Forum:Edit report

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Edit report
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 17 April 2010 by Liquidhelium.

I'm starting this forum about the Edit report service provided by Quarenon and its use in Requests for adminship. Degen and I were having a discussion about this on his talk page. There are two sides to this issue. On one hand, the raw numbers provided by the edit report (such as the number of times Reported using Auto CVU was used as an edit summary, or the number of times the CVU page was edited) could make users focus excessively on quantity and not enough on quality. On the other hand, the quality of the edits generally has a positive correlation with quantity, so that a large number of CVU reports generally means high quality. Degen has removed the edit report from the Userinfo template. See the page history for his reason.

I am starting this Yew Grove thread in an attempt to get the Edit report link placed back in there, as well as get the community opinion on the Edit report service. Please post your thoughts under the Discussion header.

Thanks,
--LiquidTalk 19:54, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Degen's talk

Oh, I just realized where the edit report for Template:Userinfo went. How is it detrimental as a tool? I don't see instances of people getting caught up over numbers. --LiquidTalk 18:31, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

On a current Rfa there are some examples of pointing out how often this that or the other template is used and such but if one looks at the actual edits they can learn a lot more, and should. Rfas and people are about what they do, not the numbers the generate. Some people can have a hundred reports to the CVU but they may all be nonsense, where another may have 20 good reports. That 20 beats the 100. Remving the report will force our people to hopefully examine the contribs themselves, and not be lazy and look at a report of numbers that doesn't say anything about the quality of a persons edits.--Degenret01 18:45, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Er, I guess that would be me, on Stelercus's RfA. I have been "stalking" the CVU for quite a while, so I know what the reports are like. I have seen Stelercus report people for very minor things, for example inserting I LIKE PIE into an article. The numbers are just backup for my observations, but I only included the numbers since they were hard evidence. Personally, I only try to report vandals that either vandalize more than once or do something quite severe. But, is it possible for someone to learn that without knowing me? I don't think so. While the number is not as important as the quality, there is a good chance that a high number corresponds to at least decent quality. To truly discern quality is a very time consuming process, so personally I favor a one-stop-shop that provides us with the information we need without taking up excessive amounts of our time. That's just my 2 cents. --LiquidTalk 18:52, March 20, 2010 (UTC)


Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 19:54, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It makes voting for something such as an RfA much easier. It provides information about one user that would take a long time to work out manually.   Swizz Talk   Events!   21:15, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I didn't even know it was removed. The reports may be a bit flawed, but they're great. No reason to remove em. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:51, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Yes reason to remove them, they encourage more laziness and get people to not actually review an individuals edits. I am not saying you have or he has or who has, but being the humans we are if we can glance at a report and make assumptions than a great majority of us will do so. It is just how people are. Depending on a report means you should not even be participating in an RFA discussion. It is about reviewing the users edits to get a feel for them as a person, to decide how they would handle/use the tools of being a sysop. You do NOT get that in a automated report that says nothing about the quality of the edits. We are not robots, and should not be granted tools on a basis of our numbers alone. If you are not willing to spend at least twenty minutes reviewing a lot of a nominees edits, then you are doing this wiki a great disservice by participating in that RFA discussion. Note that I say participating, not contributing. Because if you can not review the person, then you are not contributing.--Degenret01 00:29, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As the person who added the edit report link to the template in the first place, per Degen. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:35, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think more information is better in the case of RFA's. If some people only look at the reports, it will be evident in their reasoning. From the current RFA's I see some people only citing mainspace edit count in their reasoning. Some people will be thorough and some will be casual, but offering more sources of information I think would encourage people to look more not less. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 00:57, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - To go along with what Tollerach said, the Edit report will encourage users to provide more than just the Mainspace edit count, since it provides so much more information about the user. The mainspace edit count can be easily gotten from the Special:EditCount page, so if the Edit report service is removed, I'd predict some more mainspace edit votes that only cite mainspace edits/total edits. --LiquidTalk 01:57, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just to be clear I do not think these reports are totally worthless or a waste of time. Dedicated wikians can make certain judgments based off the information provided. But those same dedicated wikians can view a report and understand it without letting it totally rule their thought/decision process. Many people however would not be able able to, through either laziness on their part, or simply not giving enough thought to the process. Rather, if we could provide a set of links to a candidates most recent contribs in certain areas, say 20 YG threads, 20 CVU reports, 20 talk page edits, maybe 20 edits of the candidates own choosing, and the like, that would be of great use and most helpful in determining how a person acts. Hell, I am suddenly wishing I knew the kind of what ever necessary to add that, it would really help us. Twenty is not a hard number btw, if someone knew how to do this and ran with it but chose 25 or whatever I would still love it.--Degenret01 03:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would just like to comment on the "edit count" link. Why wasn't the edit count link removed? Isn't edit count similar to the edit report, as it only shows numbers... If the edit report is removed, the edit count should have been removed as well. And, what stops a person from judging the candidate based on their edit count alone? There doesn't seem to be consistency in the reasoning given by Degenret01. I just feel that you either remove both links, or keep both.

