Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover

Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barkeep49 (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 1 January 2021 (→‎User:ProcrastinatingReader: done (using userRightsManager)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page mover

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
See Wikipedia:Page mover for the granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, and have a demonstrated need for the right.

User:MarioJump83

I have been frequently moving pages for a while now and the redirects created from these moves has been causing me pains (as a college student), since I was not able to CSD-G7 some of these redirects I have made. And this problem is even more annoying than it was while I'm a WikiProject AfC participant and as a new page reviewer (in a trial run - round robin moves are probably necessary in case there is some page that have drafts which got published without getting accepted by AfC). This is why I'm requesting this right.
By the way as I'm requesting this right I had followed these formalities: I have been here for 6 months, had over 3000 edits this year, no behavioral blocks over the last six months, I had demonstrated experience moving pages within guidelines, and I had participated with WP:RM numerous times from 2017 to 2020 (some of them are successful (i.e. Talk:Arakan Army) and some of them are not (i.e. Talk:Typhoon Ida (1958)) which I admit I was mistaken back in the day). MarioJump83! 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems competent and highly focused on WP:AFC work. The project would benefit by granting the bit, since MarioJump83's work would be more expedient, and would not create busywork for other editors in dealing with WP:G7 created in the process of it. Skimming around, nothing in the recent move log jumped out at me as weird.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AntonSamuel

I've been trying to improve the articles for the towns and villages in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh lately - a list that I've expanded to contain all the urban and rural communities of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh in Nagorno-Karabakh can be found here: List of cities and towns in Artsakh. There is currently an issue with the majority of the article names not being based on their (most likely) common names but instead being based on their official names in the majority of cases. There is currently a move discussion going on, see here: [1] and because of the contentious nature of the matter, I've also asked for some advice regarding the matter from an administrator: [2]
There are currently many redirect pages for alternative names of the localities, and after attempting some uncontroversial/technical moves lately - I've not been able to do so, since there are redirect pages blocking such moves. Considering the amount of articles (100+) to move if consensus is secured, it would help greatly if I was given the right to move the articles myself, instead of having to list every village that I'm unable to move on WP:RMT.
Regarding meeting the granting guidelines: I've been registered on Wikipedia since 2008, made 5,700+ edits [3], and I have not committed any 3RR violations or been blocked in the past 6 months [4] [5]. Here are a couple of move request discussions I've taken part in: [6] [7] [8] [9]
AntonSamuel (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AntonSamuel: Could you point to the consensus discussion[s] for that long spate of Armenia and Azerbaijan moves? And the related WP:CFD discussions for the category moves? As with another nominee here, I have some concerns about whether you've absorbed the actual meaning of WP:OFFICIALNAMES. WP goes by what is the most WP:COMMONNAME in sources, and does not usually immediately implement a move in the advent of the subject's off-site name change. Given the WP:ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions, maybe my sense of caution is being elevated a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: Hey! The matter has developed a bit since I made this request - the original move discussion on Talk:Karakend was closed without result, I asked for some advice on how to move forward (on the same talk page), and have attempted to break up the request into a number of smaller sample move discussions as a way to move forward, however in the end an RfC for a naming convention may be necessary. Some of the individual move requests have resulted in moves (Ashan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Verin Horatagh), one was closed without result (Khtsaberd [10], which I've found a bit problematic with regard to the canvassing that took place in this and related discussions, as well as filibustering/status quo stonewalling. I've tried to get some feedback from admins about the matter and how to proceed: [11]) while most of the move requests are still pending (Qırmızı Bazar, Ulu Qarabəy, Ağkənd, Khojavend, Şuşakənd, Yayıcı, Hasanriz, Böyük Qaladərəsi, Quzumkənd). I understand that this is a contentious issue so I've tried to move with caution and I don't intend to go ahead with a mass move without consensus to do so, both to take the controversial nature of the matter and the discretionary sanctions into account, and to make sure I follow Wikipedia guidelines in general when dealing with the issue.
    Regarding WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME - to be clear, what I have suggested is to move the articles for the concerned localities to their likely common names, while they are currently largely set to their official names. After a couple of move discussions, I've seen the benefit of supplying as many reliable sources as possible to back up the argument that a name is indeed a common name, however because of the small size of many of the villages concerned, reliable English-language sources mentioning the villages at all, using any name, can sometimes be hard to find. I've also taken from WP:NCGN#Multiple local names that Google search tests, despite their issues are permissible to utilize in order to determine the common name of a locality when there are multiple local names for a place, and so I've utilized tests for Google and Google Scholar in my requests. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That all sounds reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stylez995

I've been in Wikipedia in four years, and I've good experience of editing.
I've moved some pages in accordance with naming conventions. In one of my moves, I tried to do uncontroversial move to comply with the naming convention, but was occupied by a redirect. Such redirect had to be done with "round-robin" swap move, which only users with page mover right can do. I had to request on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. This would solve this hassle if I have this permission, as long I can do within guidelines.
I've precipitated on Talk:Love Live! School Idol Project#Requested move 10 December 2020 with consensus. But the move was delayed for the same reason.
I would like to request page mover permission, so I can perform Round-robin move if I need to do that, as long it's uncontroversial or consensual, and within the guidelines. I can also use it to perform requested technical moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Stylez995 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The moves I see mostly look sensible and non-controversial, except that the Skandiabanken/Sbanken mess should not have happened, and it was the second such move predicated on WP:OFFICIALNAMES, which Stylez995 should re-read. The gist of it is that WP does not put stock in what's "official", but what is most common in independent, reliable sources. When something has changed name in the real world, it often takes months or even longer for WP to catch up, and this is by design not by accident. Such moves should almost always go to full RM discussion, since people will want to provide WP:COMMONNAME evidence one way or the other. If the editor has learned this already, then I wouldn't have an concerns, I don't think.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: On Skandiabanken / Sbanken case, I realised I did it by mistake, and I reverted my own move. But I've read the guidelines that I should consider discussing it at RM for this case. Regardless, this happened long time ago. Also, happy new year! --Stylez995 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProcrastinatingReader

I would like to nominate ProcrastinatingReader (if they're interested) for the PM bit. This level of care and precision in considering what is entailed to properly effectuate a non-trivial move is a good indication the editor would be competent with the tool, and probably interested in using it. Their editing history shows a high level of WP:GNOMING, policy-compliance cleanup, problem patrolling, and other "proto-admin" and "systemic" work. Already vetted for WP:Template editor. Page move log (aside from userspace stuff) mostly focuses on cleanup of moves that left behind subpages, on fulfilling reasonable move requests, on correcting objectively faulty names, etc. I don't see any evidence of PoV-based page moving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks SMcCandlish. Though, this wouldn't have helped with the TR linked -- the target title was actually sysop protected at the time[12], but it will probably make things like TfD userfy outcomes and other requests I make on IRC more convenient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per request, clarifying that the above is an accept of this nom. Most the type of moves I make require suppression / moving subpages, or requesting someone on IRC do it, so the perm should come in handy for those. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover&oldid=997678943"