Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet/2021/September

feature requests
add the ability for admins to apply the protection in the Manage Page Protection dialog box instead of just requesting it. also add a button to uninstall red warn in the about section in the settings page. Fizz fam (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

RedWarn RBK icons disappear when TW's RBK buttons are disabled
Hi, I realise that when I have both RedWarn and Twinkle enabled, and I disable Twinkle's three rollback buttons from its preferences, RedWarn's rollback icons also disappear, which basically disables half of its function. I imagine one gadget's settings should generally not conflict with another's. I would appreciate it if this was fixed, as I generally find RedWarn's RBK features more useful than TW's, and would like to limit my own confusion by not having three different types of buttons for rollback. If this was intentional, I apologise. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! &#124; My contribs!) 02:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Liamyangll, I just completely disable Twinkle's rollback module which allows RedWarn to work as expected (for me at least). Twinkle may be modifying the page to hide the buttons, which is something we might need to mitigate if disabling Twinkle's rollback module doesn't work for you. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 02:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I was checking the wrong options that removed the buttons but did not disable the module. Now that you mentioned an alternative option, I tried it and it seems to work. Thanks for informing me of this, and I apologise for utterly wasting your time. Liamyangll (talk to me! &#124; My contribs!) 02:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, it can be confusing so we're always happy to help :) ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 02:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The 'RW 16.1' label signifies ... what?
What does it really mean when rollbackers label their reversions of edits at the COVID-19 lab leak theory page as "RW 16.1"?


 * 2 September 2021 ([rationale] (RW 16.1))
 * 30 August 2021 m ([rationale] (RW 16.1))
 * 30 August 2021 m ([rationale] (RW 16.1))
 * 2 August 2021 m ([rationale] (RW 16.1))
 * 30 July 2021 m ([rationale] (RW 16.1))
 * 20 July 2021 m ([rationale] (RW 16.1))

Let's say users kept employing a rollback tool at an ECP-protected page to warn contributors about edits that they disagreed with. Couldn't this inadvertently cause some people to give up editing that page?


 * Disputes can leave people "disillusioned with the project" and cause them to abandon editing Wikipedia altogether... "That does real, long-lasting damage," Li notes. "Not just to COVID-19 articles, but to the rest of the encyclopedia."

Ryan, "Wikipedia is at War over the Coronavirus Lab Leak Theory"

