bzimport set Reference to bz60373.
Krenair created this task.Via LegacyJan 23 2014, 6:21 PM
Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 8:10 PM

Recommend that, prior to script being run on Wikimedia wikis, there be communication with at least the current oversighters for the affected projects, and likely with the communities of the affected projects. This should probably include the reason for making these changes, reassurance that the previously oversighted edits will only be viewable by those with Oversight/steward permissions, and perhaps a screenshot of how the page history will look before and after the script is run. Also describe how edits to now-deleted pages will be affected, and what will happen if those now-deleted pages are subsequently undeleted (i.e., will the oversighted edits remain out of the page history or will they be reinstated in the same format as other suppressed edits when undeletion occurs).

Please also confirm that all suppressible aspects of the edits (name of editor, content of edit, edit summary) will be suppressed by default, and inform oversighters whether or not they will be able to reverse the elements of suppression. (I'm assuming yes, but full information will make this a smoother transition.)

The advance communication will give the opportunity for anyone to ask questions and receive responses prior to this change, and will reduce the likelihood of distress caused when edits thought to be permanently removed from page histories suddenly reappear.

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 8:28 PM

(In reply to comment #1)

Also describe how edits to now-deleted pages will be affected

So this is very unclear, but I think I sort of understand what you mean - if you oversight an edit, delete the page, and run the migration script, the OS'd edit becomes suppressed in the deleted history archive.

(In reply to comment #1)

what will happen if those now-deleted pages are subsequently
undeleted (i.e., will the oversighted edits remain out of the page history or
will they be reinstated in the same format as other suppressed edits when
undeletion occurs).

Once the migration is done you will not be able to tell what came from the OS system and any other suppressed edit without looking at the times each system was used. They will become suppressed edits and therefore behave as suppressed edits. Undeleting a suppressed edit means it is no longer in the deleted history archive. You should see the suppressed edit as a timestamp and grey lines in public history.

(In reply to comment #1)

Please also confirm that all suppressible aspects of the edits (name of
editor,
content of edit, edit summary) will be suppressed by default

Yes, this goes without saying.

(In reply to comment #1)

and inform
oversighters whether or not they will be able to reverse the elements of
suppression. (I'm assuming yes, but full information will make this a
smoother
transition.)

Yes, as I said these OS'd edits become suppressed edits. They behave as suppressed edits. You can reverse suppression.

(In reply to comment #1)

distress caused when edits thought to be permanently removed from page
histories suddenly reappear.

These OS'd edits BECOME SUPPRESSED EDITS. We are not expecting any currently private information to be exposed by this. If it happens then that's a big bug and should have already been caught. What is revealed is that an edit existed at a certain place in page history and what timestamp it had - and despite what certain people would like, this is NOT private information.

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 8:33 PM

(In reply to comment #2)

What is revealed is that an edit existed
at a certain place in page history and what timestamp it had

(Also the size of the revision - as in number of bytes - but I don't think this came up as an issue in the discussions)

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 9:17 PM

(In reply to comment #3)

(In reply to comment #2)
What is revealed is that an edit existed
at a
certain place in page history and what timestamp it had

(Also the size of

the revision - as in number of bytes - but I don't think this

came up as an

issue in the discussions)

Thanks very much for your responses, Alex.

I of course assumed that tests were done somewhere or other and were verified independently to ensure that the script worked properly, and you have confirmed that.

Nonetheless, I strongly encourage an advance communication strategy (perhaps using the community liaisons) to all Wikimedia projects where there are oversighted edits. When the extension was in use, it was broadly and publicly advertised as "permanent removal", and aside from a brief hint that maybe there might be some way to switch things over, nothing happened for the five years after suppression/revision deletion was activated, so this change is not in any way expected by the various communities that will be affected. I don't know how many projects have oversighted edits, or how many there are in total (English Wikipedia has about 20,000), but many of the users whose personal information was oversighted back in the day are still active, and there is good reason to anticipate some negative reaction if there isn't solid communication in advance.

