promoted to mainspace. As far as I understand the 10-15 minute guideline doesn't include pages which violate other policies. In this case I was completely certain the article wouldn't lead to a positive contribution. ~ Chip🐺00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for using Huggle without approval – circumvented the requirement to have rollback, which was requested and declined multiple times.
@JJMC89: I don't agree with this block rationale. If there's a problem with the user's edits, then by all means warn or block them for that. However, it sounds like their modified version of Huggle was used in a read-only mode (they say they used Twinkle to take any actions). I think we've always understood that those client-side permissions checks could be bypassed, and I'd rather judge ChipWolf based on their edits, than on their voluntary confession that they used a custom version of an app in read-only mode. If it was a blockable offense to use a custom tool to interact with the MediaWiki API, I think quite a few of us would be in hot water on a fairly regular basis. ST47 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They used Huggle to make 3 edits within the last 24 hours, so it wasn't strictly used as read-only. Using restricted software in contravention of community norms (requires rollback) is disruptive, especially when access (via rollback) was requested and declined multiple times. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker)@ST47: I personally agree with this block, since ChipWolf modified and compiled Huggle without the rollback restriction while he was fully aware of the restriction. They posted on VPP this: To allow Huggle to revert edits; I enabled the Use software rollback option in preferences which simply uses reverts instead of rollback, mirroring Twinkle's behavior. This is not in bad faith, nor is it misuse as my intention is merely to be more efficient at fighting vandalism and the outcome of my usage of Huggle over Twinkle will be no different. As their contribs show, they have indeed used Huggle's revert tool. They also cited IAR in their VPP post, which IMO does not apply in this situation as there is a perfectly good reason that a) they were denied rollback and b) huggle has a rollback restriction. These are just my thoughts on the matter, JJMC89's may differ. ―sportzpikachumy talkcontribs07:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89:@ST47: I'm in total agreement with ST47, Huggle is open-source software, I modified it for my own use. This is no different from using any other software or library, open-source or otherwise to chat to the MediaWiki API. I could've easily just removed any reference to Huggle in the edit summaries it produces, and from the external perspective the edits would look like any manual revert. I didn't circumvent any controls on-wiki, the one revert I made with Huggle after using this modification was a revert, I don't have the ability to rollback; therefore the action taken had the same outcome as using Twinkle. As I mentioned in my post on the pump, this was not misuse.
As WP:GAME says: Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith."
This is not in bad-faith, I am merely trying to improve my processes and be more efficient in my counter-vandalism efforts. The single revert followed by a post on the pump was intended to start a discussion on a process I find to be misaligned with Wikipedia's purpose. ~ Chip🐺16:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportzpikachu:WP:IAR as the rollback right is not required to use 'software rollbacks' in Huggle (the same feature Twinkle boasts). I removed a soft client-side check for rollback as the permissions the user right grants are not required to use a Huggle. Huggle, using software rollback (within my technical rights), allows me to improve and maintain Wikipedia. ~ Chip🐺16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on the issue of bypassing huggle's use restriction - you mention the 'punitive vs preventative' issue above. Are you saying that, if unblocked, you would stop using your modified version of huggle? If not - then the block would still be preventative. SQLQuery me!19:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Huggle is open-source software, I modified it for my own use. This is no different from using any other software or library, open-source or otherwise to chat to the MediaWiki API, all of which are completely acceptable (note ST47's comments).
Huggle's software rollbacks are identical to Twinkle's rollbacks. No user rights on-wiki are required to use Twinkle, 'nor are they required to use the software rollback feature in Huggle. I removed an artifical client-side gate.
I could've just forked Huggle, changed it's name to Chuggle, and produced a tool which cosmetically appears to be a different tool with no consequence. Many other editors develop and produce tools which interact with the API for the purposes of counter-vandalism. No additional power is granted to me & no technical rights are violated by using such a tool, merely a better user experience.
A single revert was made using this new tool, and a discussion was started on the pump to begin a conversation on the topic of requesting permissions on-wiki. No bad-faith behavior whatsoever has occured here, and certainly no tool misuse.
If this is considered to be a violation of WP:GAME; the same policy states "a warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith".
In taking these actions, I didn't find myself to be in violation of any policies.
