Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Eagle 101

Please note I will be on a vacation starting August 24. I will be active right up to the time that I leave. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiVoter

 * What's wrong with Wikivoter? Have you tried it? alpha Chimp  laudare 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it should be renamed to WikiDiscusser. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, from that very page: "The title of said program is not meant to be taken literally. Articles for deletion is not a vote process, but is a primary method of finding consensus in discussion." Let's not split hairs over a program's name. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd really encourage any of the critics of WV to try it. It's a really neat little program that eliminates a lot of the difficulties associated with loading the entire AfD page at once. It also simplifies the process of researching articles. It's a great idea and certainly not automated. alpha Chimp  laudare 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me some credit, please, Dan: it's not just the name (although thinking that such a name was a Good Idea is definitely a point in Eagle 101's disfavour). Perhaps someone could tell me what this screenshot is showing (since Eagle 101 is clearly Cluey enough not to have written program which shows the tally, which, as we all know, is utterly irrelevant).  AbsoluteDan's comments on the WV talkpage about the program not actually making it easier to ignore the quality of a Google search in favour of simple numbers are encouraging, but I note nobody's answered the concern that it makes it easier to discriminate against the views of new or non-logged-in users.  As for using WikiVoter, well, I might give it a go later in the week, if I get time ... although I doubt I could trust it to help close discussions. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can still get a tally without Wikivoter from User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All, and all that WV adds to that is a user interface for voting and some research tools, and soon some assistance for closing votes discussions. The edit count feature makes it much easier for the closing admin using the program to detect socks, for example is he has 10 keeps all with one edit, he can tell that they are clearly socks and take appropriate action.  As for the name - I feel that it is approiate - it's short and snappy and easy to remember - especially as lots of Wikipedia users think of AfD etc. as votes (as opposed to discussions), probably a remanent from when the process was called VfD - votes for deletion - which is all it really is - to this day.  In a lot (maybe majority) of AfDs, there is little discussion and much more apparrent voting - is writing "keep per nom" a discussion?  Unless AfD (and XfD, RfA etc) have a lot more discussion, I feel that the name of Wikivoter is perfectly valid.  I would urge you to use the tool and see what you're missing out on - wikivoter really does make AfD easier!  M  a  rtinp23  19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't use User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All for closing AfDs or "voting", nor do I know anyone who is silly enough to do so, let alone actively encouraging its use. Martin, if 20 people sheep vote "delete" and one person says (truthfully), "keep, he is the Prime Minister of Kuwait, won the Nobel Prize, and once climbed Mount Everest naked whilst smoking a pipe", how would you close?  My worry is that someone who uses WikiVoter &mdash; you'll laugh when I tell you this, but it's really something I've considered someone might do &mdash; would actually close it as delete!  Can you believe that?  What assurance do we have that WikiVoter makes it clear just how little the tally matters?  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * fuddlemark: Very well understood, yet no issue you raise stops users from doing the same thing already, without WikiVoter. And this tool doesnt outright tell you to troll an AfD or make a decision for you. It merely provides statistics and information to help make a decision, not dictate it. As for the screenshot, the green color means you voted already, so dont vote twice, the long blue line tells you which AfD discussion you are currently on, and the grey box shows a closed discussion. We have no way of knowing how someone will vote on AfD, with or without WikiVoter. We rely upon users in good standing to be the better judge. That and good reasons to delete, keep, merge, etc. You get the picture. SynergeticMaggot 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As well as Dragon Flight's tool (which I'm sure some people use), there are some other tools on-wiki for closing AfDs - namely this js (on Cyde's user space). Wikivoter uses C++ code similar (in functionality) to this js for a number of its functions, making it no more dangerous or whatever to the existing tools.  Wikivoter does rely on the ability of admins to use the tool properly in closing debates, and for this reason there is an approved list which a user is required to be on before they can use the AfD closer (in future versions of wikivoter).  Wikivoter is an off-wiki version of a multitude of other tools, bundled together with a few added - but one which requires a form of approval before use of certain functions - which the on-wiki programs don't offer.  The wikivoter user lists are also constantly policed by the team of wikivoter moderators, who have the power to ban sockpuppets and those who may intend to do harm using wikivoter - even able to ban socks before they get the chance to use the program at all.  Wikivoter is, therefore, a securer version of those systems already available, with added functionality.   M  a  rtinp23  19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's concerns
