The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Function Summary: Adding the {{uw-editsummary}} template to user pages of registered users that have edited with a blank edit summary.
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous
Already has a bot flag(Y/N): No
Function Details: The bot takes the recent changes, grabs the registered users that have edited without adding and edit summary and it adds a {{uw-editsummary}} to their user talk page under the sate heading as a normal warn is added. It will not add the template if the template is already on the page. It will only add the message to registered users.
Is this really a useful task? Edit summaries are not mandatory. --Carnildo (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is a useful task. Also you have to remember that it will not say anything to auto edit summaries either. I think it's good to let people know and of course it will only let them know once. I was adding these templates manually for a while and many people than came and asked how to add the edit summary. They then started using edit an summary. Really i think this will make them more aware of it as many people (new users) don't even know what it is. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like this idea, these warning are very annoying and summaries are not required. βcommand 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an idea. Would you prefer it more if it looking in [1] instead of Special:RecentChanges. This way it would definalty not add this template to any advanced wikipedia editor but only to the new users that have just joined and are not so aware of edit summary s. Also this would then cut down on the amount of posting the bot would do. Tell me what you think now. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would work better but I think it should only leave a notice after say 3 or 5 times when it has occured. It should also not count edits to Sandboxes and the userspace. It should only post if the user has been welcomed as well. If not then it would act as some strange sort of welcoming bot. -- maelgwn - talk 11:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This feels problematic, at the least it should not be used against any edit marked as minor. Will this bot be nobots compliant? — xaosfluxTalk 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, it's a very useful task although I wonder if a "softer" template might be of better use -- Tawker (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says it will only let each user know once, so im not sure nobots compliance is very important. -- maelgwn - talk 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly disagree with this task. We give that warning to users who make questionable edits with no edit summaries, we don't spam it to any user that makes an edit with no edit summaries. If this request goes ahead despite my wishes, I would ask that only articlespace edits are considered. — Werdnatalk 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. i will make some changes or try to. It will only read from the newbies contribs so no members that have been on wikipedia for a long time. I was also thinking of making a separate template for the bot. One that also explains how to add a summary. Also i think that only in mainspace would be good as well, and that should be easy to do. I also think that working on it to only warn the user if they have not added an edit summary for X edits. And yes as it will not add the template again if it is already added then i don't think it should be nobots compliant. The discounting minor edits might be a good thing to add. I will reply here latter. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 12:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this does go forward, I'd ask that you only tag users who have made a certain number of edits (say 10) and more than half have not had a summary. I'd also prefer to see a message more explanatory than "Please provide an edit summary". --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It will now only warn over edit summarys that were done in mainspace. and also it will not warn for minor edits. I will work on the other stuff now. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How will you check to see if it has not added the warning previously? — xaosfluxTalk 01:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks for <!-- Template:uw-editsummary --> on the talk page. If it is there it will not add another message. If it is not there then it will (depending on the other stuff as well). With another template you would get the same piece of data and then make it search for it in the same way. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 06:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the message looks like at the moment.
Hi there $name. You are getting this message as you have been making edits without adding an edit summary. To add an edit summary just write a short description of what you have done in your edit in the box above the save page button. This will help people identify what has been done in your edit in the future. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It will include the users name and also links to the summary pge. I may make it say something like "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field" as this is what it says at Help:Edit summary. I will also add a graphic to it at some point. It will be signed by the bot and maybe say that this is a message from a bot so that the user does not reply to it. Also maybe a linkt o the helpdesk if they ened more help with the summary. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 11:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current implementation for checking whether or not they have been warned or not is flawed. If they remove the warning or if it is archived, they will be warned again. Not exactly something that should be posted every time it is removed when someone doesn't put an edit summary. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but remember that this will be running from the newbies contribs. And people only stay in the "new user" group for few days, i think. This would mean they could only get warned in these few days and if they do remove the warning after that they would not get warned. I don't think that this would proove to be a problem but if it does need to be changed we could just make it list the users it edits. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 06:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think keeping a list of warned users would be a good idea. It's not like it should be hard to implement. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot now checks the user/edit against the criteria. If it fits the criteria it moves on to the warn section. If it doesnt fit them then it skips the warn. In the warn one line logs to log.txt the list of names that have got to that stage. E.g. the ones that are MAJOR and REGISTERED with BLANK SUMMARY in MAIN NS. I could add another if statment saying if $name is in log.txt then skip. Now i just need to work out how to do all of that! I am now almost 100% sure that the bot only picks up major edits from registered users with no summary so the basic bit of the bot is done. If anyone has any more suggestions or tips or anything please tlel me ;p. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you run this in a discover only mode, to determine what actual edit volume you will be producing first? — xaosfluxTalk 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep i can, I just make the edit page always be my sandbox then it sees the warning and doesn't edit but still says fits criteria. Ill try to work out an average edits per minute. The edits per miniute should be very easy to control as in the bot there is a sleep for half a second currently. This is between each nickname check. And the recent changes currently grabs 10 names and i could change that also to change how many RC requests e.t.c. Half the edits = 1 second wait e.t.c. Ill go test now!. