Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:14, 29 September 2010

Huggle not broken

A unified account seems to fix the problem. I went to Special:MergeAccount and after I could get in Huggle. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of other stuff is broken as well. For example, blocking. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skip to the bottom

Huggle not broken

A unified account seems to fix the problem. I went to Special:MergeAccount and after I could get in Huggle. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of other stuff is broken as well. For example, blocking. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template loop detected: Wikipedia talk:Huggle/Changes

Feedback

Warning tags

Hey, been using Huggle for a little while and I love it. However, there's a few user warning tags I got used to when using Twinkle that aren't available for convenient tagging in Huggle. Specifically, I'd love to see uw-tdel, uw-afd, uw-blpprod, uw-redirect and uw-advert available as auto-warnings for reversion. This would be awesome. Thanks! elektrik SHOOS 09:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about the same thing. Specifically, the uw-joke and uw-tdel templates. –dffgd talk·edits 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elektrik Shoos on this proposal. Moreso the uw-advert as I often find edits that are blatant advertising, but do not include any links, thus are not appropriate for a uw-spam warning. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising very rarely qualifies as vandalism, and in those rare circumstances where it does (someone overwriting an existing article with promotional material, say) just use a generic vandalism warning. The rule (and this is a rule, not my personal opinion) is that if it's not an edit so obviously problematic that reverting it needs no explanation, rollback (and thus, Huggle) shouldn't be used. – iridescent 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes integration

I think if Pending Changes passes, Huggle should integrate with it. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle is designed for use with wikis, not moderation systems. Gurch (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Pending changes protection... Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 06:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the long section, several sections up... dffgd talk·edits

front page could do with some edit stats

I think the front page for Huggle could do with some summary stats of how much editing (or rather reverting) Huggle is used for e.g. Huggle was used to revert xxx,000 vandalism edits in May 2010 etc. Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put it there and can be bothered to count them, I guess you can. I don't really see the point though. Gurch (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Wikipedia

Hey, is it possible to have Huggle work in Finnish Wikipedia? If not, is there any other similar tool? --Olli (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not logging in

I tried logging into Huggle but it kept saying "unable to login" not matter what I try. I've tried both passwords I know and neither seem to work. Could someone tell me what's wrong Paul 2387 00:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Both passwords you know?" Why do you know two passwords? The password you use to log in to Huggle should be the same password that your acccount has. dffgd talk·edits 01:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and complement

First, I've been a Huggle user on and off for a few years now. It's a great tool, and it does a lot to keep vandalism and other inappropriate edits off Wikipedia, and it's probably the best tool we have right now.

However, I do see a major failing. Huggle works competitively rather than collaboratively. When the vandalism is blatantly obvious, this is a good thing. When the vandalism isn't as obvious is where Huggle fails. The competitiveness of RC patrol with Huggle means that users are trying to process as many diffs as possible as quickly as possible, so that they can get to the next "bad" edit. I'm noticing that this creates a tendency for "questionable" edits to just be skipped entirely - the concerns of not wanting to rollback a valid edit, wanting to get through as many edits as possible, and the time it would take to properly analyze an edit create a "perfect storm" of conditions that actually allow some forms of vandalism and otherwise bad edits to slip through. User:Gurch addressed some of these concerns with the addition of a button to add maintenance templates during review of articles, but the biggest problem - that of an edit that could either be correcting an error or introducing one, and not wanting to stop patrolling to actually review that edit remains.

I think that this proves we need a collaborative platform rather than a competitive platform for RC patrol - the pressure to "get to the next diff" must not overrule full examination of all changes, and the rate at which the English Wikipedia is edited (anywhere from 100 edits a minute upwards) means that one person cannot hope to inspect every single change - only by dividing and conquering can we actually approach a level of effective RC patrol. Triona (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Full examination of all changes" was never Huggle's goal -- go support the moderation system if you want that. It was intended to deal with obvious vandalism, not the introduction of subtle errors, dodgy formatting, or obscure policy violations. Since those require more extensive editing of the article, a task that does not particularly benefit from an alternative interface, there is nothing for Huggle to offer in this area.

One person can very easily inspect every change to the English Wikipedia, if you ignore an appropriate subset of contributors. Indeed this is exactly what Huggle users do. This wasn't quite true during busy periods in early 2007 but the huge drop in contributions from new and anonymous users since then (thanks to increasingly oppressive measures against them) means that it is now easy.

