Bug Report Feature Request

Going Ultraviolet[edit]

Hello there! By now, you may have already noticed that RedWarn hasn't had any major updates since 16.1 (released on March 8, 2021), and we've only been sending out some minor patches and bugfixes since then. In that time, we've been hard at work developing a complete rewrite of the project since September 2020, and we've finally done enough work to be able to release a beta version of this rewrite soon.

Because of many different factors, including the rewrite having diverged so much from the original code, the team has decided to give this version of RedWarn a brand new name. We've decided to call it Ultraviolet; electromagnetic radiation found past the opposite side of red on the visible light spectrum. Releases of the userscript will eventually be available on user pages of 10nm — 10 nanometers being the smallest possible wavelength of ultraviolet light. We're still working on getting a user-friendly version of Ultraviolet available; we ask for your patience as we get closer to releasing more feature-filled builds of Ultraviolet.

Is this a new script or just a rebranded version of RedWarn?

In essence, Ultraviolet is a rewritten version of RedWarn. That said, most of the original code has been removed or replaced. Significant work has also been done to make the process of using the script smooth and universal, removing nearly all of the UI-related bugs experienced in the current version of RedWarn. In addition, we're also working on Safari support, mobile usability, internationalization (other languages), wiki-specific configurations, a dark mode, and a lot more features that make Ultraviolet just work out of the box.

What this means for RedWarn

For a while, we've been holding off on development of further versions of RedWarn in favor of the rewrite. Expanding on the current code is a feat that would take a significant amount of time, on par with just rewriting the script itself. For now, RedWarn will still be supported and given security updates and patches for minor bugs. Once Ultraviolet has been completed and integrates all the features of RedWarn, we will decommission RedWarn and ask users to switch to the new userscript.

What this means for you, as a user

Stick to RedWarn while we're still working on implementing all the features of RedWarn into Ultraviolet. Rest assured, we will still provide updates that prioritize user safety and security, so you can still use RedWarn without the fear of compromise. We highly recommend to anyone who does counter-vandalism patrol often to use only RedWarn for now in order to avoid any catastrophic bugs. We're still finishing up on making the script backwards-compatible with your existing RedWarn configuration, after that we'll begin providing beta versions of Ultraviolet, so that anyone who wishes to use Ultraviolet before it has caught up with RedWarn can do so.

You'll be able to keep on using RedWarn until we've made our first release version (i.e. 1.0) of Ultraviolet. After that, we will require you to switch to Ultraviolet from RedWarn, as we will be dropping support for RedWarn. Although this may be a bit of a bother, we ask for your patience in this eventual transition.

What else this means

We'll be moving away from the RedWarn name entirely in the coming months. The team believes it's important to move away from the name, as most of Ultraviolet has been built from scratch and holds little to no resemblance to RedWarn (at least in terms of the code), and due to some other reasons.

This is a big milestone for us as userscript developers, and we hope to have your full support. In case you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask us about them below. Thanks!

Written by Chlod, Berrely, Sennecaster, and Remagoxer. Published by Chlod (RW • say hi!) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Chlod, is there any update on the progress of this? There's no rush, just curious. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, @Qwerfjkl! The developers are currently busy on a few things, me specifically being busy (in recent months) with Deputy, although now that the bulk of the starting work on that has wrapped up, I can start working on Ultraviolet again. In the meantime, we've been doing some background work that'll help us facilitate the move from GitLab.org to Wikimedia GitLab, and we're currently planning how to perform that migration within the near future. Next up on the list of major features up for implementation is a module for marking pages for speedy deletion, so that's on my list of things to research. Hope this answers your question! Chlod (UV • say hi!) 03:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chlod, is UV is in full swing operation or still in the process of moving? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still moving but close to completion, I would advise to remain with redwarn as UV is still in beta and doesn't have all the features of redwarn fully implemented. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up @Zippybonzo. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 04:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@98Tigerius: All of our old RedWarn pages have moved already. We just haven't changed the top banner since UV doesn't have a 1.0 release yet. Right now, UV is already equipped with a lot of the basic features, and it's just a matter of porting all of the old features back in (and for MAT and Quick Templates, redesigning the process entirely). Implementing these would benefit a sprint, but it's slowly been just me doing the work as other members of the team have been busy with real life things (and so have I). I don't like giving timetables when I don't know if I can fulfill it, so there's no estimations on when UV 1.0 will be out. @Zippybonzo's right in that UV still lacks features, but if you don't use anything in Wikipedia:Ultraviolet/Compatibility matrix labeled "Not yet", then switching over shouldn't be an issue. Ultimately it's up to you on whether you'd like to switch or not. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 07:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great and thanks a lot for giving more info about the progress of UV. I already used UV for short period but switch back to RW. You are doing well and all development team, keep it up! ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 13:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages[edit]

Hello! I haven't tried to use Redwarn myself, so I don't know how it looks from a user perspective, but I have a comment.

