FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Allow only custodians to move pages?
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 September 2016 by ThePsionic.

Earlier today, Olaf wanted to revenge. Thanks to our resident loon notifying admins Olaf didn't to get far, but it does beg the question why auto-confirmed users have the ability to move pages right off the bat. This is why I want to bring up the following question: Should moving pages be limited to custodians, admins and bureaucrats only? Nothing would change about the (sometimes informal) way custodians are currently requested.

Discussion

Support - I made the thread Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 13:54, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, it may be possible to create a new usergroup for people allowed to move pages, with lesser requirements than becoming a custodian. Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 13:57, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Can confirm. Olaf wanted to revenge. Korasi's sword Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector fetus is my son and I love him. 14:04, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

Neutral - I think it might be a bit much just because we had one vandal, but at the same time there is little need for most people to be moving pages. User:TyA/sig 17:22, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Shift it to autoconfirmed, people get bored having to wait 4 days to carry on vandalising. Only custodians+ can suppress redirects, so there's a limit to what damage they can do. User:Cqm/Signature

Also, because I apparently missed it in the OP, the users group has the move permission, not autoconfirmed. The user in question was not autoconfirmed. User:Cqm/Signature
Turns out autoconfirmed is a global group, so we can require autoconfirmed and 10+ edits for moves with Abusefilter as well to cover all bases. User:Cqm/Signature
Cqm++ Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 20:33, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - this is a previously rejected proposal that is too close to "disallow anonymous users from editing", and you haven't addressed previous concerns. We've also specifically rejected requiring the autoconfirmed flag to move pages. --Iiii I I I 18:01, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

IPs can't move pages in the first place, though. Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 18:06, September 23, 2016 (UTC)
By restricting moving to custodians or any usergroup you are raising the barrier for people to contribute, which is what we've opposed so many times. Looking at the 50 most recent contributors with over 100 edits (excluding administrators), only 12 have the custodian right – you'd be taking away a basic ability from dozens of users. There is nowhere near enough move vandalism to justify this. --Iiii I I I 20:31, September 23, 2016 (UTC)
I went back 9 months and found about 5 non-autoconfirmed users moving pages, 2 of which were moving pages in their userspace. Another was a user making a money making guide in their userspace and then moving it to the mainspace. None of these was vandalism. In the same time period, I found one move caught by Special:Abusefilter/3 which was the user that inspired this discussion. Special:Abusefilter/10 is another filter dedicated to prevent move vandalism, which has a single hit in the past 6 years. The obvious conclusion here is that moving by new users is very rare, but move vandalism is even rarer. User:Cqm/Signature

Oppose - Per fetus, we need to encourage new editors, not block them out. bad_fetustalk 22:00, September 23, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - per Cqm, auto-confirmed, instead of users, sounds OK to me. --User:Saftzie/Signature 03:46, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? One vandalism of this type in how long so "Hey, let's make a rule even though it will affect more good people than bad." No. If the vandalisms outnumbered the good edits, you would at least have a case. Degenret01 (talk) 16:36, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

Self close - You're right, at the moment move vandalism is not bad enough to warrant this change. Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 17:20, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.