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well in this 1 minute it tried to give out 10 messages. 9 messages if you don't include duplicates. Also at the moment it is still running of the normal Recent Changes as i cant figure out now to use the newbies recent changes in the framework. During a real bot run the edits would be slightly ore spaced out as the bot would actually have to post the message rather than skipping it as in this test. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 07:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While an important factor (epm) I'm more interested at this time in what total volume (i.e. edits per hour or per day) would be, to scale how much affect this would have. — xaosfluxTalk 11:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i cant really say that yet as i have yet to implement the min and max edits (user wont be warned if he has above $max edits or below $min edits. I am still trying to do this but the query.php isn't being used any more as i got told so i have to change the function to use api. I hope i can doo this soon. Then i can leave the bot running for 24 hours and pickup how many edits the bot would have made. I will also add things such as if the user has a final warning then it won't bother to message then e.t.c. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please don't approve this task for anyone. Not even newbies. We have the edit summary message, which humans can add, using good judgement, in an appropriate situation. Not a bot. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The messages are not aimed at users that add edit summarys. It is aimed at those new users (mainly) that never add and edit summarty and most dont even know what one is or how to add it. That is why i am / will bve trying to make it only after 5 edits with no summary. See User:Addbot/TODO·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 11:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next to the edit summary field there's a link to the help page. There's a link to it in the welcome message. There's no need for an annoying new messages bar to appear too. And if this is approved, I would hope the message given has much improved grammar and clarity...it looks very unprofessional as is. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i have updated the message so that it includes a link to the helpdesk. This is an exact copy of what the bot would post for an example user e.t.c.
==May 2008==
Hi there Misaq Rabab. You are getting this message as you have been making edits without adding an edit summary. To add an edit summary just write a short description of what you have done in your edit in the box above the save page button. This will help people identify what has been done in your edit in the future. If you need further help then please ask at the help desk. Addbot (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an automatic notification from Addbot. If this is an error then please contact the bot's owner.
If you can think of any ways to improve this then please tell me. In my opinion it isnt very usefull saying it is unclear if you dont say what is unclear about it e.t.c. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 14:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I agree with User:Dihydrogen Monoxide here. Like he said, it really does require human judgment when adding this template, and so I would strongly recommend getting proper consensus first. —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using edit summaries is a guideline. It doesn't seem like a good idea to target new editors with notices about finer points of wiki editing, except perhaps in some extreme cases (like >100 edits, 0% edit summaries). Gimmetrow 04:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the bot should be configured to add the notice only if a new user makes a large edit without a summary. Chenzw (talk·contribs) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could be done and i think that that is a good idea. Say if te difference is 500 or more? If anyone has any suggestions please post them here. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 07:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i have done that. Can anyone suggest to me what a good size difference would be? Currently it is set at 250 which to me is about right. Also the bot now waits for 1 second between each page check rather then 0.5 as i found that the bot re read some of the changes. In my eyes this bot if ready. When i ran it just then it caught one person in 1 minute. It now requests 25 recent changes each time. Some examples of users that it would have messaged are Blackshod, Profb21 and these are the people that i think should be getting this message sent to them. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will there be any sort of delay between the time the user makes the edit and the bot adds the template? If not this is going to end up telling a lot of vandals to use edit summaries, which is pretty pointless (and maybe even counter-productive). It should wait, then check if the user is blocked before leaving the message Also, what about the autogenerated summaries from editing sections or the various automatic edit summaries? Will the bot interpret these as not having a summary? Mr.Z-man 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i was thinking of making the bot also chack the talk page to see if the user has any warns (3 + 4 + Block) ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 07:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've had sufficient discussion to make a decision. Would people please signify their opinion below? — Werdnatalk 10:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be denied, I thoroughly disagree with a task of this nature being undertaken by a bot. I also find particular aspects of the bot itself objectionable (such as its message). — Werdnatalk 10:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be sufficient community support for this at this time, please include links to any other pages if support has been endorsed elsewhere. — xaosfluxTalk 11:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although, its a good idea in principal (people should use edit summaries, make others lives easier, etc).... I do think that it isnt really the best idea to have a bot to do this. Edit summaries are optional, so it seems just wasted work telling people if they havent... I have the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in my preferences enabled which generally reminds me if i forget to enter an edit summary... —Reedy 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deny. Edit summaries are not compulsory, nor is the proposed bot/process completely suitable for the job (eg. the message proposed is still poorly worded). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deny. sounds like talk page spam to me. -- maelgwn - talk 11:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's just too many complications for a bot to do this well. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Kind of a good idea (still glitchy) but no thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator.
I will withdraw this bot now. I will continue developing and changing it as i still think that it can be a good bot. If anyone has any input on how you think it can be improved such as you Werdna with the message then please message me on my talk page. Thanks. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 20:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If you can, you may get a better consensus for the bot to be approved, etc! —Reedy 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Withdrawn by operator.
Withdrawn by operator.
I will withdraw this bot now. I will continue developing and changing it as i still think that it can be a good bot. If anyone has any input on how you think it can be improved such as you Werdna with the message then please message me on my talk page. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 20:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)