Last modified: 2010-05-15 15:29:14 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 507 - Undeletion of paticular revisions.
Undeletion of paticular revisions.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Special pages (Other open bugs)
1.3.x
All All
: High enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: patch
Depends on: 603
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-09-17 09:05 UTC by Tietew
Modified: 2010-05-15 15:29 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Attachments
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (5.63 KB, patch)
2004-09-17 09:06 UTC, Tietew
Details
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (HEAD) (5.56 KB, patch)
2004-09-23 18:04 UTC, Tietew
Details
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (HEAD) (5.52 KB, patch)
2004-09-25 11:45 UTC, Tietew
Details
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (REL1_3) (5.18 KB, patch)
2004-09-25 11:45 UTC, Tietew
Details
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (HEAD) (7.49 KB, patch)
2004-09-29 15:04 UTC, Tietew
Details
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (REL1_3) (7.34 KB, patch)
2004-10-09 17:37 UTC, Tietew
Details

Description Tietew 2004-09-17 09:05:55 UTC
I created a patch for undeletion of particular revisions.
Special:Undelete shows a checkbox per revision,
and undelete only checked revisions.

We sysops of ja.Wikipedia need "deletion of particular revisions" very much.
But Special:Import has not been released yet.
I believe this patch is simple and certain way to resolve this problem.
Comment 1 Tietew 2004-09-17 09:06:51 UTC
Created attachment 43 [details]
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions.
Comment 2 Brion Vibber 2004-09-22 08:14:59 UTC
A couple notes on the patch:
* There's no validation on the timestamps, and they're not escaped. This could allow SQL injection attacks.
* The timestamp conversion functions aren't used so it probably won't work on PostgreSQL.

Looks otherwise generally OK; can you update to current CVS and repost please?
Comment 3 Suisui 2004-09-22 08:32:47 UTC
Yeah! これが使えたらja.wpもだいぶ落ち着きます。
This will make happy to ja.wp people!!
Comment 4 Brion Vibber 2004-09-22 08:34:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yeah! これが使えたらja.wpもだ
いぶ落ち着きます。
> This will make happy to ja.wp people!!

Testing some more... ひらがな
Comment 5 Suisui 2004-09-22 08:38:03 UTC
テスト投稿です
Comment 6 Brion Vibber 2004-09-22 08:40:14 UTC
Sorry for the comment spam. ;) Testing again: カタカナ [firefox]
Comment 7 Suisui 2004-09-22 08:45:55 UTC
put comment from MacOSX Safari 読めるかな?
Comment 8 Tietew 2004-09-23 18:04:56 UTC
Created attachment 48 [details]
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (HEAD)

A new patch for CVS HEAD with timestamp validation and SQL sanitizing.
In addition, this patch will restore all revisions
when no revisions are checked for backward compatibility.

The timestamp conversion functions are not used yet,
because SpecialUndelete.php seems not to use them.

I'll make a patch for REL_1_3 later again.
Comment 9 Tietew 2004-09-23 18:20:12 UTC
No notify mails...
Comment 10 Tietew 2004-09-25 11:45:06 UTC
Created attachment 49 [details]
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (HEAD)

Update; a bit bug fixed.
Comment 11 Tietew 2004-09-25 11:45:58 UTC
Created attachment 50 [details]
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (REL1_3)

for REL1_3
Comment 12 Brion Vibber 2004-09-29 08:59:20 UTC
Looks generally functional, but there's a serious problem: it doesn't handle
compressed revisions ($wgCompressRevisions) properly.

If the article is not currently present (so a new 'cur' entry has to be
created), and you don't restore the last revision, the raw old_text of the most
recent restored revision is inserted into cur_text. If that revision was
compressed, we see binary gibberish instead of the expected text.

With the old code this wasn't a problem since the most recent revision to be
restored would always have come from cur in the first place and was thus
uncompressed.

It'll be necessary to use Article::getRevisionText() on the entry to be placed
into cur, breaking up the INSERT...SELECT into two queries.
Comment 13 Tietew 2004-09-29 15:04:46 UTC
Created attachment 55 [details]
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (HEAD)

update; $wgCompressedRevisions compatible

I verified this had undeleted revisions with ar_flags='gzip' correctly.

If this patch is OK, I create a new patch for REL1_3.
Comment 14 Brion Vibber 2004-09-29 16:29:10 UTC
Committed patch to CVS HEAD; needs testing on PostgreSQL.
Comment 15 Tietew 2004-10-09 17:37:19 UTC
Created attachment 78 [details]
Patch for undeletion of paticular revisions. (REL1_3)

backport to REL1_3.
Comment 16 Guttorm Flatabø 2004-10-14 08:50:43 UTC
If this feature is on by default I fear it may result in widespread history
"corruption", and histories not compatible with GFDL. Ideally all revisions
should be undeleted or at least listed, but those you'd want to ommit could be
hidden or the content deleted. At the very least some log should show that (and
what) revisions were not undeleted.
Comment 17 PiaCarrot 2004-11-12 12:02:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> Ishould be undeleted or at least listed, but deally all revisions
> those you'd want to ommit could be hidden or the content deleted.
I think hiding paticular version may cause probrem that 
differencial shows content that has Copyright or various problem.
Comment 18 wiki_tomos 2004-11-14 03:28:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> If this feature is on by default I fear it may result in widespread history
> "corruption", and histories not compatible with GFDL. 