Jalexander added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 10:24 PM

As a thought to help address the concern about these appearing suddenly in page histories: How difficult would it be to adjust the script so that these edits were moved to both 'suppressed' status as well as being fully deleted (as if the page was deleted and those revisions were not restored, similar to the old 'poor mans oversight' ).

If that was done does it address concerns/raise others with anyone?

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 10:32 PM

(In reply to comment #5)

As a thought to help address the concern about these appearing suddenly in
page
histories: How difficult would it be to adjust the script so that these edits
were moved to both 'suppressed' status as well as being fully deleted (as if
the page was deleted and those revisions were not restored, similar to the
old
'poor mans oversight' ).

If that was done does it address concerns/raise others with anyone?

So the placeholder would be hidden? It's possible and the script could be changed to do it, but the fact that those got hidden is basically seen as a bug, not a feature.

Any patch to do it would get a -2 from me.

MZMcBride added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 10:38 PM

(In reply to comment #6)

So the placeholder would be hidden? It's possible and the script could be
changed to do it, but the fact that those got hidden is basically seen as a
bug, not a feature.

James is asking to put the revisions in the archive table rather than the revision table, as I understand it.

Jalexander added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 10:40 PM

(In reply to comment #6)

So the placeholder would be hidden? It's possible and the script could be
changed to do it, but the fact that those got hidden is basically seen as a
bug, not a feature.

Any patch to do it would get a -2 from me.

That's not a bug, it was very much a feature of the tool as originally designed and used, I think it's legitimate to do this change but that's a different question. This is a change in state for very legitimate reasons, but not a bugfix.

That said it's possible you don't understand what I meant. I don't meant to fully hide the placeholder, just to drop them into deleted revisions. That would theoretically be possible for the community to (manually) do for them we'd just be doing it automatically which makes sense given the number of revisions. The effect would be as if the page was deleted and then restored without those revisions. They would still be viewable under Special:Undelete like any deleted&suppressed edit is viewable now.

Jalexander added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 10:40 PM

(In reply to comment #7)

(In reply to comment #6)
> So the placeholder would be hidden? It's possible and the script could be
> changed to do it, but the fact that those got hidden is basically seen as a
> bug, not a feature.

James is asking to put the revisions in the archive table rather than the
revision table, as I understand it.

Yes, I believe this is what would be done, thank you.

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 10:51 PM

(In reply to comment #7)

(In reply to comment #6)
> So the placeholder would be hidden? It's possible and the script could be
> changed to do it, but the fact that those got hidden is basically seen as a
> bug, not a feature.

James is asking to put the revisions in the archive table rather than the
revision table, as I understand it.

Yes I understand that, it has the effect of always hiding the placeholder from normal users (putting it in the archive is okay if the OS'd revision would have been page-deleted) and is therefore not going to happen.

(In reply to comment #8)

That's not a bug, it was very much a feature of the tool as originally
designed
and used, I think it's legitimate to do this change but that's a different
question. This is a change in state for very legitimate reasons, but not a
bugfix.

I disagree that it should have ever been considered a feature, I don't see the use case (and actually some people claimed to have a use case but wanted it to stay private - away from Bugzilla - which is very much against the way MediaWiki is developed and therefore very heavily encouraged me to WONTFIX it). The idea has a separate bug of it's own which is WONTFIXed. Here is not the place to try to bring it up again.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 11:14 PM

(In reply to comment #8)

That's not a bug, it was very much a feature of the tool as originally
designed
and used, I think it's legitimate to do this change but that's a different
question. This is a change in state for very legitimate reasons, but not a
bugfix.

Sure, maybe it was a feature. However, from the perspective of a non-oversighter, the only effect it had was to not pique their curiosity about what was previously there. The actual use case of oversight, namely "there is public information here which I want to remove from public view", is still satisfied irrespective of whether the placeholder is there or not, as the old oversighted edits are being migrated to edits that are fully suppressed. Therefore I'm not terribly concerned about whether that placeholder is there (i.e. edits are migrated to the revision table) or not (i.e. the edits are migrated to the archive table); the core use case, full suppression, is still satisfied.

