User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Discuss/Archive/May2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] One-Click Rollback

  • Will the one click rollback be limited to admins only? As in the case of the Anti-vandal tool. And will there be some kind of authentication where the user who logs in from the program is checked against the authorised user list? --Dodo bird 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The rollback function is more or less the same as in popups. If I were an admin, I would probably implement the option to use the SysOp rollback as well, but for now it simply edits the previous version and automatically clicks save. So, yes, non-admins can use the rollback function too. Upon starting the program, it will automatically verify that the user is on the authorised user list, and, if not, the user won't be able to use the tool. I can change the list at anytime as well as disable the tool entirely. I don't really think too much damage could be done with this tool (unlike with WP:AWB), but I was a little concerned that some users might use it in edit wars and for vandalism. As it reduces the repition in several tasks, such as nominating articles for deletion, the ability to post messages on multiple users' talk pages, and simple reversions/warnings, I thought it best to have some sort of authentication. In looking at your contribs, you shouldn't have any problem getting authorized to use this tool, though. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser Page

  • Is the CheckUser page going to be like what has been done with AWB? It seems to me that this would make sense, no? -Mysekurity [m!] 20:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The CheckUser page works quite a bit like AWB, except instead of having a protected page, my app simply retrieves the last version of the list that I modified (so that any subsequent additions by other users will be ignored). Anyone monitoring recent changes would probably be able to figure out pretty easily where the list is stored, but to prevent vandalism to it, I'm not going to say here. I kind of hate having to play god--deciding "who is worthy of my awesome blessing...mwuhahahaha"--but I do, unfortunately, feel that some sort of reliable authentication to prevent abuse is necessary. I'm also going to add a note to the main article informing admins and whatnot that they can report abuse on my talk page, so I can remove any negligent users from the list. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I gotcha, but why not protect it? It seems to me that it would probably be easier for you to just protect it. Additionally, why not store it off-wiki? That way, people will not be able to find it, nor edit it. I agree that some sort of check-and-balance system is needed—and who better than the program's creator?—but do you distrust other admins, or would you kinda like to keep it working to your specifications? I'd be glad to help out in any way I can. -Mysekurity [m!] 21:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Psst, he is not an admin. Prodego talk 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Tis true, I'm not an admin. And while I certainly don't distrust (most) admins, it was simply easier for me to moderate the list myself. If I'm unable to keep up with it, I'll likely open up the list to allow admins to moderate it as well, but for now it just doesn't seem necessary (especially as the list needs to be maintained in a fairly specific format or else it might not work for some users). I decided to keep it within Wikipedia simply because it seemed practical to me. I can load up one page and check both that the user is logged into Wikipedia correctly and that his/her name is on the list without contacting external sources and thereby adding both another weak link and possibly slowing down the startup. I honestly believe the list to be quite secure where it is (though I'm employing some from very primitive techniques to keep it so), and I don't really see any reason to change it. But my opinions might change once the app goes public ... we'll just have to wait and see. Thanks for offering your help, and I will certainly let you know if its needed. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would be glad to help too, if you need anything. Prodego talk 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops! I guess the clichéd RfA saying is in order "I thought you already were one!" Don't worry, it'll come soon enough, I guarantee it. -Mysekurity [m!] 22:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would put it on a site at http://pages.google.com or something that is only accesible to you and with 100% uptime. --Mboverload 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, I had no idea that so many people would be so willing to help! I do this stuff freelance in the real world and am accustomed to simply hearing "do this" and "do that," rather than "would you like me to do this?" I have to admit that I am much more of a do-it-alone kind of guy, but I also wasn't expecting there to be this much interest in the program (24 users and the app still hasn't gone public yet!). As it's likely that I won't always be immediately available in cases where changes must be made to the userlist (new requests, abuse), it probably would be a very good idea to have a few extra list moderators available to speed the process along a bit, and it also seems somewhat inappropriate for me to act as the one and only authority on who is/is not an eligible user. Thus, I'm going to open it up a bit to allow a small group of trusted and willing admins to co-moderate the list--in otherwords, instead of always loading the previous reversion made by me at startup, it will instead load the previous revision made by me or any other moderator. I'm still going to mainatin the current infastructure for the list (although I thank you all for your suggestions), but I will rework the app so that I can specify moderators. Again, thank you all for your willingness to help, and if you check back tommorow (or maybe Friday) I'll post info about becoming a moderator on the article. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • =) The wikipedia community beleive strongly in anyone that would spend time to code a whole application to help us in the battle against vandals. When I first started fighting it was emotionally draining. The vandalized pages were comming so fast and I didn't know what tags to put up and I was switching between notepad and 10 different tabs in firefox and Vandal Fighter that was scrolling faster than I thought possible. I mean it when I say "Emotionally draining". You wonder why these vandals want to hurt something like Wikipedia, a bright beacon of hope for human knowlege and the collection of it. *teary-eyed* I'm such a wussy =) Anything you need, a server on a T1 line, or any favors, I got em! --Mboverload 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We all are willing to help in any way we can because the existence this tool will help us, and it's the least we could do in return. (a server on a T1 line yikes, how much is that costing). I do have one question, I recall reading somewhere this won't be real time, but you load the last 20 or so edits and check them then repeat, ect. Is that correct, or am I thinking of something else? Prodego talk 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying a whole server, just a stable place to call home...though the server I have in mind only has around 95% uptime... Doh, anyway, it's the thought that counts =) --Mboverload 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where you read that, but yes--more or less. One of the problems I had with VandalFighter was that the edits simply scrolled down the screen at such phenomenal rates that no one could keep up. Typically most users of that tool simply look at high risk edits and ignore the less obvious stubs and lists, which is where I actually find the majority of my vandalism. Per every twenty edits there are usually about five cases of vandalism, and it usually takes around 2-3 minutes to browse through them all (so long as you don't look at admins/whitelisted users) by which time about 100-300 edits have been made; thus, I found it to to be much easier to simply load twenty, look at them, and when finished go on to the next twenty. As I'm well aware that other users prefer to see the high-paced flood of edits rolling across their screen, I implemented an optional refresh timer that every 5 seconds to 10 minutes (depending upon setting) will bring in the next twenty edits and the next and the next. The standard rate seems to be about 50-100 edits per minute in Wikipedia (meaning no human being could possibly read them all), but with the timer set to 5-10 seconds there are very few holes in the feed (and practically no difference between refreshes at down times). The reason I chose to use twenty edits instead of, say, 50 or 100 is that the refresh is very quick, and it's just a very manageable number of edits to look at. I'll wait to see what you have to say about that once the tool goes public (so far I'm pretty much right on time with everything) and I will possibly make the number of edits to refresh a customizable property, as well as possibly implementing the streaming nature of VF. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, in testing it today at peak hour, I've come to realize that the actual edit rate is much higher than I originally believed. As such, I've now added a menu item that will allow you to change the number of edits it retrieves per update, and running with a 5 second timer and a 50 edit update seems to eliminate most holes without causing noticeably slower functioning. Anyone really concerned with holes could set it to 100, or any number less than 501, although I'd recommend not setting it too high, as on slower connections, it might begin loading the next batch before the first is done. I'm actually starting slowly to open up to using the timer, although I still feel as though I'm only looking at obvious edits and not giving the more discrete vandalism the scrutiny it deserves. I guess it's very good that we started this dialog before I realeased the app, as these features otherwise wouldn't be available until 1.1. Nonetheless, I'm still pretty confident I can release it on Sunday--I just have to load a few more templates, perhaps expand help a bit, and play around with it some more. Thanks for your inquiry. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that the name "CheckUser Page" seems a bit unfortunate, as the term CheckUser is already being used (on all Wikimedia projects) to denote something quite different. regards, High on a tree 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thus why my list is not called the "CheckUser Page." That's WP:AWB, but the term was borrowed here for clarity's sake. Mine is simply referred to as the "Approved List" or the "List of Approved Users." AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy Admin List to Allowed List