I want to echo fuddlemark's concerns here. I only recently found out about WikiVoter and I was a bit disturbed. It seems to be emphasizing the numbers aspect of AFD way too much and deemphasizing the discussion aspect. Also, it has a functionality that basically lets you stalk the discussions of everything you've already commented in. -- Cyde Weys 20:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And what I'm most worried about is administrators using this and strictly abiding by the numbers and not even bothering to read my carefully thought-out reasoning. I don't even use the cliche Keep or Delete, so my comment wouldn't even show up in the "vote" tally.  It seems like this is trying to mechanize a process that fundamentally isn't reconciliable with a mechanical process.  Until you can make some sort of artificial intelligence that understands the comments, just counting up the "Keeps" and "Deletes", when some people don't even use those exact terms, is a pale imitation of what's actually going on.  -- Cyde Weys  20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WikiVoter provides information and simplifies common tasks. It isn't, nor does it try to be, a crystal ball to make any decisions about the AfD in question. WikiVoter cannot look at an AfD and say "John Doe made a useful relevant comment, while Jane and Josh simply said 'Delete'". No program can do that. WV provides the information that it can, and makes it easier for the editor to see all the relevant information. The first thing that pops up when you choose an AfD is that AfD's page, with all the comments and opinions thus far.
 * Just like any Wikipedia tool, it is the responsibility of the user to heed Wikipedia policies and guidelines and use the program in harmony with those practices. Cyde: how is this "stalking discussions you've already commented on" any different than keeping the AfD on your watchlist? Isn't a good idea to keep tabs on discussions you've engaged in? --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to that - am I an AfD stalker because I add some AfD's to my watchlist? I don't see how WV helps with keeping track of those you've voted on, apart from highlighting them green so you don't re-vote - there's certainly no notification of a change.  In fact - I use VandalProof to monitor my watchlist, and that is better at saying when an AfD has been edited than Wikivoter is!  I don't see your reasoning behind that point in yolur arguement, I'm afraid.   M  a  rtinp23  20:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any admin knows that counts do not necessarily determine the results of an AfD. WV allows users to pinpoint those AfDs in which their participation is most needed, those that are most frequently ignored and shoved under the rug. Dragon's Flight's summary does the same thing. Surely you don't have a problem with encouraging participation in AfDs? One more point: every single user that has objected to wikivoter has never tried it. If you're not even going to give it a chance, why should you be complaining about it? alpha Chimp  laudare 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators and regular users of Wikipedia who participate in AfDs should already know that all opinions must be counted and heeded, per Wikipedia guidelines. There are already some users who will vote Keep or Delete on AfDs, or close an AfD discussion without viewing the comments of other Wikipedians with a normal web browser - in no way does WikiVoter encourage or condone such behavior. It's just like say, typing a really long essay. You can use a typewriter (that's like using a normal web browser for AfDs) or you can use a computer with Openoffice.org (like using WikiVoter). It's just two different ways to acheive the same end result and does not, in any way, underscore the importance of community agreement. It doesn’t mean that users will be more inclined to start ballot-box stuffing by using WikiVoter. It just provides an easier and simpler interface to deciding on AfDs, and I daresay it will provide users with the tools to make more thoughtful and accurate decisions. –-  kungming·  2 | (Talk ·Contact) 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "In no way does WikiVoter encourage or condone such behaviour"? Indeed?  Then why do the most prominent screenshots I've seen display a vote tally?  What business has such a tally appearing in a program apparently created by a Cluey Wikipedian who only wants to make AfD better?  Incidentally, it would be easier to try out WikiVoter if one weren't required to add a category or userbox to his userpage (I was planning to give it a go tonight). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned here and in other discussions of the program, those numbers can serve to highlight discussions that may have little or no participation, quickly pointing out ones that are in need of some more attention. Furthermore, Wiki-Inclusionists would love it because it can point out discussions in which there are no "keep" opinions (those discussions would obviously have "0" in the "keep" column), highlighting articles that are in danger of being deleted and might need someone to do a bit of research on its behalf. The useful possibilities are numerous. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to AbsolutDan's comments, and to address another of your concerns - the userbox/category required for the use of wikiDiscussion Manager is a feature which allows the WDM moderators to see who is using the tool at any one time, so helping to reduce abuse of the tool. As for the location of the cat/ubx - I doesn't need to be on your userpage - rather in your user space (so it can be in your user page, on your talk page, or in any subpage - so you don't get the category appearing at the base of your main user page.  Hope this helps -  M  a  rtinp23  21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Martin. I generally despise bureaucratic hoops, but I can see the use of the userbox/category thing.  Dan: the "highlight discussions with little participation" thing would be better served by a function to count the number of participants, rather than one which takes a guess at what the tally would look like, if we had a vote tally, which we don't, if such a robotic collection of votes could be relied upon, which it couldn't.  