The issue of people treating recent changes patrol as a competition is a problem, but it isn't really one that could be addressed by Huggle itself because it is more an issue of self-discipline by contributors. People have thrown around the concept of a "collaborative platform" many times, but when pushed for implementation details all they have been able to come up with is some system where each revision is only given to one user who then has to decide what to do with it. Besides being technically infeasible, this simply doesn't provide any practical benefit, and has several drawbacks. Do you have a better idea? Gurch (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c (and I think this would be do-able, although I certainly couldn't implement it myself) would be to have a separate User:Huggle; rather than make the edits from the user's own account, they'd be routed via this role account. The edit summary would specify who requested each revert, to preserve the audit trail in case of errors. By not affecting the edit-count of users, it would (hopefully) reduce the tendency of some of the more enthusiastic users to "revert race" and encourage them to actually look more closely at what they're reverting. – iridescent 10:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible technically, but could never be done in practise. If user's clients logged in to the Huggle account, anyone could change the password and lock everyone out. If user's clients sent change requests through some communication channel to a central server, this could be abused to e.g. falsely attribute changes, unless a server with its own user accounts and authentication system was set up. And I would have to pay the hosting bill for all that. If the Huggle account was blocked, nobody could do anything. Users wishing to communicate with whoever just reverted their edits would have an even harder time of it than now. Obviously it would violate half a dozen policies. And all that just so that a number in a database is not affected? It is trivial to count the number of contributions not made using Huggle, but by even trying to do that one is making the mistake of caring what the result is. Gurch (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "role account" would never be accepted. However it's certainly possible to coordinate the activities of groups of patrollers. Just create a new IRC chat room as a control channel on the same server, have the clients communicate. Privacy could be an issue but I think those servers auto-mask IPs anyway. There could be a trust system or people could just make groups themselves.

You'd need to add an "I'm not sure" button in addition to an ignore button, and you'd probably want to aggregate consecutive edits (which is the primary source of mistakes using HG). These would increase API load, but on the other hand you'd have fewer diffs to actually retrieve as you marked more and more edits benign.

That'd be the framework at least. Sounds easy but it'd take some time, and the GUI would be an issue too. I understand the reluctance. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many users are behind firewalls that do not allow IRC connections. IRC also has no proper authentication.

There is already an "I'm not sure" button. Indeed, it's the largest button in the interface. If you're not sure about a revision, and you don't want to manually edit it, you leave it for someone else to look at. That is the way things worked before Huggle was around and I don't see the need for it to change.

Reverting already "aggregates consecutive edits" because all consecutive revisions by the same user are reverted. Not distinguishing between them at all for diffs would be problematic because it would leave the user unable to revert some, but not all, of those revisions, as is sometimes necessary. I'm not sure how it is the primary source of mistakes, either; as far as I can see, the primary source of mistakes is people reverting things they shouldn't. Gurch (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If we can figure out some sort of communication "on wiki", even minimal, so that there's a middle option between leave it alone and revert. Basically, something to say, this doesn't look right, but I'm not sure why. That could be a template, a category, a special page, something, that helps someone else find the questionable edits. Then we need to make sure that mechanism is policed with the same vigilance as the live feed. That removes the urgency - you can always go work the questioned edits when it's slow, and they won't go anywhere, and it also gives us a secondary tool to catch those vandals - if the editor who made the questionable edit in the first place tries to take it off the list, that's all the more reason to pay attention to it. Triona (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If something doesn't look right but you're not sure why, then most likely you have one of these four situations:

You do know what's wrong, but it would take a long time to fix and you don't feel like doing it.
It looks like it might breaks some obscure guideline, but you don't know because nobody actually reads all the guidelines.
It is actually legitimate, you just don't agree with it.
The change may or may not be acceptable, but your knowledge in the article's subject area is not sufficient to know for sure.

None of these situations benefit from automation or an alternative interface, so there is nothing for Huggle to offer.

As for the whole "questionable edits" thing... again, if you want that sort of thing, go support the moderation system. I prefer wikis myself. Gurch (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing one other situation beyond the above:

The change is legitimate, but your experience as an editor is too limited for you to see that.