  • Would it make sense to copy the whole list of admins to your allowed list? That way, you're not constantly bugged by people already given tools to fight this kinda stuff. Who knows, maybe one day soon you'll find yourself on that list (but work on those major edits!). -Mysekurity [m!] 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Already works. On the User Lists tab, you'll see the list of admins, whitelist, and blacklist. By clicking on the button Import List of Admininistrators, it imports all of the "currently active" admins. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that he was referring to the allowed list up there, i.e. who you'll let use VandalProof. But as an aside, I have to say that that import bit is pretty deadly. Very canny... Blackcap (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, I guess that's why I shouldn't answer these questions at 1:30 a.m. Anywho, part of the reason for maintaining this list is for me to know who is using the tool. There are currently 710 active admins, of whom only perhaps 20 or so would actually use VandalProof, and having all of them on the approved list would make it next to impossible to contact the actual tool-users and to know how many people are out there using it. As adding users to the safelist takes only a few seconds, it's really much easier for me to just go through and approve them one by one. I also kind of disapprove of this miltaristic rank hierarchy, whereby admins are viewed as infallible and above the law--essentially they're just users with a vacuum cleaner instead of a broom, and I don't see why that should exclude them from having, like ever other user, to request permission and wait for a response. Although I've made it such that admins will automatically be on VP's whitelist, that's as far as I'll go to further inflate the administrator ego. But I have now implemented the ability for multiple list moderators, and any admin or otherwise experienced user who is interested in helping me with my housework should contact me. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPL/Source Code

  • Please take this in no way as an urgent request, or anything other than a gentle reminder - Source code? This is licensed under GPL, but I don't see a link to download source code. Something is wrong. I assume you'll post the code when you make a public release, but still - GPL / binary only downloads do not mix well... ;-) In any case, it looks like a great program, and I'm sure it will help with vandelfighting. Thanks for all your work, and I hope your current stress resolves itself OK. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I do definitely intend to release source code some day, as I'm hoping that others may take it upon themselves to build Mac- and Linux-compatible versions eventually. But for right now, it's in a very early stage of development (just released it two days ago) and I want to get it at least to a stable version before I open up the source code. I also want to clean up the code quite considerably before I release it -- as of yet about half the code is commented-out lines that didn't work, and I have variables named things like X and strTemp (I know what they are, but the odds of any other developer figuring it out are very slight). I may not totally be following GPL (and likely never will), but I will eventually make code available to trusted, interested developers. I really hate all of this legal licensing crap... I just wish we could do away with copyrights and make all intellectual property public domain. AmiDaniel (Talk) 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I can think of a thousand attorneys who want you shot for saying that. T K E 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm one of them. If you don't want to have open source, don't licence it under GNUGPL, as it does, whatever way you put it, require source code. Of course, then again, I like to see the source of everything I run and I'm a troll for Copyleft. Ignore me. Someone though, malicious user in mind, will demand a copy and raise all sorts of trouble with FSF if you won't. The fact that I try to follow Good Faith and your a fellow Wikipedian keeps me from acting like a asshole as such. --Avillia 04:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not ignoring you, now I know a go-to for copywrite questions :) T K E 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So you released it under the GPL but never intended to release the source code, so I'm guessing you did not understand what the GPL was? You also state you would like to do away with copyrights and have everything in the public domain, well you could put your code into the public domain or put it under a permissive licence like the BSD licence but then on the main page it seems you have gone off the idea of releasing any source code ever. Not much chance of any Linux or OSX ports then I guess, although they would have been pretty difficult give its written in VB a decidedly un free and non cross platform language. Htaccess 18:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't see what the big deal is. He chose the wrong licence, fixed it, and now people are complaining that he even took the time to write it. He chose to write it in VB and there is nothing wrong with that since that is what he knows. --mboverload 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what the GPL is, and, as has now been confirmed by a number of sources, even under GPL licensing I, as its author, am not bound by the requirement to release source code. I licensed it under GPL as I did indeed intend to release source code, and I still do; however,the code is being withheld currently for security reasons, to preserve a version history, and to ensure that I can bring this to a stable version before it becomes a collaborative and fragmented project. Please read the discussion below, on Avillia's talk page, and on Martin's (Bluemoose's) talk page (there was also a related WP:RfC that was recently deleted) for a slight bit more background information about this decision, as I made it unwillingly after several users posed grave threats to the project's survival. While I support releasing software into the public domain, I do not feel that source code need be released for that to happen. I wrote the app in VB as it provides some relatively useful javascript and Win API handles, as I was able to use some of my own ActiveX handles from previous projects of mine, as I had already written a great deal of Cad VBA that proved helpful in its development, and as I am more comfortable with VB than with C. I'm well aware that VB is an "unfree and single platform language," thus why I've come to the conclusion that many seeking to obtain the source code do not wish to port it to Linux or OS-X, but rather, they want to remove the authentication to ensure that anyone, even those who do not meet my relatively low criteria, can use it without any restriction (which could be potentially quite hazardous to Wikipedia--Martin's WP:AWB, for instance, would not have been allowed on Wikipedia if he had not implemented a form of authentication). As mboverload implied, I developed this on my own free time and gave it away for free in the hope that others would find it useful, and I am really getting tired of coming under attack for not furthermore releasing the source code. Frankly, I don't appreciate your snide criticism of me, as you have invested absolutely nothing in the project (whereas I've invested many hours) and you do not even understand the history behind this decision. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I apologise, I made the comments after a quick read of your page and now youve wasted time writing a long reply. Time which could no doubt have been better spent coding or something else. The one good thing the whole discussion does is highlight that licencing is an emotive issue. Htaccess 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope that someday you do release the source and program under GPL, however, as you not on the mainpage and in this talk page, it is indeed premature to really be releasing the source. The one thing I do urge you to consider, however, is the usefulness of this code to other Wikipedians developing tools to make Wikipedia better, and I hope that the actions and words of some people here have not turned you off the idea of distributing it when it is ready. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some IRC comments about licence