The "inclusionists" thing is more useful in theory than in practice; as David Gerard is fond of pointing out, AfD does see a huge amount of drek, which nobody in their right mind could possibly want to keep (it was for this reason that PROD was invented), and searching for AfDs which nobody wants to keep is more likely to turn up a whole heap of these to the exclusion of worthwhile articles than actually help with anything.  Also, to repeat a point: inaccurate.  As for "assume good faith", well, I think you're drawing a bit of a long bow with that one: AGF means, funnily enough, "assume the other fellow is acting in good faith until proven otherwise".  Nobody has questioned the bona fides of Eagle_101 or anyone else in favour of WikiVoter (Zoe has pointed out that Tawker did some things that were bloody silly, but to be fair, he really did, and that doesn't mean he was acting in bad faith).  One can accept that the other chap is acting in good faith without also being required to keep mum about anything he thinks is really quite Clueless, and I'll thank you not to try to use AGF in this way.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the criticisms of this program assume that the listing is intended and can pretty much be used only for "vote counting". Critics of this feature seem to be ignoring the useful possibilities and focusing on one particular potential (mis)use of it, and are criticizing Eagle's creation of it. When one says "you created this program that does more awful things than good things", and essentially assumes that by originally naming this program WikiVoter Eagle meant to make this a voting program, it reeks to me of assuming bad faith. I believe Eagle knew precisely what he was doing when he created this program, and a lot of this hubbub which centers around his decision to use the words "vote" and "voting" assumes Eagle created it for voting, and not for discussion. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. First of all, I am not the one who made the program's name an issue (that was one of Eagle_101's fans, so I guess we can consider it a strawman).  Secondly, AGF really does not apply.  AGF does not mean you have to assume that someone was right, merely that he was acting in good faith.  I accept that Eagle_101 had the best of intentions &mdash; I'm just not convinced he has a Clue.  I don't even assume that Eagle_101 created the program for voting (or rather, I did assume it, but I accept that this assumption was wrong); however, it is a powerful tool for abuse of AfD, and you've yet to respond to this concern with any defence that doesn't completely miss the point.  Please read the paragraph you just replied to again before moving on to replying to this one.  (By the way, you might find this tip useful (I did): if replying to many indents, just copy and paste the indent of the previous paragraph and add an extra colon to it).  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did, actually, but just forgot to add the extra colon :). Anyhow, I absolutely agree with you that many AfD'd articles that are truly worthy of deletion. I find myself saying "delete" the vast majority of the time. However, there are some that should be kept. Finding these is often like finding a needle in a haystack, and as such they often go overlooked and get deleted based on a few opinions. AfD is not a vote, we're certainly all in agreement about that. But listing numbers for research purposes (not for closing purposes) does not necessarily equate to counting votes. While it is the strength of the opinions that determines the outcome of an AfD, listing the number of people who say "delete" gives a rough indication of the strength of support for deletion. Listing the total number of people who have contributed to the discussion indicates how much total participation that AfD has received. I'm not saying we ought to be obligated to use this tool to find AfDs that have a strong opinion one way or the other, but if someone wanted to use the tool to do so, and perhaps dig up some research that no one else had yet, would this be A Bad Thing?
 * Regarding the potential abuses of the program, as I mentioned at the WP:AN listing, any tool can be abused. A hammer can be used to injure a fellow. Do we ban the hammer because it has the potential for abuse? I think we ought to look at how the program is being used, and make our determinations based on that.
 * I'd like to make one final point regarding "counting": If number aren't supposed to count for anything, why do AfD's that receive very few numbers of responses often get re-listed? --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it has a functionality that basically lets you stalk the discussions of everything you've already commented in.
 * I've noticed you do this well enough without WikiVoter, Cyde. Its facetious and irrelevant to bring it up now. SynergeticMaggot 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL -- Cyde Weys 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm working on that Good Humor Barnstar for my collection. :) SynergeticMaggot 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick run-through of WikiVoter
Ok, maybe this will help. I'm going to try to do a quick run-through of how the program operates, from the standpoint of an ordinary user (as although I have offered some input about the program to Eagle, I am essentially just a user of it). Other WV users: please feel free to edit this if I've omitted or misrepresented anything. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When you first open the program, you click a button to retrieve all the AfD's from the current day (or first choose the desired day from a calendar). It lists all the AfD's in alphabetical order, highlighting in green any AfD's you've already participated in, and in gray any AfD's that have been closed already. The total number of comments are tallied, and the program attempts to parse them out as to the type of comments ("keep", "neutral", "delete", etc).