Decline reason:
Instead of the expected assurance not to use Huggle without permission, the unblock request seems to argue for using Huggle without rollback in the future. That's kind of the opposite of what's needed for this block to become non-preventative. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
From a tool developers POV: you have to understand that, yes, you could've made a fork, however there is consensus on this Wikipedia that Huggle is a very powerful tool, hence the rollback restriction. I agree with a block to prevent disruption, but considering you already had some counter vandalism experience, and I don't see any evidence of disruption in your Huggle editing, it could be argued that the same potential disruption around learning the tool would've happened. There's nothing inherently wrong with edition FOSS software, I, in fact, absolutely encourage it. However, when you're wrestling with one of the biggest websites in the world, you have to have more care and respect the decision of the community and the developers to restrict Huggle usage. My advice is: Don't use huggle, just wait until you get rollback, like the rest of us do, it's much fairer for everyone. There's other tools out there that may help in the meantime. That, or, to be the devil's advocate, you could completely rebrand your copy of Huggle if you wanted and nobody would be the wiser, excluding templates and a few other give aways ofc. 🎄🎄 Edtalk! 🎄🎄 01:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed6767: I implemented Huggle on the largest non-profit wiki farm, Miraheze, and have been using it for CVT purposes there for quite some time. I’m very familiar with the tool without restrictions & the underlying mechanics. This may not have been known by the blocking administrator, so I’d understand if the block was for potential disruption, but I think your point around fairness is likely the main issue. This was the concern I raised in VPP, I don’t believe the current process to request rollback is either objective or fair. ~ Chip🐺03:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking note So I saw this at the pump and looked into it. While I respect JJMC89's judgement, I simply cannot in good conscience let this block continue indefinitely. Not only is it without a strong policy basis, it weakens the ability to use free and open source software.The license of Huggle allows it to be used by anyone for any purpose so long as they comply with the terms of the GPL. While Chip's modification certainly circumvents a permissions check added by the authors, by licensing the code under the GPL they allowed him to make that modification if he wanted. As I'll explain later, our policies do not forbid him from making that change either. We should not stop people from exercising the rights granted to them under their software license unless they are harming the wiki.So the only reason to block here is for disruptive editing, specifically violation of our policy on assisted editing. Any informal consensus that Huggle-like tools should require rollback permissions is too weak to supersede the assisted editing policy since the community allows tools like Twinkle and RedWarn to perform this exact operation without a check. The assisted editing policy allows editors to use software which "assist with repetitive tasks, but [does] not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction." It does not require that they ask before running it, and it does not forbid them from modifying existing scripts to suit their particular needs (and Huggle's authors explicitly grant him a license to do just that). Chip's program allows him to do what any editor may do by hand. Unless wer'e going to yank rights from every non-rollbacker who uses twinkle, this is an obvious double standard.We may not like the software Chip is running on his computer, but per WP:PREVENTATIVE that is not a reason to block unless he has harmed or intends to harm our encyclopedia; I don't like MacOS, but unless they are using MacOS to disrupt the encyclopedia I can't block them for the software they use to interact with our API. Chip has not harmed the encyclopedia (I checked the handful of "Chuggle" edits, they're fine), and at no point has he stated an intent to harm the encyclopedia, in fact he has explicitly stated the exact opposite. I respect Amanda's opinion when she declined rollback, and Chip should really take it on board. Reading the post at the village pump, I thought it was an incredibly stupid idea and right now I encourage him to stop using his software immediately. To get rid of second-mover advantage, I support blocking the literal moment he uses the tools to revert something that is not vandalism and you will not be wheel warring with me if you block for that reason. But that has not happened, so it's wrong for us to block someone using tools permitted by policy with no ill intent because we think they might make a mistake. Simply, this block contradicts policy and needs to be reversed, so I have unblocked. — Wug·a·po·des03:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: thank you; I agree with and appreciate your comments. I don't intend to continue using the software unless formally granted rollback as per the informal consensus. It's a real shame this is such a point of contention as I'd hope any assistance with repetitive tasks should be encouraged by any means, but on the other hand I understand the concerns around potential disruption. ~ Chip🐺19:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChipWolf. Regarding this edit, please be aware that the board is called Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. I don't believe that non-admins should be removing reports. The guy just mentioned has begun warring using an IP in addition to his account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ED: the report removed was the one I added a few minutes prior; decided to discuss the matter with the user before proceeding with admin intervention. I agree though; given his recent responses, it can probably just go back up on AIV. ~ Chip🐺17:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