I think there's no harm in taking this a little slower and sending out some communications first to the oversighters and stewards and reassuring them that stuff that was nonpublic will not be made public by this change. I'll try to sort that communication out.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 11:25 PM

Okay, so just so we're clear, please hold off on proceeding with this until we've got our communications sorted. I'll post a note here when that's happened.

Jdforrester-WMF added a comment.Via ConduitJan 23 2014, 11:25 PM

(In reply to comment #4)

Nonetheless, I strongly encourage an advance communication strategy (perhaps
using the community liaisons) to all Wikimedia projects where there are
oversighted edits. When the extension was in use, it was broadly and publicly
advertised as "permanent removal"

I feel that the burden for this communication should lie on the shoulders of the individuals who misled the community in this way.

Certainly, when we developed the OS tool (whilst I was on ArbCom), we were careful to note that the information was not actually removed from the database entirely, and that it was theoretically open to sub poena and viewing by people with special access, but that it was beyond the reach of mere administrators.

there is good reason to anticipate some negative reaction if there isn't
solid communication in advance.

Quite possibly. I'd suggest that the community 'functionaries' be alerted and asked to inform their communities. After all, they own the responsibility for keeping abreast of privileged rights; on enwiki this is ArbCom.

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 24 2014, 2:41 AM

(In reply to comment #13)

(In reply to comment #4)
Nonetheless, I strongly encourage an advance
communication strategy (perhaps
using the community liaisons) to all
Wikimedia projects where there are
oversighted edits. When the extension
was in use, it was broadly and publicly
advertised as "permanent removal"
I feel that the burden for this communication should lie on the shoulders of
the individuals who misled the community in this way.

Well, I guess that would have been whomever set up the Oversight-L mailing list, which has always resulted in the following "TO" line:

"Requests to permanently remove personal information from the English Wikipedia <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org>"

It certainly said that in early 2007 (when I first requested an edit be oversighted).

There is a rather well-known case of oversight that occurred in 2007 where developers were requested to restore certain oversighted edits and refused (even though there was agreement the oversight was done in error), and thus the enwiki community has had reason to believe that there was no foreseeable circumstance under which an edit would be restored.

This is a really good opportunity for the WMF to have a positive communication interaction with the community - it's a net positive change, the responses to questions are positive and reassuring, and it will demonstrate the WMF's commitment to respecting user privacy (and telling them when something has changed in some way with respect to that) can effectively work hand-in-hand with software improvements. It's concerning that there's such vehement objection to communication, especially communication that is very likely to positively reflect good community/developer interaction.

tomasz added a comment.Via ConduitJan 24 2014, 10:31 AM

[CC-ing some Commons oversighters so that they are aware of this change coming up. You're welcome.]