<mboverload> Doesn't GPL = GNU GPL
<mboverload> ?
<Avillia_Away> MBoverload: You MUST have the source available by the same methods you distribute the binary under GPL V2.
<th1> mboverload, yes
<mboverload> It's not V2, just a second let me look
<Avillia_Away> License
<Avillia_Away> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or any later version.
<Avillia_Away> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
<Whouk> Sean: Some of the plot descriptions are too long really...
<Avillia_Away> Is V2.
<th1> * the freedom to study how the program works, and modify it. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this)
<th1> doesn't that specifically require the source code to be open?
<mboverload> I read that as if you distribute the source
<th1> well that's wrong :)
* mboverload cries
<mboverload> ok I changed it to Freeware
<mboverload> thanks for the help guys
<th1> np :)
<th1> mboverload, you should really make it open source though
<mboverload> He has said he will someday
<th1> ok
<mboverload> I'm not that tight in the development, it's just him right now
<mboverload> He coded the whole thing himself =0
<mboverload> And it's a nice program
<th1> well mboverload I don't mind either way but he shoudl consider the benefits of making it opensource
<mboverload> yes
<th1> with a community to help him everyone could make improvements
<th1> in the true wikipedia spirit
<mboverload> I'll copy your comments into the talk page
 --Mboverload 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that even if you relicence further distributions, the source for the first two, currently available, must be provided. And, be a pal, do it now! SourceForge can provide both dedicated hosting for this thing, as well as a CVS server for distributing the source. Plus, if you decide to keep it open source (Which you should, as for any security-privacy-cabal related thing, you just borked yourself by having two versions with the 'core' of VandalProof open-source), you can have helpful additions added by other Wikipediates, tame the paranoia of fresh users, etc etc. Thanks, --Avillia 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Silly Avillia. He doesn't have to do anything. When he feels the time is right, if there is a time, to release the source code, he will. --Mboverload 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've explained before: When the time is right, I will make this opensource. Right now the thought of a hundred developers (slight hyperbole) running around modifying it in their own way, creating several multiple versions that each have their own unique bugs is quite disturbing to me. Then users of the version made by user A come to me complaining that it's not working, and I tear my hair out trying to replicate the bug when it actually resulted from something in user A's version.
As I began this project myself, I intend to keep it under my control until it reaches a stable version (I'll make the call on when it's stable). Then I will definitely be looking for people to help me in developing Linux-/Mac-compatible versions and foreign language releases, as well as coming up with and developing their own features for it. Frankly, as Mboverload 'hinted', I don't appreciate being told that I have to release source code. I added the GPL licensing info as I did intend to eventually go open-source with it, but not yet -- I thought people would understand that and not raise such a stink about it. I've now changed the license to reflect my "ownership" of it, and I'd like to ask you to hold off on the open-source badgering until VP leaves its early development stage and is ready to be tortured. You've claimed that I have released two versions, when in fact I just released the first and only version on Sunday. THIS SOFTWARE IS VERY NEW!!! Too new to be subjected to a dozen developers who had no involvement in the initial development process to scratch away at every detail--arguing over button placements and whatnot.
I actually just wrote the app about three weeks ago and had been using it by myself with no intention of even going public with it. Then I decided that some people out there might also find it useful, so I decided to list it for download--had I known that so many people would jump all over me for not releasing my source code, I likely would have just kept it to myself. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that I didn't mean it as a hostile 'have'. I mean that, if you were to relicence the majority of further versions (now and later), which by Mboverload's indication in both his edits on the mainpage and comments in IRC you were going to do, you would, by the licencing, have to release the first two versions, which make up the core of VandalProof. If you want to keep it private for a while, alright, fine. Whatever. Just noting that. Also, my mistake about the two versions: I'm mixing up projects mentally. --Avillia 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but everyone seems to be forgetting one thing: The text of the GPL does not apply to the copyright holder. Even the FSF agrees - its FAQ says so:

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

AmiDaniel is in fact the only person who is legitimately allowed to withhold the source code to VandalProof. Like it or not, them's the rules. RossPatterson 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to throw myself into this, but I agree with RossPatterson, first off, if withholding the code is allowed, great, now we have no legal argument. Secondly, the code is more dangerous opensource right now than closed source. I shudder to think of what a vandal could do with this. Smart or not it does not take much effort to click a button to download this, and running it is not exactly rocket science...
So, Lets give AmiDaniel a break, and not look a gift horse in the mouth please.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

I am getting "Internet explorer script error...An error has occured on this page...Do you want to continue?". How do I fix it? - Ganeshk (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed some java functions from my monobook and that fixed it. Have to see what is conflicting. May be later. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be wonderful if it was a js-tool error as opposed to a dll-initialization problem. If you can figure out what's causing the conflict, please let me know. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have the same problem. For now, I'll stick with Lupin+popups. But I can't wait to use VandalProof properly! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
See this quick, temporary fix. The problem is, I believe, fixed in the next release, though. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Download what?

Hi, thanks for releasing a new version! This is what the page says now:

"download the zip file [VP110 Setup.zip]."

"download the executable file [VandalProof 110.exe]."

I thought those were bad wikilinks, but there are no such articles... Is there some kind of Zen here? --Chodorkovskiy 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting that people will come to the page before I send my message that the download is available. It's going to be about thirty minutes yet. Again, sorry. But Happy Easter in T-24 minutes! (here at least) AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I'm the one who needs to apologize, actually. Alright then, sorry for distracting you. --Chodorkovskiy 05:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem at all. I should have left a notice (which I now have) that it wasn't yet available. Let's cross our fingers and hope that this release goes off without a hitch. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! This time around the installation was fine, but it still didn't revert. I didn't want to dissapoint you, but after installing pop-ups, VandalProof actually agreed to work even on my PC. A little buggy, but that's beside the point. Anyway, thought you might want to know that it works now. --Chodorkovskiy 10:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that the install's working! Yep, just last night I just stumbled upon that realization that my app was actually using popups functions. I've now added it to the system requirements, but I assure that the next version will no longer rely upon popups. By a little buggy, what do you mean (as in specifically, what's not working right)? AmiDaniel (Talk) 10:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, every once in a while, it brings up the "server down" message. This is rare, however, and neither crashes the program, nor the browser. That's it. Now that I think about it, this may have nothing to do with VandalProof: Pop-ups simply have this effect on my Wikipedia account. --Chodorkovskiy 10:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I know exactly what message you're talking about. It seems to be popups, as I get that occassionally when simply navigating through Wikipedia with popups installed. I've mentioned it to Lupin, and maybe later versions won't have the same problem. AmiDaniel (Talk) 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] monobook.js issues

I was having several errors with version 1, which I managed to solve completely. Im not sure how many of these still exist in 1.10 (ill check later, i just downloaded it), but here we are:

  • The non-rollback issue (where VP was warning users but not actually rolling back the edits) was caused by the lack of popups in monobook. Installing popups fixed this.
  • The runtime error after every page view was caused by the PRESENCE of the godmode light monobook file. Getting rid of godmode light fixed this.
  • Apparently VP uses internet explorer as its engine regardless of whether or not you use it yourself. So for me, this meant that hard-refreshing my monobook in firefox wasnt enough- i had to do it in internet explorer too before the changes took effect in vandal proof.

As i say i dont know which of these monobook file issues occurs in the new version, but just a quick heads up for anyone else with the same issues. If you set your monobook to look like mine i sincerely doubt youll have any trouble. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The popups dependency was one I just became aware of a couple of days ago; I simply assumed that the "autoclick" and "autosummary" switches were inherent in the Wikipedia framework, when actually they were created by Lupin. I'll try doing some testing with G-mode light before the next release, as that seems to be a problem quite a few people are having. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIOS Messenger

Does your program use the BIOS messenger? XP service pack 2 has it disabled for security, but after I installed VandalProof, my anti-spyware informed me it was on. Is this from VandalProof or unrelated?

Prodego talk 13:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to think this is unrelated. VandalProof doesn't use BIOS messenger, so feel free to disable it again. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Version for de.wp

Hi. Is it possible to use this tool for de.wp? -- 84.176.253.22 06:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's currently not available for de, but that will be one of my first tasks once this gets to a stable version. Since I speak German, it won't take too long for me to get a version for the de-wikipedia up and running, but currently it only works for en. Other languages will have to wait until I externalize the language resources and get others to translate them for me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Ich liebe die Vandalproof. (I don't speak german :P) — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Das freut mich sehr =). Hoffentlich wird's in die Zukunft noch besser werden. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If you need help localizing for French and Spanish, let me know, hey? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So confused...

