Last modified: 2014-01-27 17:56:27 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T20598, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 18598 - Create a maintenance script to convert oversighted content to suppressed with revision deletion, and the corresponding log entries too
Create a maintenance script to convert oversighted content to suppressed with...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Oversight (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low normal with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Chris Steipp
:
Depends on:
Blocks: revdel 32628 SWMT 60373 18472 18511
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-04-26 17:19 UTC by Mike.lifeguard
Modified: 2014-01-27 17:56 UTC (History)
23 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Mike.lifeguard 2009-04-26 17:19:35 UTC
In the transition from oversight to revision deletion, there is concern about old oversighted content. This should all be converted to hidden-from-sysops revision-deleted with the same reason (perhaps with a note that it's been converted like "[converted from [[mw:Extension:Oversight|OS]]"?) and the log entries should also be transitioned.
Comment 1 FT2 2009-04-29 04:17:21 UTC
See also Bug 18493
Comment 2 Happy-melon 2009-04-30 16:54:18 UTC
Would it be safer to extend the Oversight extension with an interface to manually restore revisions from the oversight table? That way a current oversighter can review the data, select which components need to be hidden, and that it is appropriate to restore it at all (IIRC FT2 has indicated somewhere else that there may be occasions where the aspect that needs oversighting was the fact that the edit happened at all). Doing this en masse with a script seems dangerous to me.  How large are the oversight tables on WMF? Is it feasible to do these restorations manually? The interface should still create log entries in the name of the original oversighter, and at the time of the original oversight. 
Comment 3 FT2 2009-04-30 19:49:52 UTC
Confirmed - I've noted the issue on another bug, I'll add the reference if needed.

The only difference is that oversight removes the edit from public view, and RevDel doesn't; once this is looked at, and lookup is available then there's pretty much no reason to keep oversight; oversights can readily be zapped over to RevDel as the above discussion here suggests, and the oversight extension gracefully retired with thanks for its service.

This really needs bug 18472 and bug 18511 addressed first. See also bug 18493.
Comment 4 FT2 2009-04-30 19:51:22 UTC
In fact it overlaps bug 18493 and bug 18511 and some merging may be in order.
Comment 5 Mike.lifeguard 2009-06-20 13:52:43 UTC
This should really happen before access to oversight is removed - I've moved bug 18511 from depends to blocks to reflect this.

Bug 18493 is about a long-term goal of merging various methods of deletion, making this one step along the way. Again, I've moved that bug from depends to blocks, since this bug is a prerequisite for fixing that bug.
Comment 6 Alex Monk 2012-08-08 23:33:07 UTC
Assigning to myself since I'm working on this.
Comment 7 Alex Monk 2012-08-09 01:20:35 UTC
One last problem I've hit before I submit this file for review is that it assumes we're adding to the revision table.

Should it ever add to the archive table? If so, how to determine which entries need to go into the archive table and which into the revision table?

Also, should it add to the recentchanges table?
Comment 8 Aaron Schulz 2012-08-09 01:28:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> One last problem I've hit before I submit this file for review is that it
> assumes we're adding to the revision table.
> 
> Should it ever add to the archive table? If so, how to determine which entries
> need to go into the archive table and which into the revision table?

There is a hidden_page field, you can check if a page row has that as a page_id. If none does, it was deleted. 

> Also, should it add to the recentchanges table?

No.
Comment 9 Alex Monk 2012-08-09 03:20:24 UTC
Gerrit change #18206
Comment 10 Alex Monk 2012-08-09 13:25:27 UTC
Moved to the Oversight extension - Gerrit change #18229.
Comment 11 Alex Monk 2012-11-04 16:48:12 UTC
... Why has this bug been assigned to Chris?
Comment 12 James Forrester 2012-11-04 16:51:18 UTC
Sorry, I forgot to give a comment; I assigned it to Chris for review, given that it had been dropped and was unassigned. However, looking at the history I see NemoBis just unassigned it from you this week - Nemo, did you mean something different by that?
Comment 13 Alex Monk 2012-11-04 16:54:20 UTC
Nemo went around changing ASSIGNED -> NEW where the asignee was the default wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org.
Comment 14 Andre Klapper 2013-07-23 09:05:20 UTC
csteipp: Do you think you could review the 170lines in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/18229/ ?
Comment 15 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-01-09 18:02:46 UTC
Change 18229 had a related patch set uploaded by Alex Monk:
Maintenance script to migrate legacy Oversight data

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/18229
Comment 16 John Mark Vandenberg 2014-01-10 00:10:09 UTC
I have reverted the wontfixing of dependency bug 20290.  It may only be relevant on some WMF projects, but how many other mediawiki sites adopted Oversight and need to migrate to RevDel?
Comment 17 Alex Monk 2014-01-10 01:36:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> I have reverted the wontfixing of dependency bug 20290.  It may only be
> relevant on some WMF projects, but how many other mediawiki sites adopted
> Oversight and need to migrate to RevDel?

Unknown. I have only heard this request from WMF wikis, who refuse to give a good reason publicly and therefore are not going to get it.
Comment 18 Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) 2014-01-10 03:00:40 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> I have reverted the wontfixing of dependency bug 20290.  It may only be
> relevant on some WMF projects, but how many other mediawiki sites adopted
> Oversight and need to migrate to RevDel?

There's no way to get an exact number, but https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:Oversight says ~1k, subtract all the WMF sites that have it installed (~700) and you're left with 300 other MediaWiki sites.
Comment 19 Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) 2014-01-10 03:10:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
> There's no way to get an exact number, but
> https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:Oversight says ~1k, subtract all the
> WMF
> sites that have it installed (~700) and you're left with 300 other MediaWiki
> sites.

Krenair pointed out to me there are nearly 900 WMF wikis now...so about 100 other sites then.
Comment 20 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-01-23 18:08:37 UTC
Change 18229 merged by Parent5446:
Maintenance script to migrate legacy Oversight data

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/18229

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links