Reedy added a comment.Via ConduitJan 24 2014, 9:19 PM

reedy@tin:/tmp$ grep count hidden.log | grep -v "] => 0"
akwiki: [count(*)] => 2
arwiki: [count(*)] => 1
arwikibooks: [count(*)] => 1
arwikinews: [count(*)] => 2
barwiki: [count(*)] => 1
bjnwiki: [count(*)] => 1
cebwiki: [count(*)] => 3
commonswiki: [count(*)] => 169
crwiki: [count(*)] => 2
cswiki: [count(*)] => 89
cywiki: [count(*)] => 1
dewiki: [count(*)] => 68
dewikibooks: [count(*)] => 16
dewikinews: [count(*)] => 27
dewiktionary: [count(*)] => 1
eewiki: [count(*)] => 4
enwiki: [count(*)] => 9905
enwikibooks: [count(*)] => 2
enwikinews: [count(*)] => 41
enwikiquote: [count(*)] => 16
enwikisource: [count(*)] => 6
enwikiversity: [count(*)] => 52
enwiktionary: [count(*)] => 17
eowiki: [count(*)] => 2
eswiki: [count(*)] => 62
eswikisource: [count(*)] => 1
eswiktionary: [count(*)] => 1
fawiki: [count(*)] => 10
fiwiki: [count(*)] => 113
foundationwiki: [count(*)] => 5
frwiki: [count(*)] => 130
frwikinews: [count(*)] => 2
frwikiquote: [count(*)] => 1
frwikisource: [count(*)] => 1
frwiktionary: [count(*)] => 1
gdwiktionary: [count(*)] => 1
glwiki: [count(*)] => 2
huwiki: [count(*)] => 1
idwiki: [count(*)] => 13
ikwiki: [count(*)] => 3
itwiki: [count(*)] => 54
jawiki: [count(*)] => 3
kowiki: [count(*)] => 1
lvwiki: [count(*)] => 5
mediawikiwiki: [count(*)] => 14
metawiki: [count(*)] => 125
mlwiki: [count(*)] => 1
mtwiki: [count(*)] => 1
nlwiki: [count(*)] => 81
nlwikimedia: [count(*)] => 1
pdcwiki: [count(*)] => 1
plwiki: [count(*)] => 21
ptwiki: [count(*)] => 125
ptwikisource: [count(*)] => 6
ruwiki: [count(*)] => 241
sewiki: [count(*)] => 6
simplewiki: [count(*)] => 26
slwiktionary: [count(*)] => 1
specieswiki: [count(*)] => 2
srwiki: [count(*)] => 7
stwiki: [count(*)] => 11
svwiki: [count(*)] => 462
tawiki: [count(*)] => 2
testwiki: [count(*)] => 12
wikimania2008wiki: [count(*)] => 18
wuuwiki: [count(*)] => 1
yiwiki: [count(*)] => 39
zeawiki: [count(*)] => 1
zhwiki: [count(*)] => 60
reedy@tin:/tmp$ grep count hidden.log | grep -v "] => 0" -c
69

Nemo_bis added a comment.Via ConduitJan 25 2014, 1:52 PM

(In reply to comment #13)

I feel that the burden for this communication should lie on the shoulders of
the individuals who misled the community in this way.

Agreed. Additionally, as the confused community luckily seems to be restricted to en.wiki, let's please not delay this long-overdue technical debt cleanup for all the others. Oversight has severe bugs.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 1:20 AM

I've reached out to the stewards, Commons oversighters, and English Wikipedia oversighters with an announcement about this.

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 1:29 AM

Thanks for all of the answers so far. One more question: what will the log entries look like? Will they go into the suppression table and show the original oversighter and the original oversight log summary and date of oversight?

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 1:44 AM

To note, I've created a FAQ for English Wikipedia, although I've noted a few questions that need to be verified. Others may feel free to translate for their wikis or otherwise copy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Risker/Conversion_of_Oversighted_edits_to_Suppressed_edits

Legoktm added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 1:56 AM

(In reply to comment #19)

Thanks for all of the answers so far. One more question: what will the log
entries look like? Will they go into the suppression table and show the
original oversighter and the original oversight log summary and date of
oversight?

Log entries will be added to Special:Log/suppress, and should look as if they had been created via the revdel system. Time, user, log summary will all be the same as the original oversight log entry.

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 2:03 AM

(In reply to comment #21)

(In reply to comment #19)
> Thanks for all of the answers so far. One more question: what will the log
> entries look like? Will they go into the suppression table and show the
> original oversighter and the original oversight log summary and date of
> oversight?

Log entries will be added to Special:Log/suppress, and should look as if they
had been created via the revdel system. Time, user, log summary will all be
the
same as the original oversight log entry.