What .exe should I run? WHen I do the one in the VP11 folder, it goes through a bunch of stuff and then says its done, but nothing else happens. I didn't get a prompt for my username. In the other folders there are lots of .exe files. Which one should I choose? Thanks. American Patriot 1776 23:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to extract the zip file and run Setup.exe. That will then install the program to your Program Files directory and put a link in your start menu. After you've installed it, you'll have to either find the shortcut in your start menu or find the installed executable in your Program Files directory (or wherever else you installed it) and run that. Then it should prompt you for username and run correctly. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 :) Thank you! American Patriot 1776 02:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Installing Popups

I'm having the warning-without-reverting problem. What are popups and how do I install them? (I looked at the WP page on them, but couldn't make sense of it. Maybe my brain has already gone to sleep, as I am about to do. --BDD 07:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit your monobook.js (located at User:BDD/monobook.js) and add the line {{subst:navpop}}. Then click save and press ctrl+F5. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Download sizes when using VP

Hi. Looks like an excellent program - but just a quick question. How much data does it download above a standard page-load when running & I'm reverting? Just a little concerned as I edit at work and so need to be a little careful over how much capacity I'm using. Kcordina Talk 09:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That really depends upon a lot of things. The initial log-in requires you to download ca. 0.274mb. When reverting a page, it essentially has to download about 2.3 times the size of the page (+28kb if reverting further than one edit by a user), and posting a warning on the talk page requires it to load ca. 1.3x the size of the user's talk page. It downloads 30kb everytime you update the Recent Changes list, updating your watchlist requires the same capacity as loading your watchlist within Wikipedia, loading user contribs requires as much as loading the last 100 contribs, and loading the Notify Contributors dialog (which I would discourage using as some bugs have presented themselves since compilation) requires 28kb + 1.3x the size of the talk pages of every user's talk page on which you post a notice. Please be aware that these values are rough estimates and may not apply in every situation, but essentially you're not using much more capacity (perhaps even less) than you would monitoring recent changes and reverting by hand. Shame on you for using Wikipedia at work though! :-P AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for information, all sounds good. My wrist is suitably slapped, I promise to only edit at lunchtime ;-) Kcordina Talk 08:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your log-in request failed

Just been approved today.

Downloaded program, but when I try to sign in I get "You might have entered an incorrect username". I have tried both "Funky Monkey" and "Funky_Monkey", but getting the same error on both. Do I need to wait a while before I can start using this program? Cheers -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking the "logging into Wikipedia" link in the log-in failure message. Also make sure that you are using the monobook skin (which you can set from my preferences / skin within Wikipedia). AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've tried logging in on the failure page, but still get the same error and I'm already using the monobook skin. Could someone test my username for me as I still cannot log in? Cheers -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I ran your username ("Funky Monkey") through and didn't have any problems, although it of course didn't identify me as logged into Wikipedia on that account. I wonder if pages are being rendered differently for you. Could you do me a favor? Load Internet Explorer, go to any page on Wikipedia while logged in, and load the source (via View / Source). Then search for the following: <LI id=pt-userpage><A title="My user page [alt-.]" accessKey=. href="/wiki/User:
If it finds it then please copy that line here for me to look at. If not, try to find the closest match you can and copy that line. If you have no success at all locating it, save the source as a txt file and attach it in an e-mail to dccannon@hotmail.com. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That has rendered strangely I'll nowiki it also <li id="pt-userpage"><a href="/wiki/User:Funky_Monkey">Funky Monkey</a></li> -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm, well this could be the problem. I've changed my mind, could you save the source and email it to me? I can't tell enough from that one line. Also, what version of IE are using? AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I also just took a look at your monobook and it's quite lengthy! Could you maybe try removing everything except popups and see if that maybe solves the problem? I'm thinking any one of those hundreds of tools could be affecting this. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it's the contents of your monobook. Let me try to isolate the problem and get back to you. Thanks for your patience! AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Customizing sig line

After reading all of the subpages here, I don't think I've missed it. Sereral users have customized signatures. When using a button or User Tool, is there a way to make the custom sig appear? I checked text/config files in the installation folder and it didn't appear that there was an option. Nice Job - install and first time use went without a hitch. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 13:53, 13 Jun 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it! The signature actually isn't being configured by my program--you can change it from "my preferences" in Wikipedia (though I think you've already discovered that, looking at your signature here). If this isn't what you mean, let me know. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPL (Copied from Avillia's Talk Page)

Just to let you know, this is why I only intend to make source code available to trusted developers. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this is why I intend to open the wings of freedom and remove the shackles of tyranny from your software. --Avillia 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do I not buy that? Oh, I know why--because clichéd rhetoric and cheap hacks are usually the sign of someone lacking the creativity to actually improve others' work. I feel you may be confusing "the shackles of tyranny" with the lid of Pandora's box--should you succesfully remove the seven lines of code you so despise, you'll not be giving wings to my software, but rather free Wheels to ill-intentioned users. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And should I not, a vandal will. And if not a vandal, then a person just like me. If you think the people who have enough time to make Wiki vandalbots will just ignore your tool and it's vast possibilities for vandalism, you are sadly mistaken. Also, everyone deserves a wheel. They are so nice to roll around and throw at things. --Avillia 05:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thus "why I only intend to make source code available to trusted developers." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you just restated my case for me, including why you would not be considered a trusted developer. Thanks for your understanding! AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And the source code isn't needed to work around a 7 line protection scheme. --Avillia 16:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I will personally block anyone whom I find using this software as violating the bot policy. I encourage you to take the file down, and warn you not to use it, or you will be blocked. Ral315 (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser is legitimate software, which has, if my understanding is correct, been approved by a bureaucrat and I know to a fact that it is used by administrators. It is not a bot: See WP:AWB. And if it is, the same policy would apply to WP:VandalProof as well. --Avillia 06:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet both of those require a form of approval, and can be denied the privilege. Your "free" AWB does not require any sort of approval, and there's no way for administrators to stop vandalism with it apart from simple blocking- users can create new accounts and continue to vandalize with it. The approval of AWB was partly because of its strict approval structure. Ral315 (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Why take so many steps to secure it when the mere presence of such a tool would attract fairly seasoned vandals? I'm sure as hell someone willing to write a Squidwardian vandalbot would rather take the five skips to patch the protection schemes of AWB or VP. 2. The tools themselves aren't exactly things a newbie would find out about quick, possibly by design: A vandal would actually need to be fairly familiar with the structure of Wikipedia aside from "Edit it and hope it isn't reverted within 2 minutes", as it's not particulary prominently linked anywhere: This could even be further enhanced by changing 'AutoWikiBrowser' to 'AWB' in the subst summary. And, of course, 3. Well, good thing it's impossible to tell users of AWB and FreeAWB apart! --Avillia 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you completely unable to recognize that all you've done with removing the authentication is to make it a *prime* target for vandals to easily download and use? What other justification do you have for doing this other than your phobia of any kind of restrictions? The point of these protocols is to make it more difficult for vandals to turn them into tools of mischief--you're the one trying to make it easier for them. As I remarked on VP's talk page, any vandal will the skill and patience to reverse engingeer the executable and remove the authentication would be much better off writing his own vandalbot scripts more finely atuned to his purpose. Take down the link, and consider improving AWB rather than damaging it. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I'm just a bit opposed to that which makes a 'sham' of Freedom Zero, which results in a cabal atmosphere to the editor not involved in WikiPolitics or a outsider, which hampers those who may wish to help moderate Wikipedia for one reason or another by forcing them through a approval process susceptible to bias and in and of itself biased against recent users, and so on and so forth when, again,
  • A vandal who thinks it's hilarious to randomly abuse a resource would not know about AWB, VP, or other Wikitools without a fairly high amount of knowledge of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Anti-Vandalism.
AND'
  • A vandal dedicated enough to constantly harass Wikipedia, who has the knowledge of Wikipedia to allow the use of a script to harass it, and who has the intelligence with a coding language to create a script to harass it would easily be able to sidestep the protection measures AWB and VandalProof use.
(made a new branch for the sake of formatting) --Avillia 03:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but wouldn't that highly dedicated and intelligent vandal find it soooo much easier to simply write his own scripts? I guarantee you that if my goal was to bring down Wikipedia or commit mass vandalism via a vandalbot, I could certainly write an app much more suited to that purpose than VP. What I'm concerned about are: 1) the severely ill-intention vandal finding this cool tool and saying "I could do a lot of damage!", and as both VP and AWB (especially AWB) are becoming very widely known, it's not so unlikely that any ole' idiot would find these tools and know how to use them to do harm. 2) The inexperienced user accidentally using it in ways it should not be used, a common problem with AWB users who go through removing invisible spaces and clogging recent changes, thus the need for experienced users. 3) The non-vandal and possibly well-known and respected user using my tool in an edit war or to harass others while we can do nothing but watch. 4) Similarly, the good user turned bad, who pissed off at some wiki policy, goes about vandalizing while we can again do nothing but watch and block his infinite sockpuppets. 5) A new breed of Willy's, who unlike the original, don't need to know how to code the scripts themselves--they can download mine. By the way, I should note yet again that my tool is FREEWARE, and I feel you're wearing out your welcome with many developers. There always does seem to be that one bad egg who takes something great, something like GPL, and ruins it for everyone--ultimately what you're doing is convincing everyone that it's a bad idea to release source code. Maybe that's your intent, maybe you're a rogue from Microsoft trying to halt the freeware competition, or maybe you really are as extreme about GPL as you claim to be. In any case, thanks to you, I will never again consider licensing VP under GPL. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
First: If it can do as much damage as you claim it would, wouldn't it be very advantageous to a vandal to both do his damage AND cause a good deal of trouble for the author of a generally helpful program? Second: Experience comes through experience. A user with 1000 edits or a user with 10 edits does the same with the help materials offered for AWB (next to nil, if I'm not confusing projects). Three: WP:3RR is a amazing rule. Four: Blocking is a amazing tool. And, Four: Please don't licence it under the GPL if you plan on compromising the spirit of the GPL, which is free use and free modification. --Avillia 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

