This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Ultraviolet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Single/multiple rollback
Rolling back a diff involving several non-constructive edits from more than one editor, the "non-constructive" rollback function only rolls back the most recent edit, leaving the earlier non-constructive edits in place. I believe the same is true of a few rollback functions whereas other rollbacks do go back to the earliest diff of several.
I wonder if this is a feature or bug? Personally if I am viewing such a diff and perform any rollback action I would expect all edits to be reverted to the earliest version. Captainllama (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Captainllama! This isn't really a "feature" of RedWarn, but rather normal behavior consistent with most pseudo-rollback tools. This behavior is the same with normal Wikipedia rollback. When using rollback (or pseudo-rollback, if you do not have the rollback right), it reverts to the last edit done by someone who is not the user you're currently looking at. This is because the only editor that you are giving a faith assumption is the editor directly responsible for the diff that you are viewing. Since we can't assume the faith of the previous editors, we can't roll their edits back.
If you'd like to override this and revert to a previous version regardless of who made the edit, visit a version of the page with good standing and use the "Restore this version" option instead (purple clock with an arrow frame). This will restore that version of the page, overwriting the edits of other users.
Hello, today RedWarn patrol has appeared to become laggy for myself. The animation for new changes seems to not be appearing, and it takes a couple seconds for the new changes to start or stop after moving my mouse off of the cursor hover bar. I've tried uninstalling and re-installing RedWarn, using Edge (Chromium) instead of Firefox, and disabling extensions in Firefox. I've attached an Imgur gif of the issue here. Thanks. Dylsss (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Dylsss, this issue is with RedWarn taking time to process 500 recent changes due to your filter selections. If you change where it says "500 changes, 7 days" to a lower amount such as "50 changes, 7 days" this should resolve your issue :) Edtalk!17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
One of the reasons I may prefer the T instead of the R in RW. I get to confirm my rollback so I don't get something like this. Make it so we have to confirm like TW, and the option to skip the confirmation by shift+click. Can I Log In (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hm, thanks for the suggestion @Can I Log In, we'll have a think. A confirmation would be a good idea as a preference enabled by default to prevent erroneous reverts. Edtalk!21:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
When will RedWarn become a gadget?
RedWarn is a very nice tool. I like some of its features. When will RedWarn become something we can enable in user preferences? Aasim08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Awesome Aasim, there's some qualifications on what can be a gadget which can be found on WP:Gadget. As of now, RedWarn doesn't support Safari nor Internet Explorer, and we don't test on other skins to ensure compatibility (although RedWarn can work on them). RedWarn is also in development as of now, and we haven't even left Beta yet. For such reasons, we're not yet qualified to be a gadget (although we might be in the future, when we've worked out all the bugs.) Chlod(say hi!)08:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Chlod Understood. I do not think we need to target Internet Explorer as much as Safari, Chrome, Edge (Chromium), Firefox, and Opera because Internet Explorer has been largely succeeded by Microsoft Edge in terms of functionality. I think one thing that would be nice to expand compatibility is if we found a way to transition off of Google's Material Design and towards MediaWiki OOUI. That way, maybe we can get Safari functionality to work. Though it may take a long time because RedWarn from the start used Material Design. Aasim09:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Awesome Aasim, part of RedWarn's core features is Material Design, so we're not planning on moving towards OOUI in the slightest. Additionally, MDL (the library we use for Material Design) is not the reason why we don't support some browsers, but it's due to the JavaScript compatibility between each browser. Though the language is fundamentally the same, its behavior can change per browser due to differences in support and usability. We can't be expected to fully test RedWarn on all those browsers, and because of that we can't be expected to support all browsers. It's not an inconvenience for us though, since we get to avoid deprecated browsers and use newer JS. RedWarn as it is now already supports a lot of browsers, so there's no need to fret. But yeah, switching to OOUI (or any non-Material design engine for that fact) isn't on our minds. Chlod(say hi!)09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"Minor edits"
Hi devs and thanks for all the work on this great tool. 2 questions: 1) is there a way to revert problematic edits such as unsourced genres without leaving an "m" for minor edit in the edit summary as can be seen here. I rarely call an edit minor, especially reverting an unsourced genre as such edits are often considered contentious. 2) When I'm on a users contributions page and am reverting unsourced genres, I always leave an edit summary when the option is given but for some reason my contributions, such as the one I linked above show no edit summary. When I revert an edit from the revision history page with a summary it's always there. Does that make sense? Robvanvee08:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Robvanvee! Wikipedia's Rollback feature always marks a reversion as minor, and doesn't allow a custom edit summary. RedWarn's pseudo-rollbackdoes have this functionality are not marked as minor, however, since they are normal edits and not rollbacks. As for the edit summary, it would be good if you specified a bit more about how you're unable to do add a summary. I hope I answered your questions. If you have any more comments, please feel free to reply! Chlod(say hi!)14:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification Chlod. What I mean by being able to add a summary that does not show in the history afterwards: if I were to open your contribution page for example, we see your 8 edits to your user page with the "lol" edit summary, again, for example. Here RW gives me 3 options: (current prev rvv rb ). If I were to select rvv, I am given the option to leave an edit summary in a little window which as stated, doesn't actually show in the history. Does that make sense? Robvanvee15:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Quick rollback Vandalism
Rollback
Robvanvee: Looking at the code, the rvv button doesn't ask for input — but instead immediately reverts with the "vandalism (from contribs page)" summary. Perhaps you meant to press the rb button, which shows the rollback dialog. Chlod(say hi!)15:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests to modify the source code of RedWarn should be made at GitLab, not here. Any changes made here to the RedWarn source code will be lost when RedWarn is recompiled or updated.