Thanks, Kunal. What will happen to the Oversight log? Will it remain intact or will it be deleted? Given that over 80% of all oversights (including a lot of weird edge cases) happened on enwiki, it would be useful for it to be kept intact, at least for a period, so that QA checks can be made. Not that there's likely to be a problem, simply that it would be impossible to tell if there is without the original logs for comparison.

Also, I'm assuming that this will fix the old attribution glitch. Is that correct?

Legoktm added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 2:20 AM

(In reply to comment #22)

Thanks, Kunal. What will happen to the Oversight log? Will it remain intact
or will it be deleted? Given that over 80% of all oversights (including a
lot
of weird edge cases) happened on enwiki, it would be useful for it to be kept
intact, at least for a period, so that QA checks can be made. Not that
there's
likely to be a problem, simply that it would be impossible to tell if there
is
without the original logs for comparison.

The oversight log which is currently exposed via Special:Oversight will disappear whenever the extension is undeployed. As long as the hidden table isn't deleted (not sure what the WMF policy is on that), the log would still be recoverable by anyone with database access.

Also, I'm assuming that this will fix the old attribution glitch. Is that
correct?

I have no clue on what caused the glitch, so I don't know whether this will fix it.

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 4:06 AM

(In reply to comment #23)

(In reply to comment #22)

> Also, I'm assuming that this will fix the old attribution glitch. Is that
> correct?

I have no clue on what caused the glitch, so I don't know whether this will
fix
it.

I've asked for longer-service oversighters who are probably more aware of the nature of this glitch to comment; I'll port over any responses I see in other venues. I only used this extension for a couple of months before we moved to suppression, so my knowledge is sketchy.

MZMcBride added a comment.Via ConduitJan 28 2014, 4:22 AM

(In reply to comment #20)

[[User:Risker/Conversion of Oversighted edits to Suppressed edits]]

Thanks for this! :-) It probably makes sense to transwiki this page to Meta-Wiki and set it up for translation once it's fleshed out.

Scott added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 3 2014, 3:04 PM

Thanks to all involved with this, it's a welcome fix to a legacy issue.

Are there any plans to change the name of the "oversighters" group as well following this transition?

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 3 2014, 3:20 PM

(In reply to comment #26)

Thanks to all involved with this, it's a welcome fix to a legacy issue.

Are

there any plans to change the name of the "oversighters" group as well
following this transition?

Given that the logical change would be to "suppressors", I certainly hope not; it's even more Orwellian than "oversighters". Not to mention its similarity to "suppressive persons".

tomasz added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 3 2014, 3:24 PM

A discussion about the name change has been floating around for a few years, but there haven't been any updates to it since November 2011; see https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Change_usergroup_name_%22Oversight%22 and bug 20337 for some details.

Even if there might be some plans to change the name, that's outside of Bugzilla's remit, since no software changes are necessary to change the on-wiki name of the group.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 3 2014, 9:45 PM

(In reply to comment #26)

Are there any plans to change the name of the "oversighters" group as well
following this transition?

There's no urgency for this, so we can consider this at a later date.

I think we're basically all set to go with the migration. I'll be asking for it to be carried out soon.

Scott added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 3 2014, 9:55 PM

(In reply to comment #28)

Even if there might be some plans to change the name, that's outside of
Bugzilla's remit, since no software changes are necessary to change the
on-wiki name of the group.

Okay, thanks.

(In reply to comment #29)

> (In reply to comment #26)
> Are there any plans to change the name of the "oversighters" group as well
> following this transition?

There's no urgency for this, so we can consider this at a later date.

Sure. I'm just thinking about how the documentation on enwp will need to be updated following this change. That's information enough to keep it current.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 10 2014, 5:49 PM

Okay Reedy, you can go ahead with this migration when you're ready. Please leave the oversight log intact (i.e. don't remove the old oversight extension yet).

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 10 2014, 6:02 PM

Maybe we should get Gerrit change 111514 merged first.

csteipp added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 10 2014, 6:07 PM

(In reply to comment #32)

Maybe we should get Gerrit change #111514 merged first.

