Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover: Difference between revisions

Page mover

User:Nihlus

• Nihlus (t · th · c ^{(RM/TR · RMs)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · CSD log · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I've been dealing with a lot of page moves out of draft space that need to be sent back. Admittedly, I avoid doing this due to the cleanup required after moving the page and normally pester someone else into doing it. I'm also beginning to get more involved with NPR and AfC, so it would easier for me to have this. In addition, I plan on helping out with the WP:RM backlog; however, that will be a slower process. Thanks! Nihlus 07:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nihlus, the reason I'm declining this is because the page mover criteria are pretty strict as it is probably the most sensitive unbundled right. I was on the fence on this, because you're a good editor who is clueful, but right now, you really only have 4 months of consecutive activity and engagement in the community, and our guideline is for 6 months. If you had a strong need for the right (editing articles with Latin titles where you had to frequently post to WP:RM/TR for case issues as an example), I'd be inclined to grant, but while I consider NPP/AFC to be a useful reason to grant, it really isn't a need as much as a want. You can apply CSD R2 to the resulting redirect and an admin will delete it for you. At the same time, if you come back sometime mid-January or later, I think you'd be a strong candidate for granting the flag at that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'm strongly opposed to your interpretation of the requirements for this right as it is not what the right is about nor is it "really strict" as you say it is.

1. The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 6 months. Y No where does it say "Active editor for 6 months straight".
2. The editor should have made at least 3,000 edits. Y I have 8,395.
3. The editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines. Participation in and closing requested moves and move reviews is a good way to gauge this, but not required Y See Special:Log/move/Nihlus.
4. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying. Y

Additionally, it states The above items are guidelines. An administrator may grant page mover rights to users they otherwise deem competent. Therefore, I strongly request that you reevaluate the criteria you applied here or have someone else give a second opinion. Nihlus 16:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for a long time before declining. I stand by my decline. The guidelines are loose in both ways, and at PERM sometimes we take a stricter approach than the letter of the granting guidelines require. This is helpful for AfC/NPP but not needed, and since you really only started contributing in the last 4 months, I think without a strong need for the right, the spirit of the guideline asks that you have more experience than you currently do before granting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no further comments on your decision except that I believe this needs to be reevaluated. Pinging recent admins on this PERM page: Alex Shih, Anarchyte, Primefac, Xaosflux. Nihlus 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was asked to comment here (incidentally by both parties).

I have to agree with Tony in this case. While I absolutely do not deny that Nihlus has done good work, and will continue to do so, the PGM right is something that is granted when there is a demonstrated need. I see all of five R2s in your contributions, all of them fairly recently. This is certainly indicative of future use of the perm, but five R2s over a month is hardly a huge issue. There just isn't a huge demonstrated need.

