Mark bot edits in histories
OpenPublic

Description

I think it would be better to tag bot edits with a 'b' by default just like how minor edits are marked with an 'm'.

I think this can be achieved with a schema change to the revision table.


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
See Also:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19322

bzimport added a subscriber: wikibugs-l.
bzimport set Reference to bz11181.
ToAruShiroiNeko created this task.Via LegacySep 4 2007, 7:03 PM
Catrope added a comment.Via ConduitSep 4 2007, 7:17 PM

This enhancement request really consists of two parts:

(In reply to comment #0)

I think it would be better to tag bot edits with a 'b' by default

Part one: if the user is a bot, tag their edits as bot unless specifically requested is otherwise.

just like how
minor edits are marked with an 'm'.

Part two: make the 'b's show up in the page history.

I think this can be achieved with a schema change to the revision table.

More specifically, a rev_bot field would have to be created, mirroring the rc_bot field that already exists in the recentchanges table.

ToAruShiroiNeko added a comment.Via ConduitSep 6 2007, 11:07 PM

Actualy while discussing this idea with pathoschild something interesting came about. Why not prod the issue a bit further. The code could add a "bot" (variable - so that it can be translated to the local language) to the bots name?

Current history line (from fr.wiki)

16:56, 2 September 2007 Ordinateur (Talk | contribs) m (43 bytes) (Robot : répare double redirection) (undo)

how it would be:

16:56, 2 September 2007 ([[link to what a wikipedia bot is|Robot]])Ordinateur (Talk | contribs) bm (43 bytes) (Robot : répare double redirection) (undo)

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitSep 7 2007, 1:16 AM

ayg wrote:

(In reply to comment #2)

That's unrelated. Please create a separate bug requesting it.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitSep 7 2007, 2:32 AM

ayg wrote:

Schema change committed in r25602 and r25604. Once (and if) that's applied to Wikimedia sites, it should be simple enough to write the code to display it on history pages.

Platonides added a comment.Via ConduitSep 9 2007, 7:49 PM

It was reverted in r25635.
As rev_minor_edit field is tinyint, it could be overloaded to also store the bot flag (treating it as a bitfield).

Catrope added a comment.Via ConduitSep 9 2007, 8:31 PM

(In reply to comment #5)

It was reverted in r25635.

Probably only temporarily though: schema changes can't just be added to the trunk at any given time.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitSep 9 2007, 8:33 PM

robchur wrote:

(In reply to comment #6)

Probably only temporarily though: schema changes can't just be added to the
trunk at any given time.

Not if we convert rev_minor_edit to a bitfield, which is what I'd have suggested. Although I'd also have suggested renaming the column to something accurate...

Catrope added a comment.Via ConduitSep 9 2007, 8:44 PM

We could make rev_minor_edit a bitfield, but then it should be renamed to rev_flags or something similar.

Platonides added a comment.Via ConduitSep 9 2007, 9:18 PM

I think MySQL was too inefficient on renaming fields (or is it only renaming tables?).

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitSep 9 2007, 11:44 PM

ayg wrote:

(In reply to comment #5)

As rev_minor_edit field is tinyint, it could be overloaded to also store the
bot flag (treating it as a bitfield).

Not if you want to be able to index it. Although currently, we don't index it anyway, so it might well be fine.

Anyway, this would be a breaking change. All code accessing rev_minor_edit would need to be updated, including third-party code. It's not much less disruptive than a schema change.

brion added a comment.Via ConduitSep 10 2007, 12:40 AM

Do not repurpose existing boolean fields into bitfields, please.

Schema changes, if appropriate, will be made when we've got a clear opportunity to plan for them.

Catrope added a comment.Via ConduitSep 10 2007, 1:27 PM

(In reply to comment #10)

Anyway, this would be a breaking change. All code accessing rev_minor_edit
would need to be updated, including third-party code. It's not much less
disruptive than a schema change.

Actually, adding a new rev_bot field would actually cause *less* trouble than the bitfield thing.

brion added a comment.Via ConduitSep 24 2007, 9:11 PM
  • Bug 11444 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 10 2009, 11:28 AM

paul.copperman wrote:

Just a thought: Since we have now the change_tag table, couldn't it be used to tag bot edits (and maybe even minor ones) as well?

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitMay 12 2009, 1:23 PM

happy.melon.wiki wrote:

That would be something of a hack, and not really what it was designed for. Are tags stored indefinitely? I'm not familiar enough with the feature to know that.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitMar 25 2010, 7:46 PM

happy.melon.wiki wrote:

*** Bug 16228 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitNov 27 2010, 6:36 PM

Bryan.TongMinh wrote:

But in fact both "minor" and "bot" are tag like entities as well. It is not unlogical to store both in change_tags.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitDec 17 2011, 9:32 AM

wikiposta wrote:

Some tasks need an analysis of the page history, and they are senseless without knowing which user is a bot. It is often necessary to separate bot edits from human ones.

AzaToth added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 16 2013, 9:18 PM

Should we go through with this, or just scrap the whole idea?

ToAruShiroiNeko added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 17 2013, 4:15 AM

There are a number of useful applications of such tagging. It is also useful to the user reviewing the edit itself. It also helps us catch people pretending to be bots when they aren't. I insist that going forward with the idea offers benefit.

Legoktm added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 17 2013, 4:22 AM

If this is done, bug 19322 should also be done, which adds the bot field to log entries.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 17 2013, 7:18 AM

wikiposta wrote:

This is still very important, and many users wait for it being solved. I have a bot that analyses page histories and users want me to find the last human edit which I can't do now.

SpeedyGonsales added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 18 2013, 12:46 PM

This bug is with us from 2007. Every year which passes schema change becomes more expensive.

Maybe it is now time to made schema change?

Add Comment