Yes please (just in case). Reedy ^

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitFeb 10 2014, 6:09 PM

(In reply to comment #32)

Maybe we should get Gerrit change #111514 merged first.

Sounds sensible to me.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitMar 5 2014, 11:05 PM

What is the status of this bug?

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitMar 5 2014, 11:08 PM

Still waiting on the latest gerrit change.

Krenair added a comment.Via ConduitMar 6 2014, 10:21 PM

Okay, now that's done.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitMar 7 2014, 12:32 AM

Chris and I are going to test this script tomorrow briefly. We can wait until then to run it on production.

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitMar 18 2014, 7:29 PM

Chris's tests were successful. Still, we can afford to take our time with this to make sure that it all works correctly in production. Here's the rollout plan for this:

Week 1: mediawiki.org
Week 2: wikiquotes, wikiversity, wikibooks, wikispecies, wikivoyage, wiktionary, wikinews, wikisource
Week 3: commons, meta, anything else I've forgotten except wikipedias
Week 4: wikipedias

We'll keep a week between deployments to see if there are any unexpected issues, and if there are then we'll delay future deployments. The oversight log will remain accessible after the migration so we can verify that everything went fine. I'm familiar with the operation of suppression and have global suppression by virtue of my staff rights, so I'll be available to help if anything goes wrong.

I'll write on here when I know what date this will begin.

Reedy added a comment.Via ConduitMar 18 2014, 7:46 PM

Wikivoyages really shouldn't have anything oversight related in the dB...

Deskana added a comment.Via ConduitMar 18 2014, 7:50 PM

(In reply to Sam Reed (reedy) from comment #40)

Wikivoyages really shouldn't have anything oversight related in the dB...

According to the script that was run above, they don't. I put it on there because I was using the site map to come up with my deployment list, and I kept miscounting when I'd left it out. ;-)

Reedy added a comment.Via ConduitMar 18 2014, 8:08 PM

mysql says no

apache@tin:/tmp$ cat hidden.sql
select count(*) from hidden;

apache@tin:/tmp$ foreachwikiindblist /a/common/wikivoyage.dblist sql.php /tmp/hidden.sql

dewikivoyage

dewikivoyage: stdClass Object
dewikivoyage: (
dewikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

dewikivoyage: )

elwikivoyage

elwikivoyage: stdClass Object
elwikivoyage: (
elwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

elwikivoyage: )

enwikivoyage

enwikivoyage: stdClass Object
enwikivoyage: (
enwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

enwikivoyage: )

eswikivoyage

eswikivoyage: stdClass Object
eswikivoyage: (
eswikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

eswikivoyage: )

frwikivoyage

frwikivoyage: stdClass Object
frwikivoyage: (
frwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

frwikivoyage: )

hewikivoyage

hewikivoyage: stdClass Object
hewikivoyage: (
hewikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

hewikivoyage: )

itwikivoyage

itwikivoyage: stdClass Object
itwikivoyage: (
itwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

itwikivoyage: )

nlwikivoyage

nlwikivoyage: stdClass Object
nlwikivoyage: (
nlwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

nlwikivoyage: )

plwikivoyage

plwikivoyage: stdClass Object
plwikivoyage: (
plwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

plwikivoyage: )

ptwikivoyage

ptwikivoyage: stdClass Object
ptwikivoyage: (
ptwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

ptwikivoyage: )

rowikivoyage

rowikivoyage: stdClass Object
rowikivoyage: (
rowikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

rowikivoyage: )

ruwikivoyage

ruwikivoyage: stdClass Object
ruwikivoyage: (
ruwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

ruwikivoyage: )

svwikivoyage

svwikivoyage: stdClass Object
svwikivoyage: (
svwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

svwikivoyage: )

ukwikivoyage

ukwikivoyage: stdClass Object
ukwikivoyage: (
ukwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

ukwikivoyage: )

viwikivoyage

viwikivoyage: stdClass Object
viwikivoyage: (
viwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0

viwikivoyage: )

zhwikivoyage

zhwikivoyage: stdClass Object
zhwikivoyage: (
zhwikivoyage: [count(*)] => 0
zhwikivoyage: )
apache@tin:/tmp$