As in those other situations, the proper thing to do is leave it alone. Gurch, have you considered switching keys so that the revert function is not under a dominant finger? Choose keys to make it easier to move on, harder to revert. Gurch, do you track the ratio of Q to R? That might be a useful statistic for assessing individuals' use of Huggle, and guide timely intervention. Some individuals may use one or the other key too often. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never used the keyboard, I always used the mouse on Huggle to revert edits. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During a run of reverts does the mouse stay in one place, over a revert button? That would be a form of entrainment, making it easier to keep doing whatever the user did last, and harder to do anything else. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert and warn" (Q key by default) reverts using the standard summary and leaves a standard warning message. "Revert" (R key by default) lets the user choose the summary and is intended for use in conjunction with one of the other template messages besides the standard warning, or a specific message from the user. So the ratio of the two is not particularly meaningful: using R more could be a good thing (the user is sending more informative messages to users) or a bad thing (the user is not sending any messages at all).

By default Space moves to the next revision, which looking at a keyboard seems to be the easiest key to press. Moving the keys around may well make things more difficult to do, but I'm not a big fan of deliberately doing that in user interfaces; one might as well abandon shortcut keys altogether in that case.

If using the mouse, one needs to move to the appropriate button for each action, including "next revision". So no, the mouse does not stay in one place. Gurch (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to Log In

I'm getting the dreaded Unable to Log In message, I'm a reverter (and reviewer if that may flag up something bad), have enable:true in my huggle preferences page, have internet connectivity, windows 7 x64 and it has worked before. I've tried rolling back to previous versions and compiling the latest trunk build. Tried running it in XP Mode and double checked the password is right but it doesn't seem to want me in regardless Gsp 8181 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can log in in every other Wikipedia (to huggle is not enabled anyway) but en.wikipedia.org fails with unable to log in after logging in Gsp 8181 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, commented out line 250 in Requests.vb as it wasn't parsing my login successful page properly Gsp 8181 22:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having the same problem. Could someone explain this to me in a more simple form or tell me how to do it- "commented out like 250 in Requests.vb as it wasn't parsing my login page properly". Andrewmc123 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a compiled version with the alterations, hope it helps :) huggle. Gsp 8181 09:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's great. I've not been able to login for months and no one could tell me why until now.Andrewmc 123 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Download error.

We reformatted my PC yesterday, and now when I try to re-download / re-install Huggle, I get this: http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m62/AmauryGarcia/HUGGLEerror.jpg

Any idea what this could be? Thanks in advance. - Donald Duck (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the download page, Huggle requires .NET Framework 2.0. Gurch (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we did that last time we reformatted it, but I probably just don't rememeber. It's been so long since we've reformatted either of our computers. - Donald Duck (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. It was the automatic update thing that got it last time -- it just hadn't reached it yet this time. A .NET Framework update is installing now. - Donald Duck (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning's problems in es.wiki

Hi, on eswiki Huggle skip the warns left by others users, as you can see here, any idea about what is wrong? thanks Diegusjaimes complaints 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem...

This time it's crashing when I open the box to request page protection. It's happened twice in the last few minutes. Could someone please help? dffgd talk·edits 21:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that doesn't work and hasn't for years. Also if you're requesting page protection that often, you're doing it wrong. Gurch (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tried to request the same page again when I opened HG back up. If it doesn't work, why is it still there? Plus, I've successfully requested protection with it here, and I may have done it multiple times in the past. dffgd talk·edits 12:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error message

Got this message. Didn't seem to change the way anything ran and the edit I attempted to make was done.

ArgumentNullException: Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: input
   at System.Text.RegularExpressions.Regex.IsMatch(String input)
   at Huggle.Processing.ProcessEdit(Edit Edit)
   at Huggle.Processing.ProcessContribs(String Result, User User)
   at Huggle.Requests.ContribsRequest.Done()
   at Huggle.Requests.Request.ThreadDone()

– Zntrip 05:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to load message files

Every time I try to log in, I get "Failed to load message files: Request timed out". Never had any problems before. Anyone know what might be up? I tried retyping my password several times and in case I was somehow entering it wrong changed it, but no dice. Falcon8765 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Updating Java appears to have fixed it. Falcon8765 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, updating Java did not fix it. There is no Java code in this application. That message will occur if the wiki you are accessing is down or extremely slow to respond. Gurch (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dubious" edits

I posted the following to a talk page:

I see that you routinely revert unsourced edits with the edit summary "Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content." The particular edit which caught my attention, a table of leading goaltenders in the 1967 NHL season, is correct in every particular. The very next such edit of yours I checked has you claiming as "dubious" and "unsourced" changing the 'years active' date of a band planning an October release from "aug 2010" to "present." Among others is one where you use the tag to revert an item with the source and date named in the edit you reverted, and your marking as "dubious" that The Graduate soundtrack reached the top of the Billboard album chart on April 6, 1968 (which, in fact, it did) and was knocked off by the album Bookends on May 25 (which, in fact, it was). IMHO, it's a WP:AGF and WP:BITE violation both to hurl the word "dubious" at people when, in fact, the edits in question are accurate, and take only moments to ascertain whether or not they are. It is insulting to others to routinely categorize their edits as "dubious" and careless to do so indiscriminately without any notion as to whether they actually are.