coughIllegalcough — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

coughHow?cough --Avillia 22:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
coughcough since you're not fulfilling GPL's requrememts coughcough -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there's no reason why this program must be released under gpl. It's creator decided otherwise, and that's perfectly fine. You requested, was denied, that's all. All the speech and the tiranny stuff is bogus. There's no reason that forces AmiDaniel to release his tool to everybody. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that he released his first version under the GPL and he refuses to release the source for the first version. Also, I updated the text for ya. --Avillia 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The FSF agrees that the GPL does not bind the developer. Amcfreely 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
indeed, http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof Problem

Thanks for telling me about that. I'll go fix that so that it doesn't do that when I rollback images :P By the way, I sent you an e-mail asking for the switch that fixed the crash on start problem, but I find now that the problem is intermittend so I probably won't need the switch. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail asking for the switch, and didn't get an answer yet :| — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborative patrolling?

Are there any plans to introduce a feature which removes those edits from the list which have already been viewed by other (trusted) users of this tool? IMHO this is the single most important thing for a rc tool to have: On the one hand it saves a huge amount of work because good edits are not viewed multiple times, on the other it is the only way to make sure every edit is viewed by at least one trustworthy user - an essential issue in responding to a very common criticism of wikipedia. (As some people may recall, the MediaWiki developers introduced a "patrolled" flag a while ago, but it was quickly switched of again.)

On de: we are using this tool by APPER, which has this kind of collaborative patrolling. However, it is restricted to anonymous edits and the tool consists of a somple web site open to all - there is no restriction in who can mark edits as patrolled (except that you can't mark edits belonging to your own IP). Still, it is very useful and gets visited a lot. I would love to see a tool which combines this approach with the all the advanced features that VandalProof offers.

regards, High on a tree 04:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a goal that I have in mind, I've already come up with a few methods of approaching it. I'm thinking something along the line of an IRC channel where the app will automatically post any edits that get reverted or are found to be not vandalism. It's gonna take a little bit of thought, and it's going to have to wait until middle of May - June until I'll have time for it, but I expect we should see something along these lines by then. You may also want to look at User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/suggestions#work_together. With the next release I'll implement the ability to hide wl/admin edits and the ability to load the contents of VP's approved list into your whitelist, which will then be a move in the right direction. Thanks for your suggestion, and I totally agree with you. I'm going to have to check out APPER's tool and maybe found how it works. Thanks for the tip. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with this idea, that would be amazing (I too thought of it a bit ago, but I'm way too lazy to act on my ideas) --Rory096(block) 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And I also thought of it, of course. ;) I hope AmiDaniel does get round to it. An IRC channel seems to me to be the best method. r3m0t talk 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good News!

I'm still getting some script errors seemingly at random, but after doing a hard refresh of my monobook in IE (which I hadn't done in forever; I don't use IE) VandalProof no longer crashes on startup for me and I'm rockin'! Teke 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! That would be logical, but I still need to test it a bit. I've added a note on the welcome page, and hopefully that will help a lot of people. Again, thanks! AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few changes...

I've now made a few changes that will take effect in the next release, and I wanted to run them by the current users to see if they approve or not.

  1. VandalProof no longer requires popups to revert edits.
  2. It now also marks reversions as minor edits as this seems to be the standard for administrative rollbacks.
  3. The edit summary left when reverting an edit has changed. Formerly, it would state, "Reverted edits by AmiDaniel (talk) to last version by 209.189.130.115 using VandalProof." Now it would state, "Reverted edits by AmiDaniel (talk) to version 49491423 by 209.189.130.115 using VandalProof," where 49491423 is the oldid of the version to which you are reverting. I personally find this more descriptive and helpful, as VandalProof's rollback, unlike the sysop rollback, does not necessarily revert to the previous version by the previous author--it can revert as far back as the user wants it to. I would be open to considering a date in place of the oldid; however, I fear this will be quite difficult to implement (and it's a lot of info to fit into an edit summary, possibly too much for an edit summary to contain).
  4. When you prod or nominate an article for speedy deletion or a transwiki move, it will now automatically add the article to your watchlist.
  5. When posting a warning or other remark on a user's talk page, it will mark this edit as minor.
  6. VP now has a "Navigate" menu with the options Forward (Ctrl+W), Back (Ctrl+B), and To Address.

There will be more changes to come, but I was wondering if I could get some feedback about these changes (especially the edit summary). Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas. In the edit summary, I suggest linking the oldid to that revision so it'd look like '...99918273...'. Also, I have 'add pages i create to my watchlist', but is there a way to uncheck 'watch this page' when i'm warning an anon ip? I don't like having a bunch of anon ip talks on my watchlist. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm ... the link idea is likely not going to work. Edit summaries cannot be longer than 200 characters, and as it is now, if the first username is longer than 21 characters, I'm having to remove the link from his name to his contribs. What I would really love would be if the devs could figure out a way to sketch arrows or use stars or something to indicate when two versions are exactly the same, but I doubt that's going to happen. As for unwatching new user talk pages, that shouldn't be any problem at all. I actually used to have that checked as well (watch new articles I create), but I had to turn it off because of the mass of IP talk pages in my watchlist. Thanks for the idea! AmiDaniel (Talk) 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Good ideas. However, I think warnings shouldn't be minor edits. Computerjoe's talk 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Really? The reason I thought it best to mark them as minor is so that they don't show up on the RC lists of people with minor edits hidden, because there doesn't seem to be much reason for others to check those. I'm willing to reconsider and perhaps even make it an option though. AmiDaniel (Talk) 19:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The revert should not be minor, but the warning to the user should be minor, as I really don't care whether X tells user Y to stop, the only time I care is when user X and I are chasing the same vandal, but your software already has that covered by the warning indicator.Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well I still tend to disagree. Wikipedia's resources are pretty straightforward about reversions and minor edits. m:Help:Minor edit states that "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it's better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule." It then goes on to say that "rollback reversions are marked as minor by the wiki software. This is because the cumulative effect of the edits and the rollback is nothing. The intended use of the rollback feature is for cases of vandalism, where the act of reverting any vandalism should be considered minor (and can be ignored in the recent changes list)" (emphasis mine). As VP's rollback should never be used in content disputes, etc., and should only ever be used to revert obvious vandalism, I think it entirely appropriate to mark the reversions as minor.
For talk pages, however, I can find no resources to indicate anything about what is/is not considered minor. I personally don't see any benefit to RC patrolers to review every vandalism warning posted on a vandal's page, but I do definitely see your point, Eagle101. I'll consider make it optional to mark warnings as minor, but for reversions, I think they should be marked as minor in any case. I'd still like to hear some more input though. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I guess I also agree, if you mark reverts as minor, as they are vandalism (forgot about that, I just remember the "basics" of most policys), that sounds like a good idea to me. I still think the warnings should be minor, As nobody cares about whether X got a warning for vandalism. Vandal fighters look for vandalism, not the vandals themselves. The warnings are only of use to "us" when we notice that X has a {{test-4}} warning, than often X goes to WP:AIV. Tell me what you think!Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant - when can we expect the release? :) --Xyrael T 17:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG! BROWSER FUNCTIONS JUST LIKE I ASKED FOR! ***HUGGIES!*** --mboverload 04:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White/Black List

