This proposal is a larger suggestion that is out of scope for the Community Tech team. Participants are welcome to vote on it, but please note that regardless of popularity, there is no guarantee this proposal will be implemented. Supporting the idea helps communicate its urgency to the broader movement.
Allow changing text written in the "Edit summary" after saving an edit
Problem: When a user makes an edit, they can use the edit summary (Help:Edit summary) to write something. However, he realizes that he has written something wrong but cannot correct it as he cannot edit the edit summary.
Proposed solution: Allow users to make an edit summary change after saving their edits to correct something they wrote wrong.
Who would benefit: All users would benefit, as they would be able to resolve any information errors in the edit summary. Even administrators could benefit from the proposal, correcting any injustices regarding fallacious accusations in "edit summary" after a more careful analysis of the community on conflicts. I believe that everyone would have the opportunity to redeem themselves for any errors written in the edit summary.
More comments: With the approval of this proposal, it should be implemented in all Wiki projects. I believe that each local project could determine internal rules to avoid possible abuse of the edit summary, so this would be the role of each local community. The MediaWiki developers would initially allow the ability to edit summary without any restrictions.
Old task for this was T12105. It would be pretty complex, you need an audit trail, a place to put that audit trail (which can't be the page history), a way to see changes, a way to revert, RC / watchlist integration, probably AbuseFilter integration... --Tgr (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There are way too many issues with this, specifically the attribution of the edits to the edit summary. This was discussed recently on enWiki but I can't seem to find the thread at the moment. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654523:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Deeply problematic suggestion. If editors encounter this issue then the solution is null edits to clarify in page history or talk page if necessary. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be an __END__ magic word you could use to force dummy edits to save, but it was removed a very long time ago... I honestly miss it, lol. —Locke Cole • t • c09:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then all these magical details should be just implemented automatically, giving end users (WP editors) a human-friendly interface to amend their edit summaries. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There has to be an immutable ground truth of edits at some level of abstraction, and I think it's pretty well conceptualized as things are. I acknowledge the rough edges of the current system, but on balance it's significantly better as-is. NillaGoon (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this is doable, I'm in favor, as long as the history of edits to the edit summary is preserved. I've often made small errors and wished I could go back and correct them, for the benefit of those who peruse the history of a page. Waldyrious (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sometime i indeed write an incorrect summary edit, generally because i have selected the wrong choice from my browser auto-fill proposals. I wish i could correct them for a correct history. That said, this may be a problem, so maybe restrict this option to be available only a short period, like 1 hour (or even less). Miniwark (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abuse could be prevented by limiting the time frame in which the edit is possible and by storing the history of the edit summaries. Titore (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Titore and Miniwark suggested, a very small time frame (even 20 or 30 seconds, or 1 minute) could prevent abuse. Adding a tag that the edit summary has been edited, and the prerequisite that no other edits have been made during this time frame, could avoid confusion. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A 60 second window in which to fix a summary would be very useful. Maybe also the option to append a second edit summary to explain a bad edit summary? Dummy edits are ugly. Doktor Züm (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe within a timeframe or before additional edit afterwards. Sometimes you press enter and then realize you had more to say! Dblu9494 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless it is limited to a few seconds (up to 60sec). Being able to change edit summaries could make editors doubt the good faith of other users Trimton (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Too much opportunity for gaslighting and other manipulation. I could support a strikethrough of the summary followed by a new summary. Constant314 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Probably should be possible only until another edit is made, like editing a git repo's history. Null/dummy edits clutter up history and make it harder to read. In fact, it should also be possible to submit multiple subsequent changes to the article that are combined into a single edit, like edits are treated on Stack Exchange. — Omegatron (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it is doable. —2dk (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose There are way too many issues with this, specifically the attribution of the edits to the edit summary. This was discussed recently on enWiki but I can't seem to find the thread at the moment. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per above. * Pppery * it has begun 04:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Weak support Sometime i indeed write an incorrect summary edit, generally because i have selected the wrong choice from my browser auto-fill proposals. I wish i could correct them for a correct history. That said, this may be a problem, so maybe restrict this option to be available only a short period, like 1 hour (or even less). Miniwark (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Strong support Probably should be possible only until another edit is made, like editing a git repo's history. Null/dummy edits clutter up history and make it harder to read. In fact, it should also be possible to submit multiple subsequent changes to the article that are combined into a single edit, like edits are treated on Stack Exchange. — Omegatron (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
