Page MenuHomePhabricator

mass suppression of deleted revisions
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

It would be nice to be able to suppression multiple revisions from the deleted history, as we can do with revisions in the public history.

We can select multiple deleted revisions, in order to selectively
restore revisions, but there is no button to mass suppress.

Currently the easiest way to suppress revisions is to undelete the page and then redelete the page.


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement

Details

Reference
bz26215

Event Timeline

bzimport raised the priority of this task from to High.Nov 21 2014, 11:14 PM
bzimport set Reference to bz26215.
bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).

william.wiki.admin wrote:

As an en.wiki oversighter, I must echo John. Deleted revisions can only be suppressed individually, by clicking del/undel.

Note that it is still possible to *restore* multiple revisions via checkboxing all of them, but not to delete. A "suppress selected revisions" button, little different to the "Del/undel selected revisions" one which appears in the history of pages in the public would - as far as I anticipate - resolve this issue completely. It is not resourceful to suppress revisions one by one and in principal it is completely unacceptable to restore material which should be suppressed, just so it can be done.

WH.

william.wiki.admin wrote:

Following conversation in #wikimedia-dev, I'd just like to stress how easily this could be resolved: it is already possible to check individual revisions and restore them with the "restore" button - I cannot imagine it would be too complicated to add a "suppress" button, obviously viewable to only those in the oversight group, which would bring the selected revisions forward to the standard Delete/undelete revisions page from which page suppressions are carried out.

WH.

  • This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 20189 ***

I don't really understand how but apparently this is not actually a duplicate.

Re-marking as duplicate after some discussion.

  • This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 20189 ***