Risker added a comment.Via ConduitMar 18 2014, 10:03 PM

(In reply to Dan Garry from comment #39)

Chris's tests were successful. Still, we can afford to take our time with
this to make sure that it all works correctly in production. Here's the
rollout plan for this:

Week 1: mediawiki.org
Week 2: wikiquotes, wikiversity, wikibooks, wikispecies, wikivoyage,
wiktionary, wikinews, wikisource
Week 3: commons, meta, anything else I've forgotten except wikipedias
Week 4: wikipedias

We'll keep a week between deployments to see if there are any unexpected
issues, and if there are then we'll delay future deployments. The oversight
log will remain accessible after the migration so we can verify that
everything went fine. I'm familiar with the operation of suppression and
have global suppression by virtue of my staff rights, so I'll be available
to help if anything goes wrong.

I'll write on here when I know what date this will begin.

Good plan, Dan. If I may suggest:

Week 4: all Wikipedias except enwiki

Week 5: Enwiki - See note below

Suggested QA reviews:

10 oversights - all

10>50 oversights - 10 reviews
50>100 oversights -20%
100+ oversights -10 to 15%
Enwiki - 5 to 10%

Suggest enlisting several enwiki oversighters to participate in the QA sample. Enwiki represents over 80% of oversighted edits, and if something is going to be weird, it will probably be here; when I look back at the logs, I see a lot of really strange actions.

I've done up a google doc[1] stratifying the proposed schedule, with suggested number of QA checks, based on the results Reedy got in Comment 16.

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahh1Kb4u4Ot9dDFid3VSWF9pa1A4RDdsMWkwZ1A0eGc&usp=sharing

tomasz added a comment.Via ConduitMay 4 2014, 11:33 AM

Good plan, Dan. You just need to execute it.

Rschen7754 added a comment.Via ConduitJun 25 2014, 6:32 AM

Did anything ever happen with this?

tomasz added a comment.Via ConduitJun 25 2014, 7:38 AM

No.

Reedy added a comment.Via ConduitOct 28 2014, 10:20 PM

I did mediawikiwiki ages ago... And I've just done everywhere else bar enwiki

Reedy added a comment.Via ConduitOct 28 2014, 10:24 PM

reedy@tin:~$ grep "Done" oversight.log
akwiki: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
arwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
arwikibooks: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
arwikinews: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
barwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
bjnwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
cebwiki: Done! 3 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
commonswiki: Done! 169 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
crwiki: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
cswiki: Done! 89 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
cywiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
dewiki: Done! 68 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
dewikibooks: Done! 16 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
dewikinews: Done! 27 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
dewiktionary: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
eewiki: Done! 4 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
enwikibooks: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
enwikinews: Done! 41 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
enwikiquote: Done! 16 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
enwikisource: Done! 6 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
enwikiversity: Done! 52 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
enwiktionary: Done! 17 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
eowiki: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
eswiki: Done! 62 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
eswikisource: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
eswiktionary: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
fawiki: Done! 10 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
fiwiki: Done! 113 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
foundationwiki: Done! 5 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
frwiki: Done! 130 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
frwikinews: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
frwikiquote: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
frwikisource: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
frwiktionary: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
gdwiktionary: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
glwiki: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
huwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
idwiki: Done! 13 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
ikwiki: Done! 3 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
itwiki: Done! 54 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
jawiki: Done! 3 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
kowiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
lvwiki: Done! 5 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
metawiki: Done! 125 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
mlwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
mtwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
nlwiki: Done! 81 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
nlwikimedia: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
pdcwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
plwiki: Done! 21 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
ptwiki: Done! 125 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
ptwikisource: Done! 6 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
ruwiki: Done! 241 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
sewiki: Done! 6 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
simplewiki: Done! 26 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
slwiktionary: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
specieswiki: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
srwiki: Done! 7 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
stwiki: Done! 11 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
svwiki: Done! 462 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
tawiki: Done! 2 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
testwiki: Done! 12 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
wikimania2008wiki: Done! 0 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
wuuwiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
yiwiki: Done! 39 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
zeawiki: Done! 1 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
zhwiki: Done! 60 oversighted revision(s) are now converted to suppressed revisions.
reedy@tin:~$