@98Tigerius reverted me here [1], apparently using redwarn. However, this was at a talkpage. On talkpages, non-RS sources are sometimes used and discussed in a way they can't be in articles. I don't know what 98Tigerius was "told" by redwarn, but should/could the talkpage aspect of it have been made clearer somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like user error. Redwarn, and UV (at least to my knowledge), simply show you a series of buttons above the "latest revision" when comparing diffs. The user in question can, and should, see that the edits were to Talk:BTS rather than BTS. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 18:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make softer worded copyvio notice the default?[edit]

This is an issue that I have came across often and if anyone requests diffs for them I can provide a few. Basically, the issue is that for both RW and UV, when I press "quick rollback copyright violation" and proceed to warn the user, the default template selected is ((Uw-copyright)).

I feel like this is an issue as far too many users have been using this template for users who barely made any edits, which could be biting newcomers. I think ((Uw-copyright-new)) should be the default template instead. I'm not sure if this change could be made with RW, but with UV I believe there is some kind of .json page (I lost track of which) that easily allows you to change this. I was going to try find that page and boldly change this, but I then thought I would rather get some discussion first. Any opinions on this? User3749 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that .json page I was talking about, Wikipedia:Ultraviolet/configuration.json. However since this is a significant change I won't implement this until there is discussion and consensus for this change. User3749 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a copyright-focused editor, sounds good to me! We know when to use the stricter warning anyways (and repeat offenders should be sent to WP:ANI/WP:CCI anyways); using the less strict warning as a default for vandalism-focused editors sounds just fine. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an issue with that page where the warning for ((Uw-editsummary)) says "not using edit comment" which doesn't make sense. I changed that one word but it somehow ended up removing a lot of text so I just self reverted. User3749 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's normal; the JSON file hasn't been updated since JSON began being indented using tabs. I've null edited (not really) the file to have it reformatted. Further changes.

Question about RedWarn Patrol[edit]

How do I know what edits are bad or good? - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((Uw-copyright-new)) body text revision and improvements[edit]

Good day, this is a courteous message to inform Ultraviolet's maintainers and users that:

  1.  Implemented: Revision and improvement to the body text in the warning message for ((Uw-copyright-new)), included in the standard installation of Ultraviolet.
  2. Not sure. : This should only affect Ultraviolet, and its users, if the boldtext parameter is used. In such a case,  string of text in |boldtext=string of text may no longer function as expected as the body text at ((Uw-copyright-new/body)) has changed. But it seems it would be used more by users who would add the template manually.
  3. Checked: Checked testcases and tried implementation with Twinkle in as many ways as possible. Functioning as expected.
  4. Not sure. : Implementation with Ultraviolet as I have no experience with Ultraviolet.

waddie96 ★ (talk) 9:35 pm, Today (UTC+2) waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, @Waddie96! This shouldn't have any impact for Ultraviolet, but we appreciate the notice. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 09:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Template:AIV Notice[edit]

Hi, can you add ((AIV Notice)) to the list of available warning templates, you could also put an option to give this warning on the report to AIV screen. This way whenever you reported someone to AIV through Ultraviolet you could easily leave a notice on their talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCWikiMan (talk • contribs) 08:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @CCWikiMan! I don't see widespread use of ((AIV Notice)) (I see only 11 hits), nor its inclusion at WP:UWT, which is our usual minimum before adding new warnings. Personally, I don't see this template to be that useful, considering we should probably just WP:DENY if someone's reached enough warnings to warrant reporting to AIV. Please do confer this first with WT:UWT, or start relevant discussions to have the template added as part on our processes in WT:VAND or WT:AIV, and we may reconsider this. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 09:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More