Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2020/December

Hello folks, so I just came up with a thought. Yesterday I was performing some botched moved and damn they were many. The redirects which were created were unnecessary therefore I had to tag them all for speedy deletion. This is really tedious and sometimes causes a lot of inconveniences in editing especially when no admin is online. I hereby propose the following:

• Proposal one A creation of a user group similar to the “page movers” user group on Wikipedia. The user right should make an editor:

1. Be able to suppress redirects when making a move
2. Move a page/books and its subpages with an increased limit of 100 pages/minute
3. Note Requests for this permission to be made at RFP similar to other permissions and only granted to users with experience in page moves

• Proposal two The suppress redirect feature and 100 pages/minute feature be introduced into the reviewer toolset.

• Support: Proposal two --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]
• While I appreciate your frustration in this case, honestly I'm inclined to Oppose extending the suppress-redirects priv. Some various thoughts:

• Renaming pages always has the capacity to get things tangled up, but suppressing redirects has the potential to make this even worse, by losing track of various associated tasks that need to be untangled as part of the larger operation. When drawing down the list of requested speedy-deletions just now, there was a bunch of untangling to do that would have been significantly harder if redirects had been suppressed. When things get significantly snarled (a rare occurrence, but something I've seen happen a few times), it typically would have been worse without redirects, and, seems to me, usually the user who got tangled up learns from the incident more elegant ways to handle similar situations thereafter.
• When a whole book has to be moved, please ask an admin to do it. Admins can move a page and all of its subpages in a single action, and can suppress redirects and handle other associated subtasks at the same time.

--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment : On the English Wikipedia, when I move a page, I see a checkbox labeled "Leave a redirect behind" that is selected by default. I could swear this feature existed before I became a Wikipedia admin, although I was a reviewer and don't know if this feature was part of a reviewer's toolset. I would support making this feature available the same way it is made available on Wikipedia. Anachronist (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Support proposal one, weak Oppose proposal two. I'm not hugely active here, but the page mover right works quite well on the English Wikipedia. I'm not exactly comfortable with granting reviewers too many additional rights though, because then they would become sysops without sysop functionality, especially since this right should be granted automatically. However, on Wikidata, autoconfirmed users automatically have the ability to patrol pages, move pages without leaving redirects, and have their pages marked as autopatrolled. Then again, maybe it's because there isn't much demand for rights there, and most users need just autoconfirmed access to use one of Magnus Manske's semi-automated tools, so most (autoconfirmed) users can be trusted with these flags. Maybe it's also because the rules there are more tolerant and lenient. Reviewers are selected to clean up vandalism, not clean up page moves and other adminny stuff. Otherwise they'd be called "subadmins" or something of the like. Prahlad balaji (discuss • contribs) 04:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Oppose proposal 1 because that would just clutter the permissions toolkit (and I am not a big fan of the demarcation of permissions that Wikipedia does). Weak support proposal 2 because while I can see Pi zero's opposition, on the other hand we currently have to give reviewer permission manually, so I don't see adding two permissions as a big problem, given that reviewers by default are supposed to have a degree of experience already. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: requesting reviewer at rfp is only a temporary solution. Would you support proposal one and/or oppose proposal two if the bug fixed itself? Thank you. Regards, Prahlad balaji (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Prahlad balaji: I'll stay opposed to the first one, and probably be neutral for the second - because I don't see a mistake with it, just a bit risky. After all, those who are automatically granted reviewer do have some experience, similar through less rigorous than Wikipedia's Extended Confirmed permission. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: ok, thanks for the explanation. --Prahlad balaji (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Leaderboard: autopromotion has started working again. --Prahlad balaji (T / C) 02:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[]

• Alt proposal, leave them. Redirects are cheap, so cheap that it really isn't worth wasting time over them unless they are pejorative or misleading. So rather than make it easier to delete or not create redirects, I would suggest just accepting that there are going to be lots of redirects from typos of names. OK each individual typo may be so rare that in some cases they won't recur. But across thousands of redirects there is a real value in keeping them, even if only hundreds are ever used by someone making the same typo, while there is zero gain in deleting them, and time spent reviewing them and deciding which are likely to be of some value and which should be kept is bound to be more valuable than any possible gain from deleting them. WereSpielChequers (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@WereSpielChequers:It’s not just about redirects, you realize that only an admin can move subpages and pages in a book at a go. For a normal user, we have to move them one by one. It really becomes tedious --Synoman Barris (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

It's not something to do casually, though, and when occasionally needed an admin can help. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

WikiBooks started with a dozen administrators. There are now only 8. Rather than create a new usergroup why not appoint some more admins? MrJulesd below is quite correct to note that unbundling on EN WP has led to fewer RFAs, if you appoint more trusted users as admins it spreads the load more evenly. another way of thinking of it is to ask yourself, are there people here who you would trust to move pages but not trust with the block button? WereSpielChequers (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

It's not that we get a lot of applications to begin with... Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

If adminship were bundled I'd be happy to learn the ropes and help out with admin work here, as I do already on en-wiki. I'm just not inclined to endure another RFA. One was enough. Anachronist (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Wikibooks' RFA is significantly less gruesome than Wikipedia's (in fact, one could argue that being a steward is easier). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[]

I can concur with Leaderboard. Our RFAs aren't as bad as the RFAs up at WP. I've seen the RFAs there, it's quite long and exhausting. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[]

• Oppose I think the big problem with unbundling is that, every time you do it, you create yet another reason to oppose at RFA. Now I haven't actually seen an RFA during my time here, but I think it's obvious that it would be beneficial if it happened more often. Now at en.wp, RfA has more or less dried up, despite the huge number of editors there. And I think unbundling is one of the major contributors to that, as most tasks can now be performed by non-admins. If this did pass I would prefer option 2, and I feel it is unlikely that it would create many problems, but I can't support it at this time per my comments.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]
• Support proposal two. I think that reviewers are mature enough to handle suppressing redirects, especially when they're adopting books. --Prahlad balaji (T / C) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[]
• Support #2. Sensible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]
• Oppose proposal 1 - Not an entirely big fan of "copying" rights from Wikipedia, especially with proposal 2 being put on the line, which I support proposal 2. Although I understand Pi zero's input, I believe that reviewers are experienced enough to perform an action like this. On another note, we could increase the requirements if this new permission becomes an issue in the future. The frustration from the OP is evident. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[]
• Oppose 1 per no need for new groups. Support 2, but the 100pages/min is practically no ratelimit, so the phab ticket needs to be as such. And as we are here, GR/GS have these rights already, should we be allowed to use beyond basic countervandalism. Camouflaged Mirage (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]
• Support Proposal 2. Seems sensible and if it doesn't work then we can go back to how things were.--ЗAНИA ^talk 12:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
• Support Proposal 1. I have pagemover at w:en: and it would be nice to have something similar here. I am not against lifting the 100 pages/minute limit for reviewers but I would rather see either more admins or an unbundled "pagemover" group here than dump the ability to suppress redirects during page moves into our autogranted reviewer group here. —Uzume (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]
• All in all, I think there is enough support for Proposal 2 and I've filed phab:T268849 for its implementation. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[]