And did you know that the Userinfo template is not only used in RfAs, but in other places where the "edit report" link may be beneficial and informative? For example, the template is used in user pages, bot pages, RuneScape:Bots/List, etc.

If the consensus is to remove the links, then it should be coded in such a way that it doesn't appear only in RfA pages. (And yes, it is possible.)   az talk   03:57, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Or we'd just make two templates. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:36, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Nah. That would be redundant.   az talk   10:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Some places, like Editor review, could potentially have the same problem that Degen mentioned. --LiquidTalk 11:56, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. But the question still remains: why remove edit report when edit count is basically the same thing? The edit count link has been there a while, and no one seemed to mind, but when the edit report link was added, everyone seemed to take notice? Why?   az talk   04:00, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've edited the template so that a second parameter can be taken in, and true can be used as the second parameter to signify the edit report. So, for RfA's, use {{Userinfo|Username}}. For everything else, use {{Userinfo|Username|true}}. I think the template is used mostly in RfA's, so I've made the default template the RfA one. Someone that's better at coding than me can go brush up my code. --LiquidTalk 17:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

However, that does not solve the issue of whether or not we include the edit report in RfA's. I'm still of the opinion that it's a valuable resource that we should embrace and condone the use of. --LiquidTalk 20:59, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of matching the BASEPAGENAME (using SWITCH) where the template is used, and hiding the links automatically... the following would have been easier as it does not require input from users:   az talk   04:00, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
{{#switch:{{lc:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}|requests for adminship|requests for bureaucratship|editor review=Last 25 contributions links|#default=Edit count and edit report links}}
Wouldn't it save some 16 bytes to use {{PAGENAME}} instead of {{BASEPAGENAME}}? Hello71 02:23, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. Most of the RfA pages are Request for adminship/Username So, PAGENAME would return that whole name, including the username, and then we'd be in trouble. BASEPAGENAME only returns Request for adminship so we're good. --LiquidTalk 02:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Or we could substring the first 21 characters and then check that, but it would probably be easier just to use {{BASEPAGENAME}} Hello71 02:32, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Or you could use #if: instead of #switch: Hello71 20:32, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
That would work too, but would still wind up needing more space since you need to test against multiple pages, requiring multiple #ifs. --Quarenon  Talk 17:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment @ Degen - We can easily show a users last 20 contributions in any given namespace. That gives us:

  1. Users last 20 YG contributions
  2. Users last 20 user talk page contributions
  3. I can't figure out how to sort a page history by contributor (for contributions to CVU and Admin requests) but this tool might be a step in the right direction.

Hope these help. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 21:44, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Toll, thats going in the right direction. If we want the Edit report tool linked in RFAs and Editor Reviews then it would be a real benefit to include these items also, if the link is present people are likely to click it. All of these taken together will give a much broader base to help us make our decisions yet without being so many its overbearing and oppressive. Azliq7 has a couple cases listed of where the edit report is useful but I don't see these extra items (the Yew Grove and Talk page contributions) having any benefit in those instances, so I think Liquid has a good idea to use two separate applications of it. Any of your coding people interested in adding the items Toll listed to the top of the Edit report? Listing them first then the numerical summary underneath will also encourage actual clicking and reviewing rather than ignoring.--Degenret01 16:25, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just a reminder that we should get a consensus on whether or not to add the Edit report back into ALL things that use the Userinfo template, including RfAs. --LiquidTalk 01:44, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

No one is opposed to it being used, just against it being used as it stands right now. I have no doubt your able to look at it and many other things and get a good grasp on many factors, but after having (literally) thousands of coworkers in my past, I can say you are the exception rather than the rule, which is why I really say these additional items need to be added if we are going to have the edit report used at all. To be fair to the nominees and to the wiki.--Degenret01 10:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - My opinion may obviously be subjective, but I think these reports would be useful on RFAs. For example, the graphical information gives a nice overview of how active a user is on the wiki using a historical context, and the per-namespace count of unique page edits gives an idea of the breadth of a user's contributions.

Degenret makes a good argument that this report largely quantifies the user's contributions and a useful RFA vote must also take into account the actual contents of a user's edits. Therefore, an RFA vote which cites only the edit report won't be all that useful, but it can be used to strengthen a vote.

Ultimately, if there's something in the edit reports which are worth mentioning in an RFA, then it can be brought up with or without a link in the userinfo template. But, I'll have to agree with Azliq though on her question which has still not been addressed; why was the edit count link unaffected by the changes? The edit report contains the same info as the edit count page with additional analysis. The current arguments leave either both links left in the template or both of them removed; not one or the other. --Quarenon  Talk 17:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Why I didn't remove edit count - A few reasons, and I am sure people will disagree, that is fine. I am not presenting these as arguments per se for purposes of discussion, but because people are asking why.