You then choose an AfD, and it brings up the AfD discussion in the bottom window. The next tab over shows you essentially a text-version of the article (which you can then change over to the "graphical" version of the article with another button). Next, there's a tab for some stats, including word count (number of words in the article), number of stubs, categories, and wikilinks in the article. Another tab searches (currently) 4 search engines for the name of the article, presenting the number of hits. The search engine's results are displayed in another tab.

Once a user has used WV (and other means if needed) to gather all the information he/she needs to make an informed opinion, the user flips over to another tab to enter their opinion. They can pull down a type of comment from a menu (the part that gets bolded in the beginning) such as keep, delete, comment, etc, or type in their own. Then they fill in their opinion and submit it. WV then places the opinion at the bottom of the AfD and signs it.
 * That is an accurate description of WikiVoter. Of course, nothing compares to actually trying it, as I would encourage all the critics to do. alpha Chimp  laudare 21:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to, and the damn thing just broke. It couldn't handle the JavaScript modifications I have to my user account.  Let alone that it has no chance of running on my non-Windows systems ...  Cyde Weys  05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * May I please ask what version did you download? There was a bug in version 0.8.11 that Eagle 101 has since fixed. –-  kungming·  2 | (Talk ·Contact) 05:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde - the problem was that you didn't add yourself to the wikivoter category. As shown in this diff, you had the wikivoter category commented out.  The program checks the category itself for the user names of those who try to use it, and by commenting out the category when you first put it on your user page, you weren't added to the category at all.  I'd encourage you to add yourself to the category properly, and try using wikivoter again.   M  a  rtinp23  19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I originally got that error message, and by adding myself to the category (even though it was commented out) I got past that stumbling block and then started tripping up on JavaScript errors. I had previously gotten the "not in the category" error but had succesfully resolved that, and am now getting errors that seem to be entirely separate.  -- Cyde Weys  19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that seems strange, although there could be a js conflict, as you suggest. Did you get any specific error numbers, and do you know what version of WV you were using?  Thanks  M  a  rtinp23  19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde, somehow, perhaps with the use of magic, I managed to get Wikivoter to work with the JS adjustments in User:Cyde/monobook.js. This can be seen in the following two screenshots:




 * (click them for an enlargement).


