Here's a mockup I created. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/2/27/Screenshot-localhost-2019.02.28-22-39-30.png

In T211504#4992156, @Ciencia_Al_Poder wrote:

In T211504#4985545, @Setian wrote:

So what's going to happen to these null revisions? Will they just get deleted? What happens if the move is reversed; should those deleted null revisions get automatically restored, or should a sysop have to come along and restore them?

Yes, they will just get deleted, along the original revision with the original redirect, This is what currently happens if there is only a single revision with the redirect and no intermediate null revisions.

There's no need to restore them, if you leave the redirect when renaming the page back to the original name.

So where should the log entries get saved? Is this going to the move/revision log, kinda like how currently, revisiondelete actions go to the delete/revision log?

In T23312#4990340, @Anthony_Appleyard wrote:

In my experience, if I do not have selective delete of edits, I would certainly need selective undelete of edits like we have now.

(Selective or non-selective move (while keeping them deleted) of the deleted edits which are listed under a page-name, would also be useful.)

So what's the user interface for this going to look like? I'm thinking it's going to be like a cross between action=revisiondelete and Special:MovePage, because it'll list the revisions being moved and then ask where they're being moved to.

In T23312#4990316, @Anthony_Appleyard wrote:

If there was a "selective revision move" feature ...

But selective delete of edits would also be useful, in my experience.

I created this mockup: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/d/d2/Screenshot-localhost-2019-02-26-23-07-41.png

In T213617#4989857, @Anthony_Appleyard wrote:

I have now read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RevisionDelete and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Revision_table

The entry https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Revision_table#rev_deleted says that "rev_deleted ... This field is reserved for the RevisionDelete system. It's a bitfield in which the values are DELETED_TEXT = 1; DELETED_COMMENT = 2; DELETED_USER = 4; and DELETED_RESTRICTED = 8." Does this show that "revision deletion" is what I listed at (1) above, i.e. what I thought of as "hiding" edits, and not the same as ordinary deleting and undeleting of edits or pages that users often ask me to perform? Or what?

The situation is complicated by the fact that there are two tables for storing revisions, the archive table and the revision table.

T215696 ("RecentChanges should update entries when user move a page") may help with this.

@Anthony_Appleyard So if logged actions are being taken to move archived revisions from one page title to another, what log would these entries be filed under? Move log? Deletion log?

@Anthony_Appleyard So basically you want something along the lines of this, it sounds like. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mediawiki/d/d2/Screenshot-localhost-2019-02-26-23-07-41.png

So what's going to happen to these null revisions? Will they just get deleted? What happens if the move is reversed; should those deleted null revisions get automatically restored, or should a sysop have to come along and restore them?

In T213617#4984549, @Anthony_Appleyard wrote:

When an administrator has selected some edits, there could be options for him to ask for various things to be done with them, e.g.: (1) Deleting them. (2) Moving them to another pagename (i.e. renaming them). (3) Delete them and rename them at the same time.

In T213617#4981724, @Anthony_Appleyard wrote:

More simply :: sometimes in my work, I need to delete some edits of a page's edit history. But I cannot :: I must delete all of that page's edits, then undelete some of them. That wastes internet link time and Wikipedia server time. That is why selective delete is needed.

This goes well with T217089, "Add a config setting to disable deletion of recentchanges entries when pages are deleted."

This task dovetails nicely with T217125, "Set $wgGroupPermissions['*']['deletedhistory'] = true; in DefaultSettings.php".

How do we want to implement this? As a core user right, or as a hook that an extension would use to add a new user right?

Maybe T215696 ("RecentChanges should update entries when user move a page") would help with this?

In T215696#4982069, @GeoffreyT2000 wrote:

If this were to be implemented, then that would mean that Special:NewPages would no longer need to show "originally created as" for moved pages.

This looks to be automagically taken care of (going forward) when this patch is applied. The "originally created as" simply doesn't appear for newer entries.

In T213617#4875026, @Aklapper wrote:

Can you provide a specific example article where this would be helpful, and point out which exact edits you would move from where to where?

In T136048#3096971, @happy5214 wrote:

I think (I could be wrong, since I'm new to the code.) that logging.log_page is the page ID of the user page for the user being thanked. If that user doesn't have such a page, it's 0.

So how do you want to do this; should it be set up like:

In T215696#4979249, @Krinkle wrote:

And after this change, that would still be the case, right? That seems to be working as expected. Anyhow, I'll leave this for Growth to triage :)

There's going to be a need for cross-wiki invalidation of caches, right, when pages are deleted, etc.? How are we going to implement that?

In T215696#4979023, @Krinkle wrote:

The page link is indeed red and represents the title at the time.

But, does the "diff" link work?

@Legoktm , I took a look at your 2014 patch here: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/177960/5/includes/cache/LinkCache.php

Here are the current error messages I get (when using mysql Ver 15.1 Distrib 10.1.34-MariaDB, for debian-linux-gnu (x86_64)):

Are there certain mw.log entries, like previous page moves, whose recentchanges rows should be left alone rather than changed when the page is moved? If so, what's the list of exclusions? Anyway, for now I just went ahead and excluded all mw.log entries from being changed by this.

In T2011#4977915, @Legoktm wrote:

Does that seem like something you could take on? It's definitely not a trivial task - let me know if anything I suggested is unclear.

Adding Legoktm since he wrote the LinkRenderer.

Do you want to have an isset() for $wgInterwikiNamespaces, or do you want it defined in DefaultSettings.php as an empty array, or is there some better way to find out the namespace scheme of another wiki?

What documentation should a newbie read to learn how to do this? Oh, I guess I'll take a look at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/1087/ for inspiration.

So now I'm starting to think, since this is going to have so many of the features and aesthetics of AbuseFilter, the best approach would be to just rip off most of the code from AbuseFilter, and rip off a small amount of code from SpamBlacklist (the part that compares the blacklist to the whitelist to see if it's going to be triggered). In a case like this where the needed functionality is so close to what already exists, might as well just rip it off wholesale, rather than merely take inspiration from it.

In T6459#4976713, @MER-C wrote:

See mockup:

It looks like most of the consensus is in favor of creating a special page of some sort for the spam blacklist, since this task hasn't been WONTFIXed.

In T216803#4975485, @MarcoAurelio wrote:

Hmm. Since when TitleBlacklist entries can be set to expire? I don't see any docs (or can't find them) on mediawiki.org. That should be documented. Thanks.

So, a few questions.

1. Are we anticipating there are just going to be 3-4 options?
2. Are we going to want to integrate this with AbuseFilter; and if so, how does that affect our design decisions?
3. Do you mind if we have to create another database table for this?
4. If we do this as a special page, how do we handle situations where sysops want to insert a line next to an already-existing line, so that similar items are grouped together? Is each line going to be numbered, so that for example, they could number a new line 65 to put it between lines 60 and 70?

In T216393#4975019, @Samwalton9 wrote:

2019-02-21T16:38:43.676509Z 27866 [Note] Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: NO)

Looks to be happening every 30 seconds.

In T216393#4973559, @lalit97 wrote:

I am done with the setup and able to reproduce the same error

Just curious, is the RTL version actually used anywhere? I ran a Catfish search and didn't see it in any of the files, although the LTR version is used in VisualEditor/modules/ve-mw/ui/styles/tools/ve.ui.MWLinkInspectorTool.css

What table will it be looking at for this timestamp? Also, what style of notice will it be displaying; is there another one like it, that it can be modeled after? Thanks.