What are the White and Black lists used for? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure this is easy, white list refers to those users whom you trust (not vandals... in the next version you will be able to hide the edits from those on the white list.
The black list is the list where all the vandals go. (this program, every time you revert a vandal, they automatically get added) When a user from this list makes an edit it is flagged, so that your attention is attracted to them. (works well for repeat vandals).

info on this topic needs to be on the help page:-) Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thank you for your help. Regards, --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 10:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Timl2k4

Moved to User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse.

[edit] How to handle questionable edits

I am now using VP for fighting vandals, it make the job much easier and faster, thanks a lot AmiDaniel for a great tool! The obvious vandalism is not a problem but when edits that change facts that might be right or might be wrong happens I do not know what to do. I can either sit down and try to use the internet to find the facts (which will probably take forever) or I can ignore it. I do not revert a edit that is not obviously vandalism. So my question is, can I tag a questionable edit in some way so that someone with more subject knowledge can check it? not sure really how that would be done but I think it should be possible, maybe tag with a category or log on a specific page, best would be a change to wikimedia that made it possible to flag a edits as possible vandalism so that people with that page on its watchlists could get notified. The adding categories and logging on a special page gets very time consuming to edit, but with VP it could be automatic with just one button click and it is possible to do without and code change to wikimedia (only to VP :-)). Comments? Stefan 09:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you suspect that a "fact" might not be factual, the recommended technique is to insert a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tag after it to call it to the attention of those who have better information. Tread lightly, however - contrary to its goals, most of Wikipedia is not explicitly sourced, and you can easily become regarded as a vandal yourself for spamming {{fact}}s all over the place. RossPatterson 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Second that, if it really looks iffy, put {{citation needed}} or {{fact}}, else just trust the other editors who are working on that article. (often times what you see is the "less rational" side of a petty edit war, and as such the edit will be reverted by someone else in short order... plus that person will leave a more interesting edit summery:-( than VandalProof). Use your judgement, if it is a well know and edited article(i.e. is not a stub... plus a little), don't leave the tag, as someone else will cross it shortly. If it is a very small article, let it be... at least someone is editing it.(think how would you feel if you put info on a stub, and someone immediatly demanded sources.) If it is not well known, (last edit is over a month old or some similar number) than consider the tags. Hope I helped! Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, that is what I wanted, understand your reservatiosn though, thanks! Stefan 09:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be a helpful feature to have a menu option that, when you notice a suspicious edit, could post something on the article's talk page to the effect of "I recently noticed this suspicious edit by So and so (talk · contribs) to the article and was unable to determine if the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. Could someone with more knowledge of the subject matter please confirm the factuality of the contribution and decide whether or not it should be removed? Thanks." That may be a good way to handle this. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no, we can't have vandalproof users doing this for every 5th edit they see. More explination of my view if you ask.Eagle talk 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too polite last time I commented, so I'll be more direct this time. I think this is a bad idea. I think edits that might or might not be correct should be left intact for others who know the subject better to deal with. That's especially true of "vandal patrol" folks, who often fix articles they have no other involvement with. At most, throw a {{fact}} in, but don't expect much action on it - the backlog in Category:Articles with unsourced statements is astounding! RossPatterson 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

)

That was just the same train of thought that I had. It may be useful, but I fear that such a feature would be overused. As a result I would make this one feature we don't want. (VP and its users could get a bad reputation from this)Eagle talk 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist

Does the "My Watchlist" tab in VP correspond to the "my watchlist" tab in Wikpedia? The "Update list" doesn't seem to be adding the contents of Wikipedia watchlist to VP? Can you please clarify its function? Thanks AreJay 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I figured it out! Thanks AreJay 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sending files (lists) to correct location

My whitelist, blacklist, vandalism log, stats, etc are all getting put on my desktop. My question is- is there a way I can send them to antoher folder on my computer without it screwing up my stats? (which has happened once already) --Pilot|guy 23:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

VP will store the files in whatever folder the VP executable is stored. If you have the exe saved on your desktop, it will put the files there too, but you can put the VandalProof.exe in whatever folder you want to contain the files and then post a shortcut on your desktop. If the VP exe is stored in a different folder other than your desktop, this may be a bug, so I get back to me (though I am on Wikibreak, so I may not respond). AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Release

I saw that you've figured out how to stop the error messages in the next version. Is there any other way other than your API to stop them. The API closes the script, but then there is a gray area where the script error was for about 5 seconds. I've done everything (refreshed monobook.js, deleted all but pop-ups, etc.) I can, but they still come up. Is there any way to stop them completely in the very, very near future?

P.S. I'm reporting AmiDaniel to an admin if AmiDaniel answers this (anyone else is welcome) before you finish your wikibreak.

--Primate#101 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, though others have suggested various options such as performing a hard refresh, and someone above provided a solution involving creating separate XP user accounts, though I've not tested this nor will I. The next release will not have these annoying script messages, and it will hopefully be ready for release within a week of AmiDaniel geting done with his Wikibreak--sorry for the delay on this release! But then again, I'm not AmiDaniel, so what am I appologizing for? And now that Lbmixpro (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) speedily deleted the clearly non-devisive and non-inflammatory Template:User Sock Puppet userbox without gaining consensus or discussing the matter (with anyone other than the Doc), the only way to confirm that I am a puppet of AmiDaniel would be through a CheckUser :-p. AmiDaniel TestAccount 01:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
--Primate#101 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. It's a good thing your not techinically User:AmiDaniel, or else I'd be reporting you. :-) (I see you have trouble wikibreaking too!)
P.P.S. I'm editing this through your wunderfully wunderful VandalProof.

BTW, how close are we to the next version? —Mets501talk 02:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just started using VP

The tool is fantastic! Nice job AmiDaniel! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Reverting

This is a bug, so I moved this to the bug reports, follow the link below, thanks!

Moved to User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs# Not Reverting By Eagle talk 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log-on

Presumably I need to be logged on on IE, not Firefox? Rich Farmbrough 23:28 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Posted this on your talk page.

Give log into IE, and give it a shot, let me know the results and I will post that up on the welcome page, thanks Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If this does not work I will need infomation on your settings for wikipedia. Let me knowEagle (talk) (desk)
Just for the record I'm getting an error: This may not be a problem but I'm recording it here anyway.
Internet Explorer Script Error
Line: 733
Char: 5
Error: 'document.getElementById(...)' is null or not an object
Code: 0
URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AmiDaniel/Welcome_to_VandalProof&oldid=51895592
Do you wish to continue running scripts on this page?
Rich Farmbrough 23:46 6 May 2006 (UTC).
As I hoped I clicked "yes" and I have just warned my first VP vandal. Thanks Eagle. Rich Farmbrough 23:54 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Ok I posted info on this on your talk page:-) give me a couple seconds...Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, this is fixed, an approprate workaround was found:-) Eagle talk 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Port

I would be interested in helping to develop a Mac version of VandalProof. I am not an expert in Mac programming by any means, but I am learning. I have been working with Visual Basic for 7 years, so I should have no problem interpreting the code anyway. I understand that my edit count is perhaps somewhat limited, but I have made a positive contribution and would certainly be interesting in helping.

