Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet/2020/August

Rollback bug?

Hello! I seem to be having problems whilst performing rollbacks on history/contribution pages - they seem to be stuck whilst reverting and I had to use the diffs instead. Any ideas? lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, HMSSolent! Looks like I'm able to reproduce the bug on my end, so I'm now looking for a way to fix it. Thanks for reporting this to us, and I'll update you when a fix has been made! Chlod (say hi!) 01:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, HMSSolent! The bug has been fixed. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention! Chlod (say hi!) 01:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Rewarn survey message needs a close button

Hi - I'm on mobile now and as you might know, there are some functions that unfortunately only work on desktop mode. Usually I can edit on desktop mode on my phone unencumbered, but right now there's a RedWarn survey popup I can't close in order to edit. May I suggest implementing an easy way to close it? ɱ (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ: There should be a "No" button there. Are you able to find it? Chlod (say hi!) 22:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It was displaying too far down on the message; I would have had to scroll down to view it, but the scroll function for a popup isn't available on a mobile phone. ɱ (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, sorry for the inconvenience! This issue shouldn't be around for too long as the survey won't be open for too long Ed talk! 00:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, yeah I figure, somewhat a small issue too, just perhaps keep in mind having a close button near/at the top for any future popups? Thanks --ɱ (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Rvv extra space

Hi, Whenever I use the "quick rollback vandalism" feature, I can't help to notice that every time I perform this action, there is always some extra white space before the warning on the target's talk page, as seen here. When I use Twinkle, there is no extra space before the warning. I'm not sure if everyone else is seeing this too, but it's just a teeny-tiny thing that I think could be fixed. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nkon21, thanks for the feedback. It's on my todo for the next version :) Ed6767 talk! 12:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767 Hi, I am seeing this same issue, whenever I warn someone using RedWarn, i see some whitespaces there. I demonstrated this on User talk:Sandbox for user warnings, and here is a diff using both Twinkle and Redwarn to warn the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandbox_for_user_warnings&oldid=973655534 using Twinkle and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandbox_for_user_warnings#noticeApplied-973655757-973655679 using RedWarn. But you might not see that, but I warned a user in a real situation while reverting vandalism so there is no notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:245:4400:77B0:E5D9:FE52:BA22:C97D&oldid=973656694 using Twinkle and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2409:4072:685:8253:0:0:C60:48A1#noticeApplied-973657459-0 using RedWarn. Do you see the difference? Please fix, thank you. User3749 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Survey Notes

• User3749 re your question, RedWarn's Huggle Anti-Vandalism gateway feature was shut down following severe sever issues, and it's unlikely to be restored in its current state. Ed talk! 01:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for answering this question User3749 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, so what was all the features that was included but was then removed, and will it be back? User3749 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User3749, no, the HAN feature is unlikely to return for now, but we'll see. Ed talk! 13:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Redwarn's context menu doesn't pop up for users with red links

Hey Ed. I've been using RedWarn a bit more and discovered that the context menu that appears when shift right-clicking does not pop up if the user's page (or talk page) has not been created yet (i.e., a red link). I'm not sure if it's a limitation of the script, but is it possible to force it to appear in these cases? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, thanks for the report - this is because redlinks don't actually link to the page, but rather a link to create it, hence RedWarn ignoring it. We'll get it fixed soon :) Ed talk! 13:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Redwarn bug when warning users of talking on article

When you warn users on Redwarn for talking on an article after using the orange button associated with it and then clicking the "send notice" button it pulls up a non-existent template as seen in the screenshot below. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, P,TO 19104! Sorry about that. This is an issue to do with the way that RedWarn handles user warnings, which is purely automatic. The issue with this is that RedWarn (as of now) does not understand warnings with only one level. The workaround for this right now is to drop the 1 by manually editing the message, which you can do by pressing the pencil icon on the top right of the preview.

We've already taken notice of this bug, and you can find its respective issue report on our issue tracker here. We apologize for the inconvenience and, rest assured, we're already working on a fix. If you have any more questions, feel free to reply. Chlod (say hi!) 16:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New message dialog still forcing signatures?

Hey dev team, I tried leaving a user a message on their talk page through the "Send a new message" button from Redwarn, and it still won't allow me to submit it unless I add ~~~~ (which forces an extra signature as my template already includes one). Is there a toggle somewhere in the options where I can disable this? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu, this issue has now been fixed. Many thanks, Ed talk! 14:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Icon for "Rollback (Assume Good Faith)"

A Thumbs Up icon is currently used as the icon for Rollback (Assume Good Faith). In most other internet product, a Thumbs Up means "like". This icon in this case is a bit confusing. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv I agree as well. Maybe a custom icon can be uploaded that is a green thumbs up with an undo arrow. That way, it is clear that we are assuming good faith and rolling back. Aasim 20:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

What if the thumb was the undo arrow? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Dealing with abuse of RedWarn

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

"Restrict access of RedWarn to extended confirmed users." is the most common answer provided in the survey. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

---

How should we deal with abuse of RedWarn? 18:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Per this AN thread, multiple admins have expressed concern over the abuse of RedWarn and other anti-vandalism tool. A blacklist system has been created, but there are fears that it might be circumvented. As such, I am coming up with several options to curb abuse:

1. Do nothing.
2. Restrict access of RedWarn to extended confirmed users.
3. Restrict access of RedWarn to admins and those with the rollback right.
4. Have certain users of RedWarn be put in a restricted mode.
5. Use O-Auth or another authentication measure to discourage reverse engineering attempts of RedWarn by bad-faith users.
6. Suggest another way of curbing use of RedWarn.

