Last modified: 2014-06-23 02:00:02 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 T22892, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 20892 - Add ability to detect deleted revisions and page creation
Add ability to detect deleted revisions and page creation
Status: PATCH_TO_REVIEW
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
AbuseFilter (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Huji
:
: 66031 66310 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 66961
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-09-29 22:41 UTC by Tisza Gergő
Modified: 2014-06-23 02:00 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Tisza Gergő 2009-09-29 22:41:21 UTC
Tagging recreations of deleted pages would be a useful filter as patrollers have no easy way of noticing when that happens, but currently AbuseFilter does not support that. It would be nice if it had e.g. a variable for the number of deleted revisions.
Comment 1 Andre Klapper 2014-06-09 09:50:35 UTC
*** Bug 66310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Andre Klapper 2014-06-09 09:50:39 UTC
*** Bug 66031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Jackmcbarn 2014-06-09 14:51:37 UTC
I think the best way to implement this would be variables containing the number of live and deleted revisions.
Comment 4 Huji 2014-06-09 19:00:43 UTC
I think the "number" of deleted revisions is not something that should be exposed publicly (only sysops can see them outside the AbuseFilter, so only sysops can also see their count in the AbuseFilter's context). On the otherhand, the fact that the page was deleted (which is publicly available in logs) is something that can be also useful for AbuseFilter purposes. Hence my recommendation for a "has_been_deleted" variable in bug 66031.
Comment 5 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-06-12 13:52:30 UTC
Change 139103 had a related patch set uploaded by Huji:
AbuseFilter: Add ability to detect deleted revisions

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/139103
Comment 6 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-06-12 14:01:12 UTC
Change 139105 had a related patch set uploaded by Huji:
AbuseFilter: Add ability to detect deleted revisions

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/139105
Comment 7 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-06-15 19:11:57 UTC
Change 139105 abandoned by Huji:
AbuseFilter: Add ability to detect deleted revisions

Reason:
Merged back into  I4ec2c6aa1fc8aba1e6eb0563fec9ab05bb738d40

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/139105
Comment 8 Huji 2014-06-15 19:13:28 UTC
I marked 139105 is abandoned because I finally figured out how to merge it back into https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/139103 (please check new patchset there)
Comment 9 Jesús Martínez Novo (Ciencia Al Poder) 2014-06-22 19:00:50 UTC
Gerrit change #139103 has CR -2 now because there's no index to quickly get the number of times it has been deleted.

I was going to propose a variable with the number of deleted revisions, but I'm a bit shocked because the archive table has index for ar_namespace but not for ar_title (!!!) [1], so it will have the same problem. But because of that, does it mean that the message that appears on top of pages that have deleted revisions is using a slow query to get the number of deleted revisions, because there's no index for that? I guess there should be an index for this one (namespace and title).

----

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Archive_table
Comment 10 Huji 2014-06-23 02:00:02 UTC
I believe the lack of index is a separate bug. Since we already have a functionality in MediaWiki itself that is using a non-indexed column to show a message to the user when trying to recreate a previously deleted page, one might say that having a similar functionality in AbuseFilter should not be prohibited just based on the lack of index. Regardless, I've created bug 66961 as a blocker, and will wait for that to be fixed before my patch for 20892 is implemented.

In the meantime, I would be grateful if one could review the latest patch to see if there are any *other* problems with it.

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


Navigation
Links