Steps:

1. Click here on PC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&action=history
2. Change radio button on the left to be the last edit on the page (50 edits ago)
3. Click Compare select versions
4. Look at first edit, see there is no information about the edit
5. Hover mouse over edit location

Result: Nothing, there is no way to tell who made the edit or why they made the edit
Expected: Tooltip showing the the user that made the change, the date of the change, and the justification the editor typed in when committing the change

Sorry for the lack of precision. By "Hover mouse over edit location" I mean the location where changes are shown. That could be highlighted text in the case of addition of text (blue highlight) or removal of text (orange highlight), or a "+" paragraph in the case of adding a paragraph, or a "-" paragraph in the case of removing a paragraph. The idea is that when your mouse is over an edit, you should be able to see information about that edit.

Browse history interactively doesn't resolve the issue as far as I can tell. It also appears to be way over-engineered and complicated. This is a simple ask that solves a basic problem.

Thanks for pointing to T2639. It's true that T2639 and all the bugs listed as duplicates of it are essentially identifying the same workflow problem. That points to how important this issue is to fix.

However, T2639 and the duplicates of it are asking for very complicated features as the fix. T2639 wants to let you select locations on a page and then show you UI on who made the edit and then let you take actions on that basis. All the other duplicates are also asking for new UI changes or views that are complicated like that. Some issues with the T2639 solution and others:

• When you want to source some text, how do you get started? Is there a magic new button you click on the page before clicking the text? How is it discoverable?
• T2639 implies there will be commands to "annotate/blame" like github, requiring more UI and workflow changes
• If not using history view, the feature won't work for deleted text or moved text since it doesn't appear to be targeted towards history view
• Most of the duplicates don't work for the key workflow where you want to review a subset of changes, not all at once
• If based on text snippets as suggested in a couple duplicates, part of a text snippet could be from one edit, part from another, it could be duplicated or have been moved, so sourcing responsibility would be hard

I'm reactivating this bug as it involves a simple, discoverable, and robust solution to the common workflow problem. That changes the cost / benefit analysis and hopefully results in the feature actually getting done. Here's the advantages of the tooltip solution outlined in this bug:

• There is no new UI or commands, just a tooltip when you hover over changed text in multi-edit history view
• The change allows you to see who did deletions as well as additions
• You can use the feature to break down history into chunks, allowing you to figure out that user X added some text, then user Y moved it, the user Z deleted it, and so forth
• There's no ambiguity like there is if you are instead searching on text or viewing an article not in history view

So could this feature ask be reevaluated on the basis of the simple, clear solution here, instead of being buried under the 5+ year old T2639? I am not sure how to say "same workflow bug yet again, but here's a very simple solution".