This feature is certainly not a panacea. For certain pages, this feature should
not be 
applied. But it solves quite a few problems. The problem with GFDL 
compliance could be achieved simply by following a certain procedure like this:
1. undelete the whole thing
2. revert to the last version before the copyvio is inserted. 
3. delete.
4. undelete the latest version, and the versions before the copyvio is inserted.

By doing this, we can legitimately omit the history info. in between. 

Of course, if history info. can be preserved while the main text is hidden, that
would 
be more useful. But it is quite helpful as it is now. 
Comment 19 PiaCarrot 2004-11-14 05:52:48 UTC
I think GFDL compliance probrem with history information may be solved with
decision of a suitable usage policy.

(In reply to comment #18)
> The problem with GFDL compliance could be achieved simply by following a
certain procedure like this:
> 1. undelete the whole thing
> 2. revert to the last version before the copyvio is inserted. 
> 3. delete.
> 4. undelete the latest version, and the versions before the copyvio is inserted.
I propose following usage policy:
If targer article previously reverted to the last before problem occures, only
some edition from "Problem occured version" to "Revertion to the last before
problem occures" must not be undeleted.
If target article not reverted to the last before problem occures, "Probrem
occured version" and after that must not be undeleted.
The policy above is pretty simple, but I think it is important.
Comment 20 Jamesday 2004-12-03 20:31:24 UTC
Some requirements for this general type of feature:
1. Legal compliance by not continuing to distribute specific revisions
2. Legal record keeping by never permanently deleting any revision (so a
situation which does result in subsequent legal action doesn't end up with all
records either party needs no longer available from an independent source)
3. Showing an accurate history which includes any problematic items in that
history but without the copyright infringement or other problem.
4. Easy and complete reversibility of any action

This feature set is best achieved by a per-revision hide flag which can be
turned on or off and which allows anyone with the right account setting to see
the hidden articles in their proper context (sysop flag seen by any person with
sysop in their user rights, for example). Also avoids problems with the various
compression features, either gzip or diff-based, since nothing is actually being
deleted or restored.

Doesn't seem like a good idea to ship this in 1.4, since it's not really the
right approach to the problem.
Comment 21 Brion Vibber 2004-12-03 21:20:24 UTC
A basic issue with the suggestion in comment #20 is that we 
distribute database dumps. If the reason we're deleting individual 
revisions is because we can't legally distribute them, then not 
separating them creates a problem.
Comment 22 wiki_tomos 2004-12-03 23:44:35 UTC
Regarding Jamesday's comment;

I agree that recordkeeping is sometimes important, but it can be easily done
using XML export. It is not a reason to delay the introduction of this feature. 

Some articles dealing with controversial subjects (sexal, religious, etc)
receive what seem to be an intentional copy-n-paste of copyrighted materials
just so that the articles get deleted. Occasionally, we get things on Main Page
and articles with a very long history. It is very hard to choose between
deleting them altogether and bearing legal risks. I know this is not a news to
Jamesday, but Japanese ISP liability law makes people like Wikipedia admins
liable for not deleting obvious infringement that admins know. 
Comment 23 wiki_tomos 2004-12-04 04:29:05 UTC
I checked with some admins and looked at the 
lists of versions to be deleted. 

The requests dates as far back as a year, and 
there are over 1,000 versions to be deleted on 
Japanese Wikipedia. Not everything could be taken 
care of by this feature, but this (or XML Import) 
would help a lot. 
Comment 24 PiaCarrot 2004-12-09 13:53:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #20)
> This feature set is best achieved by a per-revision hide flag which can be
> turned on or off and which allows anyone with the right account setting to see
> the hidden articles in their proper context (sysop flag seen by any person with
> sysop in their user rights, for example). Also avoids problems with the various
> compression features, either gzip or diff-based, since nothing is actually being
> deleted or restored.
I think this feature occures a probrem that diff shows content contains various
probrem.

The patch is restoring particular revisions from archive table to old and cur
tables, so other revisions remain in archive table. If somebody (lawyer or ISP)
want content to be deleted, sysops can restore them in order to respond to a
request. (If the restore to respond to request can be marked temporaly restore
and can re-delete only temporaly restored revisions, that's best.)

I also think following feature is helpful: Each entries in archive table have
"Protected" flag that the revision be marked for preventing being permanently
deleted from archive table.
Comment 25 Daniel Kinzler 2004-12-18 22:34:16 UTC
Jamesday suggested to me on IRC to encrypt individual versions instead of
deleting them. As fas as I undestand (and that's not saying much) this would
make thing easier, because no info is actually lost, and no records need to be
deleted, so ther's no mess up in the IDs. Just the content of a single field in
the database is updated (and possibly something like "eccrypted" could be added
to the log-string in the version entry, but that's not neccessary). I like that
idea very much, because it is simple, transparent and easy to undo.  Also, it
would untie this bug from #603, as far as I can see.

If the software had access to the secret key, too, it could make the encrypted
version visible for admins, etc. But that's not really neccessary. The most
important thing is that texts that have been put on the wikipedia in violation
of copyrights are no longer publically accessible.
Comment 26 Brion Vibber 2005-03-10 03:22:48 UTC
This was applied on 1.4+ some time ago. Resolving as fixed.

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


Navigation
Links