Topic on User talk:Eugene Friedriechsen

Cross-namespace page moves

Summary by Doug

Eugene Friedriechsen was notified about the problematic cross-namespace page moves when the trailing redirect is left behind. His explanation satisfied the questioning bureaucrat, Dmehus, and he has pledged not to do such tests again in the future or to recreate that Category:BangBangBangaBang category. Where he did have cause to perform a cross-namespace page move across more than namespace, he would suppress the redirect.

Doug (talkcontribs)

Hi Eugene Friedriechsen,

During my regular review of the public logs on Public Test Wiki, I noticed your creation of the Ehehehe and Ehehehe teest test pages, as well as your recreation of Category:BangBangBangaBang.

In terms of the Ehehehe and Ehehehe teest test pages, you proceeded to move those pages across nearly all of this wiki's namespaces, with the exceptions of the File:, MediaWiki:, and Topic: namespaces (likely accounting for a combination of technical or user rights group permissions limitations). Ordinarily, this would not be a problem as you did delete the final destination page, Gadget definition talk:Ehehehe teest; however, because you did not check the box to suppress the redirect left behind from your cross-namespace page move (on wheels), a trailing redirect was left behind (which also created broken redirects and double redirects). I tried to blank the trailing redirect pages, in order to utilize Special:Nuke; however, this didn't work. So, I had to manually delete all of those trailing redirects. So, if you are going to move a page across more than one namespace, please be sure to suppress the trailing redirect, especially when it's a test page that will be deleted in relatively short order. As a matter of personal curiousity, and noting the Ehehehe and Ehehehe teest test page names, I'm curious what you were testing that necessitated moving these pages through nearly every namespace on this wiki?

In terms of Category:BangBangBangaBang, I was a bit puzzled as to why it was undeleted. Seeing no need for this obvious test category that serves no useful purpose in our page categorization system, I have redeleted it, and creation protected (or salted) it for three months at bureaucrat level. It will not be recreated for you, unless you can briefly explain to me (in approximately 1-2 sentences) why you would like it to exist.

Because the time involved in the cleanup, I have had to notify a consul of this cleanup. So, please be mindful of all tests you perform; ask questions at the community portal or on the user talk page of any bureaucrat or consul; think twice about all tests you perform, considering the effects of such test(s); and, as always, revert any tests you perform.

Thank you,

MirahezeGDPR a51581232c7cc84ec1a32c40d8489548 (talkcontribs)

To Dmehus-- please note that salting at a level higher than admin is ineffective, as administrators can simply lower the amount of protection needed to create the page. This does not apply to existing pages, where you can set the "Protect" level, but it does to nonexistent pages where the only option is to create.

To Eugene Friedriechsen-- if you create that page again before the protection has expired, I will remove your admin flag.

Doug (talkcontribs)

@Naleksuh: Ah, yes, I do see that there is only a "create" protection assigned to Special:ProtectedTitles—I guess I just assumed that, naturally, the other protections (notably "protect") applied to creation protected titles. That's fair, and certainly an administrator who changed the creation protection level to recreate the given the page in this context would be a desysoppable transgression (at least for a defined period of time). Thanks for your assistance in monitoring this.

RhinosF1 (talkcontribs)

If you protect a page higher than admin (unless it's normal edit protection) then you need to up the protect protection as well.

Doug (talkcontribs)

@RhinosF1:, yes, but I think what @Naleksuh: was referring to was where the page does not exist, so it's just a protected title. In those cases, there's only the ability to set the create protection level. We could probably test that on one of the consul-protected titles and see if it can be lowered by a bureaucrat.

RhinosF1 (talkcontribs)

The ability to set protect protection should be on non existent pages. That sounds like a bug in the logic.

Doug (talkcontribs)

@RhinosF1: yeah, I agree, it definitely sounds like a bug, or at least an undesirable way of going about protecting pages and titles. Creation protecting page titles should ideally follow the same method of protecting pages, with both "create" and "protect" levels of protection on non-existent pages. I'll try searching through Wikimedia Phabricator to see if there's an outstanding request for this (would be somewhat surprised if there isn't).

MirahezeGDPR a51581232c7cc84ec1a32c40d8489548 (talkcontribs)
This post was hidden by MirahezeGDPR a51581232c7cc84ec1a32c40d8489548 (history)
Eugene Friedriechsen (talkcontribs)

Dear everyone,

Sorry for the mess I created; It did not passed from my mind that such a big thing would be created.

@Dmehus, I moved this page across most of the prefixes to understand if it had a difference, a difficulty or whatsoever, in moving it in more unknown ones, and to see what would happen to the appearance of these pages in a category.

I should have deleted all these redirects, my fault. I will never also re-create this category.

Sorry again

Doug (talkcontribs)

@Eugene Friedriechsen: Thanks for your belated reply. That's very much appreciated, and your explanation is helpful. Yes, had the redirects been suppressed, honestly, I most likely would not have even mentioned anything. The left behind redirects, which were showing up on Special:BrokenRedirects and Special:DoubleRedirects, were the main issue. Anyway, I appreciate your reply, and am glad you were able to complete your testing. Thanks again!