 * Also, you may want to check the page history of my monobook.js, to prove to you that I'm not lying :). As you can see, there is full functionality in the second screenshot with all of your JS additions shown in the toolbox.  On the screenshot on the left, you can see that we are referring to my monobook, which is also the page open on the right, just scrolled down.  I also include the time on both (with two three clocks no less!)- the difference being caused by something IRL.  Anyway, do you think you could try commenting out the category in your user page, then WV will probably work - after all, it is not a crystal ball for seeing what people want to hide in their userpages!  With the category commented out, you are not included in the category itself (take a look), so the progrm won't let you use it.  Please let us help you by trying to remove the comment tags around the category, and perhaps post some screenshots of any problems you may have (which Eagle 101 has kndly licensed to be available to all for free :) )  Thanks  M  a  rtinp23  22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I appear to have gotten it working on another computer at least, I shall have to wait until I have access on the original computer that it messed up on to test again. -- Cyde Weys 05:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiVoter concerns - examples of use
Hey guys, just saw your concerns here and thought as someone who has tried and used the programme Id give you my $0.02. First of all, WV basically does exactly what popups, javascript or any of the other tools we have here do, and that is increase efficiency. I appreciate your concerns about vote counting, or the programme shortening votes to "per nom", but the fact of the matter is the programme doesnt make, or force you to do anything? The tally for example, well, personally, I use that to determine the activity on each AfD, and, if there are listings that have little or no activity, then I will participate. I could do this by opening each one and looking, but, per my earlier comment, WV makes this process faster. As for the "votes" (for want of a better term) themselves. Will, WV has a huge text field for discussion. Now, you could write, per nom or you could write a 500 report. But, you could do either with or without WV, again, WV just makes this process more efficient. Probably the best thing would be to show you some examples of my use from just the last day or two:
 * Articles for deletion/EDiets.com
 * FYI: All prior votes were Delete
 * Strong Keep —  Let me start by saying that I've been in the nutrition industry for 10 years so this is kinda my thing. Ediets.com easily meets WP:WEB criteria for notability, that is "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation", at http://www.ediets.com/company/pressroom/awards.cfm you'll see its won "Forbes.com's Spring 2005 "Best of the Web" and a "Forbes Favorite" in the Diet and Nutrition category." for the third year, ""Standard of Excellence" WebAward in the 2004 WebAward Competition, which are produced by the Web Marketing Association", "PC Magazine selected eDiets.com its "Editors' Choice", "Nielsen//NetRatings has ranked eDiets.com as the #1 Most Trafficked Health, Fitness & Nutrition Site World Wide" etc. The company is publicly listed on the NASDAQ, and has an Alexa ranking of approx 3000. Hope this helps - Gl e n 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I then went on realise the article was a copyvio, tagged it and listed it with possible copyright violations, and rewrote the article at Talk:EDiets.com/Temp


 * Articles for deletion/Brendan Burns
 * Mine was the first comment
 * Delete —  If I recognised this a being a notable training center it may be a start, but I live in Auckland (where article's subject teaches) and have never heard of the Media Design School; The address is simply listed as level 10 of an office building. Failure to meet WP:BIO seems pretty but and dried to me. - GI e n 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/All Ohio State Fair Youth Choir
 * Mine was the first comment
 * Comment —  I have just marked the article as a copyvio - word for word from the subject's website. However AfD should continue (I have left tagged) as it may be decided not to delete based on copyvio which would make this discussion then relevant again - GI e n 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I then tagged it as a copyvio and listed it with possible copyright violations