... and the editor in question explained that this was a standard response given by Huggle, further explaining its appropriateness in BLP issues. Even given the premise that a routine categorizing of unsourced BLP edits as "dubious" isn't antagonistic or bitey - with which I disagree - I don't imagine that Huggle only works on BLP articles, any more than it did to generate any of the diffs to which I objected. Perhaps this issue has been discussed before, but if not, it deserves some debate. "Reverted addition of unsourced content" works just fine without being a provocation. RGTraynor 12:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that merely adding unsourced content is not sufficient reason to revert a revision, much as some people wish it were. The exact rules about what can and cannot be reverted on sight does not fit into the edit summary field. Gurch (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't need to be. I'm not talking about ADDING words to the edit summary. I'm talking about removing an objectionable one. RGTraynor 00:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RGTraynor, I think Gurch agrees with you but is saying that furthermore the source of the problem lies in the revert itself. The revert itself was wrong. Huggle is to be used only on vandalism. The trouble is, too many people who fight vandalism have trouble recognizing what is not vandalism. Some of them rack up tens or hundreds of thousands of reverts with only a handful of contributions of their own. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh ... I understand; thank you for the clarification. The editor to whom I directed the original comment was plainly - and admittedly - using it for routine reverts. And, coincidentally enough, his contribution history is wall-to-wall reverts, "contribution" free. RGTraynor 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that happens a lot, and I think it is very damaging to Wikipedia because unlike you many people subjected to such treatment do not stick around to ask questions. Do you want to file a complaint? The goal would be to improve the behavior of the editor who reverted you, but pressing the case could take hours spread over several days. This may be more than you want to bother with, and that's fine. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't myself reverted; it was an article on my watchlist, and quickly seeing that the edit was legit, I started going over the reverter's own history. I spoke to him on his talk page, and he explained the situation, gave me this talk page if I wanted to comment, and went into his own monobook to alter the automatic message to delete "dubious." RGTraynor 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It looks like Huggle fever. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flag legit article

Hi - I recently messed up identifying this edit as vandalism. I wonder if Huggle can be configured to identify at that precise time if such an article is a legitimate article and not just higlight the changes. What would have been useful is to know if the words in the link box comprised an actual article or a dead link. Shiva (Visnu) 19:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by this. You want Huggle to identify whether links in articles are red or blue? If so, click the "view page" button to view the revision; the revert buttons will still work when you've decided what to do with it. Gurch (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle fever

User:Donald Duck is on ANI now for what I gather is a bad case of Huggle fever. Could this user's use of Huggle be suspended? 68.167.224.215 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not by me. Gurch (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it done? And does using Huggle require having rollback permission? 68.167.224.215 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle does require rollback permission, so the most effective way of suspending access to the tool would be to suspend access to the rollback account permission, an action that can only be performed by the administrators. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My access is suspended currently, but what DGG did was delete my "Huggle CSS" thing and protected it. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle issues?

I downloaded huggle as I do a lot anti-vandalism work. But when trying to log in to this English Wikipedia, it says unable to log in, and I do have set my huggle.css as the introduction page guided. Anyone else having this kind of issues, or is it only me having trouble? DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try my compiled version of huggle, if you don't trust downloading things on the net I can provide diffs for the VB.NET code or the diffs for the MSIL Gsp 8181 21:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot! It works nicely and well. :) DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Copyedit

Is it possible to quiqly put the tag {{copyedit}} with Huggle? I use Huggle in the Spanish wiki. Regards. --84.79.207.16 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to one revert message

Currently, one of the revert message options is "(Reverted addition of unsourced negative content to a biographical article (HG))." Could I suggest we change this slightly? Since WP:BLP applies in all articles (actually, in all spaces, including userspace), could we change it to refer to the content, instead of to the article type? That is, make it say something more like "(Reverted addition of unsourced negative content about a living person per WP:BLP)". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist criteria