So yes, I would concur with Tony - when you find yourself consistently having to add R2s to pages because you're moving so many, then you can reapply. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept your agreement with him and drop this, but that does not mean I agree with either of your decision making. Nihlus 17:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd' certainly be interested in what other admins who regularly work this page think, as I respect each of the users you've pinged, and have no problem with my decisions being reviewed. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged, I will share my thoughts too, but just to comment on general principles. I had a conversation with SMcCandlish couple months ago about being more critical with page mover requests, and I have no problem with Tony's decline, but I think I can see Nihlus's point. If page mover is the "most sensitive unbundled right", shoudn't a request be opened for a few days with input from more editors instead of being unilaterally declined by one admin in matter of hours? "Experience" and "demonstrated need" are relative terms, so more discussions in potentially contentious decisions will always be better in my opinion before reaching a conclusion. Alex Shih (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this idea. The use of disruptive page moving has been on the rise (and is even the subject of an ongoing WP:RFARB in which someone's adminship is on the line). Requests for other advanced bits (the two editfilter ones, template editor, and maybe some others) are also subject to longer discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree that immediately declining may not always be the best decision, but a discussion was started and so far no one has challenged the decision not to grant the perm at this point in time. A {{not done}} can easily be turned into a {{done}} after the fact, but a discussion first is probably better when dealing with borderline cases. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd support moving to a template editor style format here, but as I've expressed on Alex's talk, I think we'd probably need a stronger criteria for that to be very effective (people will treat it as a must be given like they currently do, but even stronger if we use the checkbox method.) I still think my decline is good, but am open to being corrected in this discussion if consensus is against me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been cross-referenced at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Raise the bar?.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would also be on the fence to grant PM right to Nihlus at this moment. Their move log shows valuable work and the intent to help more with the Draft-Mainspace-Draft ballet is laudable. Ultimately, there is just a wee bit of experience lacking, and I would gladly support a renewed application in a few months. In the meantime, CSDs are your friends. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also decline here, though I realise that it isn't very fair because I've recently seen us give this right to users who are much less competent. In general my feeling is that the bar here has been too low. Also, pointing to your move log didn't give me a lot of confidence – you should not be moving categories unilaterally, category moves should be done through CFDS and CFD. Jenks24 (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenks24: The categories were from a CfD discussion that were not moved by the bot. See here. Nihlus 23:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. I'm not sure why PBS didn't just go through CFD like normal and have Cydebot do it, but you did go through the right process for the bot. Jenks24 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the link in the BRFA is technically dead since it was archived. Check here. Nihlus 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did see that. I mean why did he open the CFD and then a couple of days later, without anything you could even remotely call a consensus forming, decide to abandon the CFD and declare it "done"? He should have just listed all the categories he wanted renamed at the CFD and when it closed with a consensus Cydebot could have done it all. Anyway, not your problem and not the first time I have failed to understand PBS's logic. Jenks24 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW [not an admin, but I watch this page like a hawk due to some of the apples who've been questionably granted this user-right], Nihlus is not an editor I'd have concerns about in this regard, and clearly intends to use the bit for useful and appropriate work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have no concern that Nihlus will purposefully misuse the bit, but what I am concerned about is the possibility of accidentally making a mistake simply due to the overall lack of experience in moving pages, as shown here. The majority of the moves were categories after a bot failed to do it. I believe Tony's response was correct and I've got no desire to overturn it. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: To be fair, I have seen admins (including Tony) give the right to users who have fewer moves than I, not counting the categories. Nihlus 02:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. They also had longer service here or other administrators had commented on the request seeing no concerns. I am typically more liberal in granting rights, but I also don't assess on a checklist basis, but rather do a wholistic assessment keeping in mind the guidelines. The guidelines are loose in both directions to allow for discretion on the part of administrators. Moving pages (whether to draft or through requested moves) requires a lot of discretion and the ability to draw on previous experiences interacting with both new and experienced editors as to when it may or may not be a good idea to suppress a redirect or do a round-robin. This is something that is much better judged through time rather than edit counts. Is six months somewhat arbitrary? Yes, but any standard would be. Were you registered a year ago? Yes, but I think a review of your contributions will show that you really began engaging with Wikipedia and engaging with the community in August. We look both a longterm and recent experience when assessing "length" requirements. I think its a good principle to apply here as well. It is not a knock on the very good contributions you have done so far and your decision to contribute your time as a volunteer to Wikipedia, which I very much do appreciate. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'm sorry, but if you're only argument is that I haven't satisfied a time requirement but am completely competent in all other areas, then you really don't have much of an argument in my eyes. I can take constructive criticism such as "you need to work on this" or "you need to show me more of this" and improve on that, but being told "you need to wait two months to fulfill a time requirement", I don't have much to go on and view it as a complete waste of my time. You've given me nothing to improve upon, but I am tired of tiptoeing: Do you believe I lack the discretion necessary to handle page moves? Why or why not? Answering that might give me something to work with. Thanks. Nihlus 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that I agreed with Tony's analysis, I wasn't saying that I agreed that you should have been declined simply because you're two months under the time guideline. Instead, I was saying that when that is coupled with the somewhat lack of experience, I get some concerns. I've seen admins, myself included, accept requests from people with the same page moving experience but with longer and more extensive tenure. If you'd like a pointer as to how to improve, I suggest looking at some of clear-cut closures at WP:RM. A few weeks of closing and evaluating these will show us that you've got a solid grasp on the page moving guidelines and how consensuses form in relation to moving pages and page titles. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: My criticism was not directed at you, but I do sincerely thank you for your advice. Nihlus 04:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on mobile currently and likely won’t be on for a bit: Anarchyte explains my reasoning more succenictly than I could: it was a combination of factors here. Lack of a strong demonstrated need combined with length. I agree with their recommendations and I am also always available to you if you have questions about moves: it is one of the adminstrative areas non-admins can be most helpful in, and I’m always glad to see someone interested. I really do think you’d be a good candidate with a bit more experience and hope that you will try to get more involved in this area. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]