The offer stands as long as necessary. --IntrigueBlue 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but do you know how to program VB??? as that is the language the program is written in. Your offer will probably stand for quite a while as the code will remain closed source untill a stable version is written. I'm sure amidanial will also comment, but I thought I'd let you know.Eagle talk 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that would be awesome if you think you might be able to port this to OS X. I know more or less nothing about Macs, except that I don't like them (and that the Beatles lost their copyright enfringement suit, although anyone with half a brain should be able to recognize that Apple Computer was ripped off from Apple Records--ten years from now someone will remark what a wonderful musician Steve Jobs was! lol). Anyway, what language are you planning to use? As Eagle 101 said, it's going to be a while before I'm able to release source code. I'm likely going to release 1.2 within the next couple of weeks, which I'm hoping will be fairly stable. Then a patch to externalize language references and fix any bugs created by my new features in 1.2, and I think we'll be more or less to a reasonably stable version, for which I will be able to safely release source code (though my code is rediculously messy at this point and will need to be drastically cleaned up if anyone hopes to be able to read it). Just so you know, taking over the Mac translation of this will likely be a fairly huge undertaking, as I'm likely not going to be able to aid in much more than explaining what does what. It will probably eventually become an entirely separate project--VandalProof for Macs--as the code will be so drastically different that I won't be able, in many cases, to help Mac users with bugs, etc. If you would like me to give you a breakdown of essentially how everything works I would be more than glad to provide that, though I think you'll probably be able to figure quite a bit out just in using the tool. Also, translating the code will require a decent grasp of HTML and some basic knowledge of Javascript, as well as some understanding of the technical side of Wikipedia (all of which I figured out through experimentation, you may want to check out test.wikipedia. If you're willing to take on the task, or if you have fellow programmers who you think may be able to help, it would be extremely, extremely appreciated (and quite worthy of leaving a little vandalism on your page). Thanks for the offer! AmiDaniel (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Eagle 101: I do know Visual Basic quite well.
AmiDaniel: I will be happy to use whatever you have/are willing to share as a jumping off point. I don't know exactly what the algorithms entail, but depending on complexity I would use AppleScript Studio, PHP or commit to learning Objective C to a useable point. A PHP port might be the preferable option since it would work on any platform... --IntrigueBlue 05:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to sign on as someone who knows VB.NET, but prefers OS X (although doesn't know how to program for it unfortunately). I'll do beta testing, feature writeups, etc. To whomever wants to take up the project: WebKit would be the interface into all the website stuff. Look at [www.shiira.com] as an example of how to leverage the power behind WebKit. And re: Apple Computer's namesake vs. Apple Record's... the name was chosen because Apple came before Atari in the telephone book, and in the 70s when Apple was a startup this was a good thing.--Mechcozmo 04:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey if anyone ends up actually writing the OS X port or a remake for OS X, send me a copy. I'll do anything to get away from my windows compy (see my userboxes for details). Also I like beta-testing anyway. Alpha testing is all right too (*hint* write something so I can test it!). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

please don't use AppleScript or Objective C for a port. if you're going to take the effort to port to a new language, you should at least use a language that is cross-platform, e.g. Python or Java. PHP is a possibility but i don't know about its windowing support. both Python and Java have stable, well-designed cross-platform windowing toolkits that should allow the program to run on all platforms with minimal changes. ideally, if such a port is made, it should *replace* the existing program; it would be IMO a very bad idea to have two totally separate ports in different languages that both need to be maintained. Benwing 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

VandalProof is not automatically filling in edit summaries for me on rollbacks. Is this a bug, does it never do this, or am I doing something wrong? --Zpb52 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not rolling back at all [1]. Your monobook.js looks in order, but you might try a hard refresh (Ctrl+F5), and if that does not work then I'm going to need more information. Are you by chance using IE7? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, also check your cookie settings (accept 'em) and make sure you have popupsEagle talk 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I feel really stupid...

When I click the update buttons in the tabs, no info is dumped. I must be doing something really simple wrong. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Are you logged in? (can you see your name in the upper left hand corner.)
  2. Do you have POPUPS?
  3. What is your operating system?
  4. What version of Internet Explorer do you have?
  5. Give me any other detials you think is relevent.

Eagle talk 22:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Check that you are not using "Enhanced Recent Changes," which can be set under My Preferences / Recent Changes within Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot about that one:-(Eagle talk 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC), please do so.
Ha, ha. That's it. I was using enhanced changes. Thanks — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, adding this one to the FAQ. Eagle talk 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof Image

The VandalProof lock
The VandalProof lock

Anybody like the image I made? — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but seems a little hostile. Computerjoe's talk 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It just looks cooler to me everytime I look at it. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Holy. Crap. That's fricken AWESOME!!!!!!!!! Wait till AmiDaniel sees this! --mboverload@ 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(edic conflict...) I too agree with computerjoe, this may be a tad hostile, it looks like vandalproof's job is to 'control' what edits are acceptable, almost as if wikipedia is 'locked' away. Though I have to say, Bottesini you did very good work with images here. Could you perhaps show the lock fending off a spray can??? (tool of urban vandals)? Agian its only the concept that the image implies that bothers me. Eagle talk 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm no photoshop pro, but I'll see what I can do. When I made it, I wasn't really putting much meaning or symbolism into it :) — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, but I can guarrentee (not spelled right:-() you that as this software gets more poupular that any image related to it will have some disscussion as to whether or not the image is the correct "message". Personally I don't care all that much, but I can see that others will pull meaning out of any related image. (thought this should be looked at sooner, rather than later:-).Eagle talk 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm working on it right now. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If people think it is too hostile, how about a picture of the lock behind the wikipedia logo, with the "curve" hidden with just two "prongs" going up innto it? If you could provide the PSD other people can work on it if you want. --mboverload@ 06:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I got a decent version of the lock with an anti-vandal symbol on it, but I don't like it. I'll post the PSD up here (If Wikipedia accepts it) in a little bit. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The lock fending off a spray can would be cool. I could even give them lightsabers, if you guys want; of course, Vandalproof's would be bigger. ;) Master of Puppets That's hot. 10:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it, though I do agree that it may seem a little hostile, and it's certainly not how I had imagined a "PR" photo for VP--I had always thought of something along the lines of Image:Collage.jpg or Image:Collage2.jpg (more like VP users overlooking Wikipedia's operation, rather than securing it), but it's something that's open to interpretation. As I've said before, this isn't my project; it's a community project--I'll do the coding, but I certainly have no problem with the rest of you taking care of everything else (seeing as it is a wiki after all!). So, if you guys can agree on an image by this weekend, I might work it into v1.2. Thanks for your help, ßottesini! AmiDaniel (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, but it's better than no image, right? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't really care all that much, just I am thinking on the lines of amidaniel. we are watching over wikipedia, not securing it. Also, we will get an image, but I see no need to rush. Why not wait for v1.3, and link to this conversation on the welcome page, (so we can get maximum imput). Lets delay adding any image untill we can allow the entire VP group to disscuss this.Eagle talk 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not pushing it at all for this version update. Just thought it was cool. — ßottesiηi (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then why don't we wait untill v1.2 is avialible. (and my Mod powers work right instead of a 50% chance:-) Then I will come up with something to attract other users. (perhaps even a seperate page for this discussion). Personally I think it would be interesting to see what others think. Eagle talk 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I am working on a less hostile version. — ßottesiηi (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What about one like this (a rotated lock that looks more like we're actually a part of Wikipedia), like what mboverload suggested above?