 * Articles for deletion/Titan Radio
 * Mine was first comment
 * Comment —  Correct it is a copyvio of http://titancom.fullerton.edu/titanradio/support.html - will take care of this now - GI e n 15:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I then tagged it as a copyvio and listed it with possible copyright violations


 * See also


 * Articles for deletion/Necromandus
 * Articles for deletion/Pass-Pirates
 * Articles for deletion/Nintendo's Castle

The tally also proves useful as a rough guide when looking to close AfDs. I hope this helps somewhat in reassuring you. Like any tool, it can be abused, but, it can (and certainly has with me) encourage participation and increase productivity. Thanks, - GI e n 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment
Harrassment of Users because of their additions to this discussion is inappropriate, and I request that it end. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to? --  tariq abjotu  05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its bad form to oppose an RfA based on a tool which is clearly meant to help, and not hurt. Weak oppose comments are subject to retort, in my opinion. If you have an opinion which you are willing to share, dissent is not the same as harrassment. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's bad form to continue to harrass a person who has made a perfectly legitimate oppose discussion on an RfA. My opinion on the subject is as valid as anybody else's, and if you disagree with me, that's fine, but continued harrassment is not.  And in response to tariq, I'm referring to repeated challenges on my Talk page over my right to voice my opinion.  My opinion still stands -- Eagle's creation of the tool shows his lack of what it takes to be an admin -- understanding of consensus and discussion vs. voting.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone here is challenging your right to voice your opinion; quite to the contrary, we're curious as to your opinion and your reasoning behind it. You speak of this tool, a tool not too unlike scripts such as AfD helper and the like, as if it were an application that hacked into Wikipedia's user tables and retrieved the passwords of every administrator, bureaucrat, steward, and developer and emailed them off to Willy on Wheels. You've made some highly dubious and outright offensive claims, yet you've failed to support your claims with any evidence, any cases where such abuse or disruption of the current AfD process has occurred, any real reasoning or solid logic, and not even any out-of-context Jimbo quotes. Thus, it would be much appreciated if you would either support your claims or altogether retract your unfounded assertions which serve only to demean and antagonize Eagle_101. I'd further encourage you to appologize to Eagle_101 as well--he created this tool in the very best of faith, with the benevolent intention of improving the AfD process (and many believe it will); thus, claiming that all of his work is evil and he should never be forgiven for it is not only in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, Be nice, Etiquette, and the thousands of other policies and guidelines which protect good faith editors from such harrassment, judgment, and unconstructive criticism, but it's simply unnecessary, rude, and indecent. You also appear to have launched a crusade against all that is or ever was associated with Eagle_101--wheel-warring over the WikiVoter page against consensus, nominating every page associated with the project for deletion, etc., etc. Now, I don't understand what your issues are--do you have something against Eagle_101? Against WikiVoter? Against automation in general?--but in any case, the harrasser in this situation is most certainly you. Please stop trying to play the victim. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, here. SynergeticMaggot 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean "hear, hear." Newyorkbrad 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I never said all of his work is evil, I never compared the WikiVoter to mass retrieval of passwords. Your hyperbole doesn't address my concerns, which I have already explained, and is yet again another attempt at harrassing me into removing a perfectly valid "vote".  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet again you fail to see the Issue. you atemped to delete a valid tool to assisit Wikipedians in WP:AfD. If you had ever even looked at the program which you havent unless you have a sockpuppet you would see that this valuable tool doesn't "automate" anything it is a tool that brings together the process of discussing a AfD. It allows you to quickly bring up the page in question along with the AfD page, upon viewing the page if you have questions you can search several differt search engines and load those while still letting you keep the pages up. please try to look at the tool before you decide that it should be deleted. and you still havent addressed the WP:CIVIL questions. Betacommand 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)