Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Archive/Allow update of stored edit-summary

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Random proposal ►

 ◄ Back to Archive

NoN Declined as it opens up a potential venue for harassment - cannot be addressed until there is a good solution to tackle that

  • Problem: Correcting a saved edit-summary line should be allowed, by the recent user, even if for less than an hour later. A misleading typo or personal attack could be corrected, after the user re-thinks the edit-summary line.
  • Who would benefit: Everyone, especially if asked to redact a veiled insult within the edit-summary text.
  • Proposed solution: Perhaps have a "[mod]" modify-button in the history-page, at end of each revision remark, while the time-period is active for updates to an edit-summary line. However, do not change page contents, nor alter the revision date of the saved revision.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Wikid77 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Let's find a method to do this. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Wikid77. The problem with this wish is that we don't have a system in place for tracking changes to edit summaries. Like all other content on the wikis, we need to be able to track changes (keep history) for edit summaries. Otherwise people can abuse the edit summary. They may initially use it to abuse someone and then change the content. We will have no way to see what they wrote originally if we don't store all history. See discussion on task T15937#2606108 for more information. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't want to save the prior edit-summary, but rather redact the text and put another edit-summary text. Example: someone saves a revision with "to discuss call me at phone xxx-xxxx" and then a patroller asks to redact phone number, so the overwrite revision could be a dummy-edit with summary "overwrote prior edit-summary" but omit the phone-number as truly a redacted summary line, in the prior revision (or some other numbered revision). I guess this feature could be called "redact edit-summary" to clarify as no storage of the previous edit-summary, but just store a dummy same-content revision to log who re-saved the redacted edit-summary text (and when it was re-saved). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is something discussed I discussed with some of my other fellow editors offline and we treated it as a joke but here it is, but I don't know the submitter. Thus is something like flow, which allow posts to be edited. Pros will be per above which there isn't a need to use a dummy edit to indicate any changed or you forgotten about it. Cons are aplenty, this can turn into an entire namespace called edit summary namespace where we need protection, patrolling, revdel of edited summary, and etc which I personally will not look forward to. A dummy minor edit seems fine for me.--Cohaf (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Storing a new dummy-edit revision, to log the overwrite of a redacted-summary revision sounds like a good method, as a record of who redacted the edit-summary text of the (troublesome) revision and when it was redacted. If the software demands a content change, then perhaps add a blank space at end of last line in the page, to avoid putting a significant space within a top template's literal parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You actually missed my point, if you wish to change an edit summary, just do a dummy edit and Mark it as a minor edit with the summary being what is supposed to change and then ask for suppression (if it is oversight issues) or a revision delete of the edit summary (usually RD2,RD3). This current system works well and I don't see why there is a need to change. --Cohaf (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77 We discussed this wish in our team meeting today and everyone had deep concerns about this proposal. There is a lot of scope for misuse of this feature. A user can put down offensive comments against another user in an edit summary and then a short while later, change it. If an admin doesn't see it, the user won't be banned. This can be very problematic and opens up an avenue for harassment. We are sorry but this project is probably not a good idea. I understand the value of this project but there are too many potential concerns with it. Thanks for submitting the proposal. I am sorry for the inconvenience. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)