More specifically, this could inadvertently discourage other editors from restoring the reverted content. What good-faith editor wants to be given a scarlet RW 16.1 public warning meant to be used for apparent vandalism? –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 01:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dervorguilla the RW 16.1 means RedWarn version 16.1. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  07:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the link to WP:ROLLBACKUSE doesn't make sense - that only applies to rollback's generic edit summary. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  07:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 01:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You're saying my link to ROLLBACKUSE doesn't make sense because that section doesn't apply when the user adds an appropriate rationale. I should have specified my point in citing that section. It expressly states: If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary, then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.
 * You don't really mean to suggest that it's appropriate to label those last five reversions as minor edits, right? Or to stigmatize them by adding an RW 16.1 RedWarn label? (Most of us ordinary editors see those labels as having something to do with rolling back apparent vandalism and warning offenders.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dervorguilla, this has very little to do with us. It is standard practice for reversion tools to have their version in the edit summary for both analytics and accountability reasons. How an editor uses the tool is up to them. Twinkle, RedWarn and Huggle are reversion tools that make reverting edits on Wikipedia easier, which is why these edits were made with RedWarn. As the editors filled in a relevant edit summary, this dispute does not involve us but rather between you and the editors if you disagree with their edits. They are also shown as minor edits as it's standard practice for reversions. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 08:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello there! Thanks for reaching out to us. As pointed out, "RW 16.1" simply means that the edit was made using RedWarn version 16.1, which is the current version of RedWarn. "RW 16.1" is not meant to be a "public warning meant to be used for apparent vandalism," it is simply to signify the fact that the edit was made using the specified version of RedWarn. The RedWarn version label on an edit summary is not meant to suggest rolling back apparent vandalism and warning offenders, as this is not the only feature of RedWarn. Re your part about minor edits, rollbacks/reverts made using RedWarn are automatically marked as minor, as they do not add anything substantial to the page's content. You will also notice that the built-in rollback tool also marks rollbacks as minor (see this revert).
 * TL;DR: "RW 16.1" simply means that the edit was made using RedWarn version 16.1 and nothing else. They were marked as minor edits due to the fact that all reverts made with RedWarn are automatically marked as such. ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dervorguilla The RedWarn label just signifies the edit was made via RedWarn, (presumably) to track usage of the tool. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  08:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dervorguilla The RedWarn label just signifies the edit was made via RedWarn, (presumably) to track usage of the tool. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  08:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Savvy editors here all understand that rollbacks made using RedWarn are "automatically marked" as minor. Still, ordinary editors elsewhere typically see m as signifying that the edit in question is nondisputable. WP:MINOR emphasizes:
 * Improper to do so manually ≠ proper to do so automatically! Now that you understand the real problem here, how can we most efficiently address it? (Maybe one of us could add a concise note to this effect on the Project page?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Improper to do so manually ≠ proper to do so automatically! Now that you understand the real problem here, how can we most efficiently address it? (Maybe one of us could add a concise note to this effect on the Project page?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , rollback edits are automatically marked as minor; this is not to do with RedWarn. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not directly, at least. I have to agree with you there.
 * But reversions made using your efficient "counter-vandalism" tool are also automatically furnished with a RW 16.1 template and marked with a RedWarn tag. So, some interested editors may erroneously infer that the rollbacker is (discreetly) warning them about something—most likely, a disruptive edit. Yikes! This can discourage those interested editors from restoring the reverted material until they have time to investigate what that template and tag really mean.
 * They may take a look at your project page's curly-quote about RedWarn being used as a counter-vandalism tool or your intro about it being a counter-vandalism tool ... used ... to revert problematic edits, warn and report editors and so forth. They would then have to proceed through some 1,200 words of text to find out that when used with a proper edit summary, your template and tag don't really signify anything of interest to them! (As Sportzpikachu helpfully puts it, "RW 16.1" simply means that the edit was made using RedWarn version 16.1 and nothing else.)
 * A typical editor may not have time to look this deeply. To help them out, maybe a concise statement could be added up front:
 * Many thanks for your patience! –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dervorguilla, thanks for your suggestions - we want to make RedWarn friendly for all, however, the issue I have with what you just said is that the two other leading reversion tools on enwiki (WP:TW and WP:HG) do exactly the same thing that RedWarn does on its page with "vandalism" in its lede, so I don't see how directing people to other reversion tools would exactly change anything. I think you do raise a good point however now you have communicated it properly.We might want to consider as all vandalism tools to introduce a "GoBack"/"Takeback"/"CarefulRevert" (no idea on a good name) feature that can be used in situations where conflict could arise, whilst I've not encountered any issues per se, it might be useful in terms of holding editors accountable and not making them look like admins to those unfamiliar with how Wikimeida projects work, where it does the same things as a typical rollback/reversion but has different wording and a focus on entering an edit summary and also makes sure (if technically possible) that the edits aren't marked as minor. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 01:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ! That sounds like a really keen idea. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, in the case that we in fact do implement this feature, what is the problem with the current rollback/revert features that you feel can discourage those interested editors from restoring the reverted material? ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  04:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just commenting ... reading through the discussion and also that makeshift note above, it does seem like (if implemented) it is telling RedWarn users to not use RedWarn to rollback edit using RedWarn and to only use it strictly for vandalism related only, and they are better off using Twinkle or installing Huggle to use Huggle because that (RW 16.1), at least that is how I interpret it as. Of note, RedWarn also features quick actions button such as non-constructive edits, unexplained content removal, likely factual error, copyright, npov, and few more, which are not exactly vandalism related, would the note conflict against it. In addition, what about conflict against existing WP:RW/A?  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  06:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You've picked up most of my points. (I don't think it's ideal to rely on RW#A, though. That would make this otherwise ultraefficient tool rather less so!) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You've picked up most of my points. (I don't think it's ideal to rely on RW#A, though. That would make this otherwise ultraefficient tool rather less so!) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary A is fairly easy to understand; most likely it would not discourage interested editors from restoring part or all of the material:
 * we don't usually single out single papers if the only content we have on them is basically a summary of what's in the paper

Edit summary B is more opaque - and rather disconcerting:
 * we don't usually single out single papers if the only content we have on them is basically a summary of what's in the paper (RW 16.1)

A mildly interested editor may be wary about interfering in what looks like some kind of countervandalism warning process.

