Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 2


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

TolBot 2
Operator:

Time filed: 00:22, Thursday, April 29, 2021 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Function overview: Automatically warn new users who have edited without an edit summary: every period, it retrieves the recent changes for the period and gives a Uw-editsummary to users who have: edited without an edit summary, and do not have a talk page.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A

Edit period(s): Continuous (period can be adjusted)

Estimated number of pages affected: ~26 per hour

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The bot:
 * 1) Logs in;
 * 2) Calculates the date and time to start (current date/time minus period);
 * 3) Gets recent changes from the API (filtering to only edits, no bots, no IPs, mainspace only) and loops through them:
 * 4) If there is no edit summary (it was revision-deleted or suppressed), or if the edit summary is not blank, or if the user has a talk page, it skips the edit;
 * 5) Else, it warns the user with Uw-editsummary (with a note at the end saying that it's from a bot).

Discussion

 * This doesn't seem like a good idea. The warning message is quite targeted - if a new user has no talk page I would consider it more worthwhile to give them a welcome message (which could include a link to info on edit summaries) rather than something so specific. Plus edit summaries are not always needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria: Help:Edit summary § Always provide an edit summary says that It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. I could change the wording based on feedback — perhaps something with elements of Welcome? Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 02:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would suggest reviewing the discussion at Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_165. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. However, the discussion mainly focuses on requiring edit summaries, particularly for users who are already aware of them. (Also, it was mentioned that edit summaries are more useful in mainspace. The API call already filters to only mainspace edits.) While the help page is not a policy or guideline, the Editing policy § Be helpful: explain states that users should Try to use an appropriate edit summary. This task would not send notices to experienced editors (assuming experienced editors have talk pages, which they often do), nor would it pressure users to use edit summaries beyond the standard template. Its purpose is not to enforce usage of edit summaries, it is to let new users know that they exist and that using them is helpful. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the mixed opinions regarding "Welcome bots" in the past, I am hesitant to immediately say this is a good or bad thing, but I do have some concerns. First, if the editor has no talk page, a welcome template would be more appropriate than even the nicest of warning templates. Second, as mentioned there is no requirement for edit summaries, though it is frowned upon to make mass changes without them (and for what it's worth, I've left notes even for experienced editors if they do it often enough). Third, what are you defining as a "new user": anyone that isn't (auto/)confirmed? Fourth, as you say this is really more of an article-space problem (e.g. "this new user just made a +1k edit but I cannot tell why they changed the info") than any other space, so if the previous concerns are met would it be possible to limit the search to just the article space? Primefac (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.
 * I could change this as needed — for example, giving a welcome with a note about edit summaries.
 * I understand; its purpose is not to make people use edit summaries, it's to make new users aware that they are a good idea. It would only leave one message, and the message ostensibly comes from WikiProject User warnings, so its text is probably fine.
 * As for "new user", currently it's set up to leave messages on anybody without a talk page; again, I could change this to be anybody who is not (auto)confirmed (or add additional requirements — perhaps their change has to be above a certain size, or not marked as minor, et cetera).
 * I have clarified that the recent changes API call already filters to mainspace edits only.
 * Thanks, Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 16:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a little sceptical about the utility of this task - while I fully agree that edit summaries should always be used in mainspace (and ideally everywhere), I'm not sure that there is a large enough problem with new users not using them to warrant automated warning/welcoming. Can you point to some discussions where this has come up? Thanks, ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Firefly: I don't recall any discussions. I had this idea because I often come across edits without summaries while patrolling recent changes (for vandalism), and I think giving messages to users who make those edits could be easily automated (it's very easy to automatically tell if there's an edit summary, and it's more difficult to do this manually — I'm not aware of a tag for edits without summaries). I'm not sure how common this is. I ran a dry run to get the ~26 edits per hour estimate; this was after removing duplicate users (those who make more than one edit without an edit summary — there were 20–30 additional edits without summaries by the same users), and was also filtered to users without talk pages and mainspace edits only. I don't know how effective this would be — it may be helpful to test this and see how many users start using summaries after the message. I'm currently running a dry run looking at the past 12 hours to get a better average number of edits, but it may take some time. I'd be willing to put this up for comment on some noticeboard to gauge opinion if you'd like. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 20:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: The 12 hour dry run is complete. There were 730 total mainspace edits without summaries by registered non-bot users without talk pages (61/hr), 354 after removing duplicates (30/hr), and 376 duplicates (31/hr). If anybody would like, I can also test this with different permutations (such as also checking IPs' edits, not checking for lack of a talk page, et cetera). Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 20:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This is too close to a welcome bot, and seems to have a decent risk of being seen as biting new users. If you want to move ahead with this task, I think you need to get consensus at WP:Village pump (proposals) first that people actually want a bot to be "warning" new users to use edit summaries. That discussion can also hammer out the exact definition of "new users" that should be used. Anomie⚔ 00:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not foresee this being so widely unfavorable, and at least for now, I don't think this is a large enough issue to merit taking it through a discussion. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 18:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard.