You cannot undo the first edit when you create a new page. However, it should be possible to undo the first edit for pages that ship with MediaWiki
Example: I could not undo my first edit in https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=MediaWiki:Revision-info&action=history
Do you mean you don't want that message to show up? You have two ways of getting rid of it, the first one is blanking and the second is deleting the page.
Hi @David_Hedlund You can not undo change of created page. You can delete page or hide change in history.
If you want to enable hiding change(s) in your LocalSettings.php file add below
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deletelogentry'] = true; $wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['deleterevision'] = true;
@Zoranzoki21 Wrong, I could undo when I made more edits, search "undo" at https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=MediaWiki:Revision-info&action=history
Do you have installed https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Patroller extension? I watching in page on your wiki Special:Version and I seen to you have not it installed.
@Zoranzoki21 I'm not one of the sysadmins for directory.fsf.org so I cannot know anything of what you asked for sure.
That question does not make sense. If the extension was [properly] installed, it would show up on https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=Special:Version
@David_Hedlund: Could you explain which behavior you'd expect after "undoing the first edit when you create a new page"? Would the behavior be the same as deleting a page? Or something else?
As I said:
it should be possible to undo the first edit for pages that ship with MediaWiki
This has nothing to do with rollback rights or extensions.
There's nothing to undo for the first revision of a page. You created that page, even if the edit area was pre-filled with the default message provided by MediaWiki. This message may have changed, or even be no longer in use after a MediaWiki upgrade or uninstalling an extension.
It is, however, a valid concern, to not see the "default" content of that message when editing it (other than looking at Special:AllMessages).
As already said, to "revert" to the default, you should delete the message. Some messages also would revert to the default when blanking them, but that doesn't happen always (some of them will simply render empty). This of course means that, when deleting it, you'll lose the history of changes you made to the message, unless you try to undelete it. But strictly speaking, this task is not about that, or at least hasn't been worded as such.
I don't think this relates to revision delete or any extension or other details that require sysadmin knowledge.
The MediaWiki namespace of pages is primarily a way for users of a wiki to override an interface message. Essentially a way to edit them. Technically those overrides manifest as pages. But unlike regular pages, MediaWiki namespace pages have a "default" value. When creating such a page to override the page, the edit page does not start with a blank. It starts with the default contents.
As such, that first edit does not, in any way, feel like a page creation, it feels like an edit. So the idea of being able to undo that, even if there is only one revision, makes a lot of sense.
From a software perspective, there are several ideas that come to mind that could solve this use case. The status quo is that we don't show the "undo" button, and rely on admins knowing to delete the page, or to blank the page, in a new revision.
We could improve documentation to reflect this, perhaps as part of the default edit notice on the MW namespace.
Alternatively, we could improve the history and diff views by making them aware of the default content and show an undo button regardless. This could lead to a revision restoring the original content. Although this can be fragile as it would substitute the current default. That has two problems: 1) might not match original at time of first edit, 2) will needlessly make it static from now on.
We could address this by changing it to instead be a dedicated "remove message override" button instead of plain undo. Which would insert a blank revision, which seems to be what we'd otherwise tell users to do already.