I was wondering if somebody could tell me what the criteria is for a user being put on the whitelist. A lot of times I see edits that could be vandalism but I'm not positive so I just let them go and move on. I want to make sure those users aren't getting whitelisted, because if they are in fact vandalizing, it would reduce effectiveness of Huggle. –CWenger (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

500 contributions. This is not an assertion that 500 contributions is necessary for one's contributions to be constructive, but a consequence of the requirement that the list not be too large. Gurch (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the answer and especially thank you for the wonderful vandalism-fighting tool! –CWenger (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there users with 500+ contributions that aren't on the whitelist? Perhaps because they have committed vandalism in those 500+ edits? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users with more than 500 contributions are added to the list automatically by Huggle. If a user with more than 500 contributions has not edited whilst someone was using Huggle since the whitelist was last cleared, they will not be listed there. The nature of contributions is not taken into account Gurch (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing problems

Tried to edit a page using the edit option and it froze... --Imagine Wizard (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will do that sometimes, because the parser sucks. Gurch (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

browser

forgive me if this is not the correct place to ask technical questions about huggle. it would be quite convenient to be able to click a link and have it open in the program or, preferably, a new tab in my browser; currently clicking links appears to do nothing. alternately, the "view in external browser button would suffice, but it always opens internet explorer while firefox is my default browser. i took a glance through the options but failed to find any settings for these features. does anyone know any solutions? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Users

Hi, is it possible to set Huggle up to monitor the new users log? [1] --Blehfu (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because it only looks at revisions. Revisions from new users are given some priority, so it should already be monitoring those. Gurch (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can't log in

I asked days before, but get no answer. Huggle worked in the past for me, but now I can not login. In german wikipedia it works for me. I use 0.9.6 - thanks for help, Conny (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Diff zu last reviewed version

There should be an option, that it is possible to show the Diff to the last reviewed version. Is such a plugin planned? Greetings, Conny (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

More details in older query. Greetings, Conny (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Error message at logon: "Failed to load message files: unknown error"

This began today -- I was using Huggle successfully as recently as yesterday. Anyone else getting this? -- Rrburke (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I can't log onto Huggle or WikiCleaner either. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have cleared up -- for me, anyway. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Why doesn't Huggle let me log in because of an unknown error? Wayne Olajuwon chat 01:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle also doesn't let me revert some vandalism. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLOW!!!

huggle is working VERY slowly for me lately, if at all. it works for about 10 - 15 minutes before it won't advance to the next revision, when it does manage to advance the features work intermittently (i.e. won't revert or reverts but doesn't indicate it has). it has been crashing on a pretty regular basis, but usually i have to restart it before that because it stops functioning. it was working fine since i started using it about a month ago, this just started in the past few days. any one else having similar problems? WookieInHeat (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also, wikipedia pages are loading very slowly over the past few days. often an article or talk page will load but the wikipedia logo and links at top and left won't load for another 30 - 60 secs. i know my internet connection is fine, all other sites load normally and i have been doing regular speed tests. think this slow loading may have something to do with huggle timing out. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You people voted for Pending Changes; you only have yourselves to blame. – iridescent 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Huggle operates on the assumption that web requests will take about 1-3 seconds. When they start taking 30-60 seconds, it becomes pretty unusable. As you have identified yourself, this is an issue with Wikipedia, not Huggle. Gurch (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huggle timing out because wikipedia servers may be overloaded, although frustrating, is understandable. however this doesn't explain the regular lock ups and crashes, unless 20 or so page time outs makes huggle crash for some reason. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

been pinging wikipedia.org for the last ten minutes, seems to time out on the first couple requests, then requests start going through with minimal latency. this corresponds with having to advance past a few revisions (hit the spacebar) in huggle before it will load a new edit. what on earth is making wikipedia servers react so sluggishly for me? WookieInHeat (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you. In their wisdom, the devs are now running a spectacularly cack-handed script which the servers can't cope with, and it's slowed every Wikipedia process down to a crawl. Get used to it, since the Defenders Of The Wiki are going to keep holding the "should we keep this feature?" vote until it gives them the result they want. – iridescent 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That extension is not the sole source of the problem, although it isn't exactly helping. Gurch (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist

It says:

This is a list of users whose contributions may be ignored while searching for vandalism. It is updated automatically by Huggle.

Instead of maintaining a long list of users, just check the account age. If its older than 30 or 90 days, thats good enough. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]