I am not Ed6767 or a RedWarn maintainer, but I think this may be needed to prevent edit requests to RedWarn's source code from being made to RedWarn that will be lost when the file is rebuilt. Aasim20:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The content to be added isn't really worthy of a page notice, since no one editscan edit the RedWarn userscript (apart from Ed and interface administrators) and we always update the userscript based on the output of the builds on GitLab or on our own computers anyway. If anyone wanted to fix issues with the code, I'd expect them to be well educated in Git enough to be able to make a merge request on their own without requesting each single line change to be put on this page. Additionally, if it were a suggestion or a bug report by a user (posted here), we usually handle all of that on our own and the actual user never even gets to see the code. If it were the last two notices on the top of the talk page (the confidential issues reporting instructions and the list of active maintainers) then a page notice for those would probably be warranted. Chlod(say hi!)22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ed6767: RedWarn today is acting like if I didn't even install redwarn. All of the quick rollback are missing. The user warning button doesn't show. The page protection request is also missing. Could you please fix this? User3749 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any errors in my commons.js. In case, this is my entire page copied below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by User3749 (talk • contribs)
The unsourced edit in question added information in WP:NPOV that someone's parents were Jewish and had fled the Nazis. Calling that "defamatory" is, to put it mildly, not a good idea. If RedWarn has no standard edit summaries which allow editors to refer to the above as unsourced in a neutral way, it needs them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi BlackcurrantTea, the edit summaries are based on the warning descriptions, i.e. the uw-biog series uses the description "Adding unreferenced defamatory information about living persons". We will drop to "defamatory" from the warning description now. Thanks for the feedback! Edtalk!10:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed6767. As a new user, I would have been both dismayed and confused to see that on my talk page. The change will help the editors who receive warnings as well as those of us who are reviewing their edits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ed6767 and BlackcurrantTea: perhaps adding an "or" would be better? Adding unreferenced or defamatory information about living persons, this would help make the summary less broad, yet still of use in cases where defamatory content is added. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs13:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have more than one choice? Better yet would be two or three alternatives which include links to relevant policies or help pages, and the option to write an edit summary oneself. I often include information in an edit summary specific to that edit; having only one choice reminds me of website forms which require one to choose from a short list of reasons for contacting them, none of which fit. (I'm not a RedWarn user, and I realise this may be akin to a *nix user wondering how Mac and Windows users deal with all the things they can't change.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Mvcg66b3r, RedWarn doesn't have a welcome module by default. Are you referencing to the installable template packs? There are two template packs for welcoming, Quick Welcome by Ed6767, and StandardWelcome by the now regrettably blocked Prahlad balaji. If so, please reply. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs08:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: Hi, Toa Nidhiki05! Thanks for trying out RedWarn, and sorry to see you go. You can uninstall RedWarn by removing the line which has importScript("User:Ed6767/redwarn.js"); from your common.js file. If you'd like to give us your reasons on why you wanted to uninstall RedWarn, please feel free to. Thanks! Chlod(say hi!)15:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
While reverting vandalism on another page, I found that an IP user had left a message on the article (yes, the article. Not the talk page. Why.) saying "hey watcha doin". I rolled back the changes and sent the IP user a notice with the following settings:
The issue being that uw-talkinarticle is a single-use template. RW outputted Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Tennessee Walking Horse. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. to the talk page. Thanks in advance for fixing the issue. Opalzukor (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Opalzukor! We're aware of this issue already, and it has already been previously discussed. We'll be fixing this on the next update. The current workaround is to manually edit the warning, or to select a different warning reason, and then switch back to the "Talk in article" reason. Chlod(say hi!)10:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, thank you all for using RedWarn. Following a spate of reported abuse, and a request for comment regarding restrictions on the features of RedWarn, consensus was reached to restrict full access of RedWarn to extended confirmed users. Unfortunately, your account does not yet meet these requirements.
From 1 October 2020, you will be using RedWarn in a "restricted mode" and may no longer be able to access these features of RedWarn:
Automatic user warning template selection
Quick rollback
After reaching 500 edits and being a contributor for over 30 days, you may once again gain full access to RedWarn and these features will be re-enabled. You will also gain access to the multiple action tool. If this is an alternate account, you may request for extended confirmed permissions at WP:RFP/EC. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please feel free to leave them below this message. Edtalk!, on behalf of the RedWarn team. 16:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Tornadosurvivor2011, no, you can still revert edits, but in essence, you will just be made to review the edit summary of rollback options first (the box will still be prefilled) and manually select your warning template and levels. This is to ensure learning anti-vandalism patrollers aren't overly harsh and are more careful with their patrolling and warning and to also partially slow down the reverting process. Edtalk!16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
PythonSwarm, using an unauthorised modified or older version of any tool to bypass feature restrictions (outside of good-faith WP:IAR cases) isn't permitted and may result in a block. Edtalk!01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
To add on to Ed6767: PythonSwarm you can't. Just like you must be on the checkpage to use AutoWikiBrowser, you must be extended confirmed to use RedWarn's "quick" features. Attempting to bypass those restrictions may result in a block per WP:MEATBOT. WP:IAR applies to rules, not to behavior. You are still free to use Twinkle until you are automatically granted access to RedWarn's automatic features :) Aasim18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Not that this affects me due to my extended confirmed status, but once a user becomes extended confirmed, does RedWarn automatically remove restricted mode or does it have to be requested to you guys? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:RedWarn