gerritbot added a comment.Via ConduitOct 28 2014, 10:32 PM

Change 169611 had a related patch set uploaded by Reedy:
Only enable Extension:Oversight on enwiki

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/169611

gerritbot added a comment.Via ConduitOct 28 2014, 10:32 PM

Change 169612 had a related patch set uploaded by Reedy:
Disable Extension:Oversight

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/169612

gerritbot added a comment.Via ConduitDec 2 2014, 7:12 PM

Change 169611 merged by jenkins-bot:
Only enable Extension:Oversight on enwiki

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/169611

Trijnstel added a subscriber: Reedy.Via WebDec 3 2014, 12:25 PM

@Reedy - you might have converted the oversighted edits to suppression (thanks for that), but you didn't convert/import the log actions. Which means we now have fully suppressed edits without any reasoning about why something was removed. See for example: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:VersieVerwijderen&type=revision&target=Ad_van_den_Berg_%28activist%29&ids=23646821 (I remembered this one as it was the last oversighted edit on nlwiki). I assumed the log entries would be converted/imported too, but apparently not... (even a short note like "this edit was suppressed by xxx on xxx because of xxx via the now obsolete oversight extension" or something along those lines)

Krenair added a comment.Via WebDec 3 2014, 12:34 PM

Well the script definitely has code to handle adding the log entries... Not sure why it didn't get run in production. Although obviously I can't investigate that.

Elitre added a subscriber: Elitre.Via WebDec 10 2014, 3:49 PM
Trijnstel added a comment.Via WebDec 18 2014, 2:17 PM

Hello? Any update on this? @Reedy? The log actions are still not added...

Reedy added a comment.Via WebDec 19 2014, 12:10 AM

@Krenair I guess it's worth testing it locally again to make sure it's doing what was expected...

Also, looking at more entries would be beneficial. If necessary, we can re-enable the Oversight extension more widely again to help find edits

Krenair added a comment.Via WebJan 1 2015, 6:23 PM

I tested it locally and a Special:Log/suppress entry appeared with the correct details (basically the timestamp, user and reason that was given when it was Oversighted).

@Reedy should be able to check the wikipedia database for what happened to the log entry in the case you mention, @Trijnstel.

Trijnstel added a comment.Via WebJan 1 2015, 10:47 PM

@Krenair I checked it again and it's kinda weird.... I searched in the suppression log on nlwiki and actually, there *is* an entry in the log (look for the date "19 dec 2010 15:04"), BUT... the log entry isn't mentioned on the suppression log of the suppressed edit as can be seen here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:VersieVerwijderen&type=revision&target=Ad_van_den_Berg_%28activist%29&ids=23646821 (if you know what I mean) And that should be fixed ofc.

Krenair added a comment.Via WebJan 1 2015, 11:22 PM

Looks like it's expecting entries in the log_search table, which weren't added.

Liuxinyu970226 added a subscriber: Liuxinyu970226.Via WebJan 13 2015, 7:38 AM
tomasz removed a project: Shell.Via WebFeb 23 2015, 7:47 PM
tomasz set Security to None.
tomasz added a project: Shell.
tomasz removed a project: Shell.Via WebFeb 23 2015, 7:55 PM
hashar placed this task up for grabs.Via WebMon, Jun 8, 10:51 AM
hashar added a subscriber: hashar.
hashar removed a subscriber: hashar.Via WebMon, Jun 8, 10:51 AM

Add Comment