  • The numbers alone tell a little without giving any thing substantial, I am of the opinion that no reasoning intellect here would use these numbers alone as a basis for judging the worthiness of a nominee.(except in those cases where the total edits are extremely low showing that the person isn't even really into the community yet).
The flip side of this is the edit report is so neat and full of data some people might use that as their entire basis for judging.
  • The last time I tried to get rid of some thing that was here before me, I was called stupid, an idiot, moron, unthinking, not reasonable, and full of shit. I didn't feel like going through that again.

Can we just get past the whys and focus on how to make the infobar for RFAs the most useful and informative for the nominee and the wiki? I think it should list out

  • "User,User Talk • Contribs • Last 20 YG contribs • Last 20 Talk page contribs • Last 20 Mainspace contribs • Edit count • Edit report"

I do not know how to do this, add this info into that bar. Sorry.If anyone else does, that would be great if they could make that happen. --Degenret01 02:01, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Coded and ready to go, with examples here. Not adding it to the template yet, since Liquidhelmhelium expressed annoyance at the constant editing of the template... Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:03, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks for the explanation, Degenret. Also, the template looks good. Do we want to have a version with just the user/talk/contribs links for non-RFA type pages? --Quarenon  Talk 04:21, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Is that for the stuff Azliq7 mentioned above? Yea, I think two diff templates would be a good idea, less clutter in those instances we do not need it. Name it however you guys think it should be, I only use them in RFAs so you should pick a name that makes sense to you.--Degenret01 04:46, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
We can automate it on the same template fairly easily, I'll add that in if we have a list of areas that we do or don't want the links to appear on. I'll add a manual override too. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:40, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am totally understanding that silence does not mean consensus, but if we get no other input I will implement the work Gaz did in a couple of days. Thanks much for that Gaz.--Degenret01 08:11, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why "Last 20 Talk page contribs"? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:15, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

That tells us how they communicate with others. Not saying it has to be all serious all the time or anything like that, but how a person communicates says a bit about how they handle themselves. We have always linked to their talk page, so this made sense to me to go the other way also.--Degenret01 14:14, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, okay. That makes sense. However, I think the template would look a bit overcrowded this way. Maybe make a few links smaller? Like "Last 20 edits to: mainspace talk forum". But that could make it look messy... Frown Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:55, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Gaz did alter it to make it shorter, follow his link up there, but if you don't want to it displays as

"User Talk • Contribs • Forum edits • Main edits • Talk edits • Edit count • Edit report "
It's still a little long but I think the information is more valuable than layout, something we have to always be balancing.--Degenret01 23:02, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Why edits in the Talk namespace? The Talk namespace is used for discussions about articles. I don't know about you, but those discussions don't occur very frequently. I know that I have very few edits in the Talk namespace compared to other namespaces. If you really want to know how the user is communicating with others, then wouldn't the link to the User talk namespace be better? That's where the majority of user-user interaction takes place. --LiquidTalk 15:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Yea, that is what I was thinking about but I forgot it was a different namespace. I'll ask Gaz to fix it.--Degenret01 10:08, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to the user talk: namespace. I also added a few extra things to it - a 'display name' (which was added to the original anyway) and hiding the links. The extra links (the last 20s) are shown by default on RfAs and ERs, hidden by default elsewhere, but can be forced to appear using links=yes, or forced to hide on those pages using links=no. We can add pages to that list fairly easily, so if any more need to be added it won't be a problem.
I also changed the layout a little, its now User Talk • Contribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk edits • Edit count • Edit report (note the - instead of • between the last 20s). Opinions?
Examples of all that can be seen in my sandbox still. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:31, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. Except in your sandbox. Why does it say Liquid helm? Angry --LiquidTalk 13:44, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per 7I+0 HaloTalk 14:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

More than satisfied Give a couple more days again just in case a new cool idea strikes/occurs, then we can make it happen.--Degenret01 15:42, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Objection - The current version in Gareth's sandbox has the ability to take a second parameter to display a different name than the username. Since this is the wiki, and we do not support changing display names, there is very little reason to show a name other than the username. Gareth tells me that 3i+1 was the original perpetrator of the idea, which leads me tot hink that he just put it in there to be able to call me Liquid helm. Since it has very little practical applications, I say we strike that out and remove the second parameter from the template. --LiquidTalk 15:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
Considering that Forum:Signature_Policy seems to be close to passing it is indeed useful as some names may vary slightly from the full username. This is really a silly objection to make when some thing is this close to passing, not every song is about you sir. You already said to me you do not care what else is included as long as the edit report is included, then you went and changed the template before this discussion was concluded. I strongly object to your methods here. Do no be an obstructionist.--Degenret01 09:48, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - {{Userinfo}} will be updated. It will be copied from Gaz's sandbox. --LiquidTalk 00:34, April 16, 2010 (UTC)