Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet/2023/September
 | 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. |
UAA report formatting
Looks like there's some missing punctuation in the UAA report template – see this diff, where I reported a username for "Promotional username", with some additional information. I'd imagine that should have come out as "Promotional username. Single contribution so far was..." instead. Box of wolves (feed) 02:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Should be fixed in a few minutes. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 02:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Box of wolves (feed) 02:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Fixed! Let me know if there's still issues. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 02:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- You got it. Hopefully I won't have to use it again anytime soon! Box of wolves (feed) 03:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Box of wolves (feed) 02:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Is RedWarn or UV for me?
I currently use Twinkle and only patrol for vandalism and errors on pages on my watchlist. Should I try one of these tools, or are they mainly meant for people who patrol Special:RecentChanges? (I have had the rollbacker role for years.) Jc3s5h (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Jc3s5h, RedWarn and UV are both quite similar to Twinkle and aren't just for RC reviewers. Give them both a try, and see which one you prefer :) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 12:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- If I want to try UV, do I have to disable Twinkle first? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h, No. They might have overlapping features though. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- If I want to try UV, do I have to disable Twinkle first? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
vandalism4 warning filed multiple times
Please write your message here. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) A vandal, Asie kij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that I had watchlisted, received multiple additional final warnings from a user of your script, and after the vandal had already been reported to AIV. Apparently, your script was able to identify the fact that the vandal had been warned multiple times in order to issue a uw-vandalism4 warning, but repeatedly failed to notice that the vandal had already been given that warning, and failed to prompt the user of your script to report to AIV, which would have been embarrassing, since the AIV report was already there. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, @RecycledPixels! I take it that you're reporting this on behalf of @GMH Melbourne after the discussion you started on their talk page. RedWarn already informs the user if a level 4 warning has been given in its warning dialog (and, in fact, encourages the user to file an AIV report instead), and also prevents a user from filing duplicate AIV reports. Ultraviolet, its successor as RedWarn is no longer actively worked on, also does this.
- It seems GMH Melbourne has configured RedWarn to automatically warn the user after performing a revert, which bypasses the warning dialog under the assumption that the editor knows what they're doing. In this situation, it did exactly as it was programmed and exactly as the user had configured it; no defect or bug occurred. My suggestion for GMH Melbourne would be to disable automatic warning or to be more vigilant when patrolling. Vandalism patrollers are expected to exercise caution as part of their use of the tools provided to them. This includes noticing the same page showing up in RecentChanges, and remembering that the user they have reverted the edits of. Chlod (UV • say hi!) 10:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)