The RedWarn tag can likewise be a bit off-putting. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we remove the "RW 16.1" from each edit made with RedWarn? ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  08:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Or at least make it (and the RedWarn tag) discretionary rather than automatic. (Maybe it could be set as the default option?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 08:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to adjust the edit summary note nor the RW Tag. Their use has been patiently explained and is well within standard practice. I remind editors (and the developers) that the "discretionary" use of these tags or edit summaries would actually fall outside of standard practice - as an administrator, I often need to know if someone made a change manually or semi-automatically using a script such as RW. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 09:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dervorguilla, as @TheresNoTime has said, we cannot make tool tags discretionary as that'd defeat the purpose of having the tag in the first place, and would not be standard practice for any tool or bot. Simply removing the tag is not an option on the table for RedWarn, or any other tool. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 12:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That all makes sense! So the easiest fix seems like the best one. Somewhere on your Project page, you could advise RedWarn users not to use RedWarn for ordinary reverts of disputed material. (Maybe add that the summary note could confuse some interested editors about the purpose of the reversion?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , for the last time, we have no reason to do this. As noted above, every single tool for reverting edits had the word "vandalism" in the lead. RedWarn is simply a tool for reverting edits; not vandalism specifically. Whether a user wants to use RedWarn to revert an edit is completely at their discretion, not ours. We don't enforce who can use RedWarn for what unless it's obvious abuse. RedWarn is just a tool; we don't decide (mostly) what people do with it. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 06:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Warning message not appearing at the best location
So I came across good ol' vandalism, and routinely went on the user talk (of the IP) to issue a warning. This is what it was before I came:

I then issued the message. Contrary to expectation that it would appear at the bottom of the page, it instead placed my message in the middle (diff). While not the most fatal error, I think it might need a solution. It might have been caused by multiple headers "September 2021". Thanks a lot, and Happy 2021 Eumat114 (Message) 15:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Eumat114, RedWarn by default places edits under the first date header. Cluebot hadn't done this for whatever reason which caused the issue. I don't think which section it's under matters as long as the editor receives the notification. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 15:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks :) I guess I'll get to CB for follow up then Happy 2021 Eumat114 (Message) 08:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:RecentChanges
HI, I think RedWarn used to activate on recent changes, but it doesn't seem to now. ― Qwerfjkl  talk  18:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ed6767, @Chlod? &#8213; Qwerfjkl talk  17:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Qwerfjkl, do you mean the "RedWarn Patrol" button? ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 13:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ed6767 No, I thought there used to be in-place rollback for individual edits. If not, this would be a great feature (especially with the in-place diffs). &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Qwerfjkl, this was a feature in very early versions of RedWarn but proved unreliable and was replaced by RedWarn Patrol, there is in place rollback available on contributions pages. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 23:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Whitespace Bug
Hello RedWarners, there appears to be a bug in this script that is adding useless whitespace to the tops of new pages. See examples of these pages here. This was originally reported to WP:VPT by. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 23:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux, this is a side effect of the algorithm used to add date headers - if there aren't any on the page it adds some newlines (i.e. to create a gap between the last section). This is done regardless of whether the page is empty or not. I'm going to be rewriting the algorithm so will remove this in the new version. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 01:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Special:Diff/1045966469. Chlod ( RW • say hi!) 09:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

What limits the ability of vandals to destroy Wikipedia?
CONCERN: What limits the ability of vandals and biased / paid editors to use RedWarn (or other reversion tools like Wikipedia:Twinkle or Wikipedia:Huggle) to further their nefarious ends, demoralizing and demotivating honest editors and drive them away from Wikipedia?

I'm asking this question also on Managing conflict on Wikipedia and internationally, which I hope to develop into a presentation at WikiConference North America 2021 and perhaps elsewhere. My goal is to help improve how conflicts are managed in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects in ways that help reduce the intensity and lethality of major societal conflicts.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Twinkle requires users to be autoconfirmed (4-days-old and 10 edits), and Huggle requires users to have been granted the "rollback" permission (at least on the English Wikipedia). Like Twinkle, RedWarn requires that users be autoconfirmed, and automated features require that users be extended confirmed (30-days-old and 500 edits). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

Mobile support
Hello RedWarn team! I am very pleased with RedWarn but have one small issue; whenever I'm editing on my tablet, the RedWarn buttons don't activate. Basically, I can't use RedWarn's rollback or PCR tools. Is i it possible to add mobile support for the RedWarn buttons so that people can use it on touchscreen devices? Thank you! codingcyclone  please ping/my wreckage 21:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you're on Android with Chrome or Firefox, it should work. If your on iPadOS, Apple is Apple and requires every app to use the same browser engine that Safari uses, which isn't supported at the moment, but is something we're working on. Let us know if you need any more help. Thanks, ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 01:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @CodingCyclone See this discussion which has more details. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  15:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)