Last modified: 2006-05-14 03:21:28 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 5917 - Reversion of edits by date range
Reversion of edits by date range
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 5218
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
History/Diffs (Other open bugs)
All Windows XP
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-12 08:51 UTC by Jason Lee, AllyUnion
Modified: 2006-05-14 03:21 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Description Jason Lee, AllyUnion 2006-05-12 08:51:19 UTC
This request is for an Administrator to revert changes made by one user within a
given date and time range.  (May allow revert of all changes since account
creation, if possible)

The purpose of this bug is for two reasons:
Revert the work of a bad bot or speedy bot that is not approved
Revert of a quick vandal who has vandalized many pages.

Additionally, the way I figure it, if we have the server script do this, it can
efficiently queue up the SQL request for reverts.  (Maybe lock those pages in
progress of being reverted)  This cuts down the process of X requests from a
single Administrator's browser to the web server for X number of reverts. 
Instead, we get 1 request from an Administrator's web browser for X number of
reverts.  Rather than a one to one ratio of web server requests, I think a one
to many would be much more efficient.

This bug may have similiarities to bug 5218.
This bug would be useful in conjuction to bug 4730.
Comment 1 Rob Church 2006-05-14 03:21:28 UTC
Merging with bug 5218.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5218 ***

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