To !vote, please respond with the number(s) of the option(s) you want, along with any additional comments. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 18:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

•  Question: what would it mean for non-extended confirmed users to have "restricted mode"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, I've actually been thinking about implementing something like this - all users have a restricted mode unless they're a rollbacker or have requested access to the full version in a similar process to AWBs RFP system (although it'll likely be implemented in a database for RedWarn) Ed6767 talk! 23:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, OK, but what would "restricted mode" entail? I see SuperGoose007 proposed some ideas so I'm assuming that hasn't been fleshed out yet? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• 2 RedWarn is a powerful tool that can be abused easily. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 23:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Ed6767, here are my ideas for a restricted mode:
  • Only allow one revision at a time to be undone.
  • Disallow users from reverting to the same version of a page more then 3 times to encourage collaboration and discourage edit warring.
  • Allow admins to disable certain components or set restrictions on what a user can do in an admin-only menu.
  • Limiting the templates that can be used with the Send Notice button.

SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 00:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperGoose007: Twinkle can revert a lot of revisions as well.

•  Comment: Ed6767 Here are my ideas for a restricted mode:
  • People without rollback rights must not revert more than 10 revisions once.
  • People not extended confirmed can only revert 5 revisions once.
  • Allow sysops to limit usage of this tool through perhaps a new special page?
  • Anyway. restricting the use cannot apply to users who can tweak this script.

ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 00:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 - RedWarn should not be molded into policy pages at any point Naleksuh (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Ed6767 Could you point me to some instances where RedWarn has been used abusively? While I do understand the concerns in the abstract, I personally haven't seen RedWarn regularly being used in a disruptive way (the most common issue seems to be newly minted patrollers using sub-optimal revert reasons) - and at this point, I don't think that outweighs the benefits of giving newer users a way to start contributing to RCP. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've heard of cases, but rarely am I given specific diff examples, which can make these judgments hard but this RfC should help Ed6767 talk! 01:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• 2 - I don't see it as a bad thing that editors should need to meaningfully contribute before doing anti-vandalism work. Darren-M talk 17:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• 3 With RedWarn exhibiting similar characteristics to other automatic reverting tools such as Huggle (which require rollback), requiring rollback permissions allows all users to have a background check to ensure unproblematic history of anti-vandalism work for everybody who desires access to the tool. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Either 1 or 2 - As an user of RedWarn and an extended confirm user in my opinion: In 1, its still pretty much a new tool and it can probably fix and resolve this issue; and in 2, it is probably the best option because there are some "confirmed" and "autoconfirmed" users are pretty much abusive such as disruptive editing and vandalism. Again, it still pretty much a new tool and I think its currently in beta if I'm not mistaken, in which it can probably resolve this issue on abuse. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 right now. I seem to recall there being a blacklist that was admin-protected. There aren't too many reports right now, are there? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 since (a) users are responsible for their abuse of tools and can be blocked as a consequence of tool abuse and (b) right now I don't see much reason on why we should limit RedWarn to specific users. Chlod (say hi!) 23:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• 4, 1, 2. 4 is probably ideal, and Supergoose offers some possibilities, though there may well be better ones (probably should be a subdiscussion below on that). I'm not sure Redwarn as a tool is more problematic than Twinkle, it just happens to have more newer users (as a proportion) so it shows up more notably. That's not really the tool's fault. 2 is a possibility, but is absolutely the most severe option I'd support (as a third choice), I specifically am against any attempt to take to rollback. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• 4, combined with 2/3/PCR I don't think this should be in the hands of inexperienced editors. My concerns aren't the rollback/warn portion of the tool, which of course TW also has and are available just as a gadget, but the automated patrol aspect. Patrolling puts an editor in a position of quickly reviewing dozens of edits and making snap judgments, which requires experience. Like Huggle and STiki, I believe this needs some form of permission control to limit damage. So, 4 as in the restricted mode should disable automated/recent changes patrolling, with any combination of EC, Rollback or Pending Change Reviewer allowing unrestricted use. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• 2 — With 4 as well? Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 or 1½ Before I was an extended confirmed user (and now) I found the revert-'n'-warn feature to be extremely useful. If we were to go down the user rights restriction route, I think we should go for restricting it to auto-confirmed users. Twinkle seems just as scarry to me. I don't really hang out at any of the noticeboards that much so this is somewhat of an uninformed opinion.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 12:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• ${\sqrt {2}}$ – every tool is prone to misuse, so I believe keeping a bar slightly higher than autoconfirmed (10 days/100 edits) should be good. The current autoconfirmed bar is a bit too low. Eumat114 (Message) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• 2 or 4 If people are using RedWarn in a way that violates policy, then admins could set a restriction of users that abuses the tool. I also agree with that restrictions someone already mentioned above. Plus, it could be set to allow access to only extended confirmed users, but it already has protection that allows only autoconfirmed and confirmed users, it could be changed to only allow extended confirmed users to use this tool. User3749 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.