Nice try...but I guess you can't beat the original. As you probably know, AmiDaniel used it in his template to alert us to 1.2, so congratulations! I expect to see it used more soon. --mboverload@ 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the image that was uploaded over the one I made, but don't change the image - just upload a new one so the old one is still available. — ßottesiηi (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Reverted again for you and left comment on user's talk page. --IntrigueBlue 08:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded over the old one because a) the Wikiglobe isn't licensed under GDFL, so unless we get permission to use it we can't; and b) I'm too lazy to spend hours going around user talk pages and changing the image name. But I will if I must. Master of Puppets That's hot. 09:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the version by MoP per the concerns he raised above. I agree that it's not particularly appropriate at the current title, but I don't want to have to go modify 200+ talk pages (should be 300+ but I never finished my posting). I really do apologize for this Bottesini; I had no idea that the globe was not GFDL. Once (if) we can get permission to use the globe, I'd then say the image should be reverted to your version, and then MoP can upload his (the current version) under a separate name. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I have a new one under a new name, if anyone cares. Kinda sucks as I tried to make it transparent; some of the shading got lost, and I think its a bit too aggressive. But throwing it out here if anyone wants it. Master of Puppets That's hot. 08:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about warnings

Should it make a title when I warn? I have warned a couple and non of them have headings, so they end up under some other discussion going on on their page, or warnings allready made by others. Havok (T/C/c) 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you just use the automatic warner. Sections are good, but only if there isn't one for that month. Computerjoe's talk 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer that it creates a new section each time you warn a user, it's pretty simple to customize. Open up "CustomButtons.txt" in the same directory as you have VP installed, then look at the settings for each button. For instance, the second rollback button states:

 <ROLLBACK 1>
 Rollback {{test1}}
 {{subst:test1-n|%P}}

To make it warn with a section heading, simply replace this with:

 <ROLLBACK 1>
 Rollback {{test1}}
 ==Your Recent Edits== {{subst:test1-n|%P}}

Be careful, however, not to use line breaks as they will not be correctly renedered (you can use <br /> though). It's really up to you how you want to do it--I prefer not to in most cases, but there's not even a guideline to this effect. HTH. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implied requirements?

Does being approved to use the tool mean that there's some level of vandalism I'm implicitly responsible for reverting? As much as I'd like to, I'm fairly sure I would be able to get to 3 vandalism events a week or so. —Rob (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No requirements! I've done many many reverts (~30) in a short amount of time. I am focusing on AWB right now but if I'm bored I'll fire up VandalProof and find some interesting articles. --mboverload@ 00:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Welcome to VandalProof!

Hello! I think I have a problem installing this software. Whenever, I try to install this, the message Setup cannot continue because some system files are out of date on your system. Click OK if you like setup to update these system files for you now. You will need to restart Windows before you can run setup again. Click cancel to exit setup without updating system files. However, when I re-start my PC, this proble still persists. And how do I find out if I already have the necessary system files installed? Please help! Thanks. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what version of windows do you use, and do you have IE installed on your computer?Eagle talk 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I am using Windows ME and I have IE installed on my computer. However, when I surf the net, I use Crazy Browser. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What version of IE? It must be version 4.0 or later in order for it to work.--☆TBC☆ 04:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The version of my IE is later than 5.5. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a Windows ME problem, specifically an ME Installer problem. Have you tried simply downloading and running the executable? I'm going to assume that it probably won't run correctly, as you most likely don't have the necessary components installed; however, there is a very messy way to manually set up the components without going through the Windows Installer. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
How do I install the necessary components? If this does not work on my PC, I would find it relatively hard to fight vandalism in Wikipedia. Is there any other way to do this? I am very keen to help out, so I hope that you guys can give me hints on how to combat vandalism by using this software. Thanks! --Siva1979Talk to me 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VandalProof_icon.jpg

AmiDaniel, your program. Can you declare the icon GFDL or allow Wikipedia to use it as the Author? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not mine to declare. Permission for extended use redistribution of the icon is granted by Microsoft. In other words, I'm not the author, but Microsoft automatically grants fair use to developers for redistribution with applications--how that works with uploading to Wikipedia, etc., I'm not sure. Let me look through the licensing crap a bit more, and if I find anything indicating that it's okay to upload and redistribute in other forms, I will do so. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congraulations!

The new version is absolutely superb! Thanks for all your hard work AmiDaniels! However, I can't find the customisation features that you spoke of. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. --Xyrael T 08:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

/me feels stupid, and has found what he was looking for --Xyrael T 08:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well, seems that your wikibreak was very useful for developing and coding... --Mbimmler 09:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The files required to be in System32 folder

I cannot download the application due to missing 3 of the required files from my system32 folder

tdole2.tlb

TABCTL32.OCX

SYSINFO.OCX

Can anyone tell me where I can download these files? Thanks. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 11:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Try the cabinet files. Computerjoe's talk 17:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If you run the setup, the files will be installed for you. If you don't want to run the setup, you can download it, extract the cabinet, copy the files to System32, and initialize them; alternatively, the files are (I believe) also available at microsoft.com. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, sorted it now. I have downlaoded and now up and running, although there seems to be a problem. When selecting a recent change, it shows the diff page in the main window and the 8 rollback buttons are supposed to become active, but they aren't, they stay greyed out. Any ideas? Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not receiving mailings

I've been using VandalProof for a month or so now, but I noticed that I wasn't receiving any updates on my talkpage. I asked another user and he suggested that I ensure I was on the mailing list, and it occured to me that perhaps the moderator who approved me inadvertedly missed out this step. Could you check my presence on such a list? Thanks. --Xyrael T 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually haven't finished all of the postings for this release yet, as I had to suddenly take care of something last night while I was in the middle of it. I'm also not sure if I'm going to be able to continue this, as some users have objected to my "spamming." In any case, you are on the mailing list (which is actually just the approved users list); however, I didn't make it that far down the alphabet yet. Sorry about that, and if I do continue posting the messages, I'll make sure you get one. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Spamming? Nah. I think if you agree to use a tool like this, you should recieve the appropriate updates. If you don' want them, delete them. PrometheusX303 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That was my thought as well, and most seem to support me on that. The concern was actually raised by someone who is not a VP user and thus did not receive messages either. I can understand there being some concerns about leaving 300+ messages from an unflagged account, but I was told that (for reasons I still do not understand) using a bot account would be inappropriate, and his concern is not that at all--so now I'm a little confused. Hopefully it'll all get sorted out. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, not a problem. Thanks for letting me know that I'm on it - not receiving the original welcome made me concerned, but all is well. Now to get back to VandalWhacking! --Xyrael T 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of approved users

What's happening to the list of approved users? Everyone's username is appearing multiple times! —Mets501talk 17:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some changes were made to the startpage while I was away that screwed everything up. Should be fixed now. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, all better now! —Mets501talk 00:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon using VP?

I assume there's no problem here (especially in view of the user's properly using VP), but I noticed that an IP has made three edits (purportedly) using VP. It may simply be someone feigning VP use in an edit summary (although I'm not sure why; he/she seems to be using the program altogether appropriately) or a user whom someone has approved to use VP while editing from an IP (an otherwise registered user contributing anonymously). In any case, I thought I ought to leave a note in order that someone more knowledgable about the program than I might check; I know that Daniel has often (and correctly) commented that the use of VP by anons (possibly vandals) might prove deleterious vis-à-vis the program's future.  :) Joe 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dammit. Yeah, the checkuser list has been completely down ever since some changes were made to it yesterday while I was away. It should be back working now though. At least he wasn't doing anything destructive with the tool, but that certainly shouldn't be going on. Thanks for pointing this out to me and keep your eyes open for anyone else using it who shouldn't be. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
But now I am just a little bit more bothered. As I thought, even when an anon is on the approved list, s/he is still unable to log-in (this was intentional). What I'm thinking must have happened is that someone was able to log-in normally (someone on the approved list) who then somehow got logged off, perhaps through losing some IE cookies or something. Otherwise, we may have someone who managed to hex-edit out the security precautions, which I'd like to think is highly unlikely, especially as the edit summary suggests it was v1.2, which was just released last night. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)