Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:Ophyrius

Hi, I'm requesting these rights as they would be helpful to me in moving pages without redirects, help at WP:RM/TR. I'm also a file mover & it would assist me in moving files without redirects. Also, it would be very useful in Draftifying.

  1. The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 6 months. (11/8 months)
  2. The editor should have at least 3,000 edits. (2438+1230=3668)
  3. The editor should demonstrate experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines. Participation in requested moves and move reviews, or experience closing move requests is a good way to gauge this.
  4. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations in the 6 months prior to application.

I have made many mistakes in page moving in the past, but I try my best not to repeat them & learn from them. Thanks! Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 11:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 2503 total edits. — MusikBot talk 21:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ophyrius: Quick questions: Would you move files without leaving a redirect in instances where you wouldn't currently have requested speedy deletion of the move redirect? If so, what would be an example? ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust I don't think I would need to do that because a redirect has to be suppressed when moved per WP:FNC#2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and sometimes per WP:FNC#3. All of the redirects left due to these meet the speedy deletion criteria. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 10:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ophyrius: What CSD do you consider 2 and 4 as falling under? ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 10:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust:, Many files renamed according to criteria 2 and 4 fall under CSD G1. I could be mistaken about this, as I don’t have much experience with renaming files in these categories. However, whether the redirect should be suppressed depends on the original file name, not the renaming criteria. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 13:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILEREDIRECT is clear that most file redirects should be kept, even if the name is gibberish. Developers have even threatened to desysop admins who delete file redirects without very good reason. No opinion on the merits of this application. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ophyrius How many times would you relist an RM that has received no comments? Toadspike [Talk] 22:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: I would normally relist discussions twice before closing them as 'no consensus.' In exceptional cases, I might relist them for a third time if I believe additional time is needed and that more discussion would happen, which would be enough to determine consensus, but this only applies to RMs with some discussion. Therefore, it would be a maximum 2 times for such discussions. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 15:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ophyrius: What about WP:RMNOMIN? Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenshi Hinanawi: While it too is to be followed, it's for uncontroversial moves that can be WP:SNOWed or moved boldly, without any need for discussion. I believe controversial moves are better relisted for consensus. (The question is about RMs with no comments/discussions, if you didn't notice) Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 16:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. You seem to have misunderstood several aspects of how moving pages works. In addition to the file redirect suppression issues above, RMs which have had no objections for a week or two can usually be closed as moved. A single relist of an RM with no comments is okay, two or three is excessive. Further, when there are no comments, there can be no WP:SNOW, as that requires many comments in agreement; and when an RM is already open, there should be no WP:BOLD moving of the page. Please review the relevant pages linked by others above and come back in a month or two. Toadspike [Talk] 22:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Easternsahara

I meet all of the Wikipedia:PMCRITERIA. I have never been blocked and I have never violated the 3RR. Otherwise, my history of contribution] has been fairly good, I have reviewed GAN, FLCS, and FACS, and currently have to FLCs running right now. I have 3,000 edits and my account hit the 6 month mark last month. As you can see, I have a history of moving things unopposed and contributing to Requested Moves, even in contentious topics where there are more things to take into consideration (I don't know how to link it, just go through my user contributions). I am also good at moving-adjacent things, like discussing changes on the talk page and I am familiar with redirects. In addition to moving things often, I am also a reviewer at AFC. Giving me this right will create less burden at WP:RMTR and will prevented other unopposed moves which I create discussions for. I will not use this right to bypass discussion, and have never used moving to bypass RM for topics which could be controversial. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 02:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Easternsahara "will prevented other unopposed moves which I create discussions for" – what would you check for before deciding that a move is sufficiently uncontroversial to be performed without discussion? Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike:, hey thanks for the quick response. Sorry for the bad grammar, I had created this when I was sleepy. By uncontroversial, I mean in violation of policies like disambiguation. Some examples that I have moved Talk:Israeli attack on Doha#Requested move 1 October 2025 (although this was in contentious topic, so maybe I'd put it in RM just in case), both Shah Abdul Wahhab which had unnesscary disambiguation of scholar (they were both scholars and the only Shah Abdul Wahhab's on wikipedia, John Quested (RAF officer) (RAF unneeded), Side A, Side B, Side X, Side Y (theological views), Route of the Franciscan Evangelisation in Guatemala, Akbar Aghayev (lieutenant), Jason "Human Kebab" Parsons, Smoke-free bathhouse (Vysotsky's song) etc. If it is not obviously the common name, or if the current article name does not directly fail any article-naming criteria, then it could be controversial (or if it does but is in a contentious topic). Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 21:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Easternsahara How would you factor in previous moves or RMs when deciding whether a move could be controversial? Toadspike [Talk] 07:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RMs go towards building consensus and I can not go against consensus even if I think my idea is good. Consensus if how Wikipedia works, and if I think my argument is good enough, I can create a new RM with my arguments. I should not use my Page mover powers to move it instead because that would be disrupting consensus. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 07:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will do some more looking around. In the meantime, please remember to do post-move cleanup. It looks like you forgot to de-bold "in Guatemala" after moving Route of the Franciscan Evangelisation. If you don't already, you should also try using User:Nardog/MoveHistory.js to check for past moves, which can sometimes indicate whether a move is controversial. Toadspike [Talk] 22:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate's two most recent RM/TR requests were contested. They have made six RM/TR requests total, which is not much of a burden. I don't feel ready to grant at this time. However, I will leave the final decision to another admin. Toadspike [Talk] 22:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the other admin(s), the first one was contested and then it got almost unanimously passed at RM and the latest one should just be Long Island, Madang Province per WP:NCDAB: "Comma-separated disambiguation. Ambiguous geographic names are often disambiguated by adding the name of a higher-level administrative division, separated by a comma, as in Windsor, Berkshire. See Naming conventions (geographic names)." Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 16:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RMTR was contested by a different editor to the RM with very good rationale.[1] Moves which override RM consensus are controversial by default and this remains an convincing interpretation overall. CNC (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in that moves which override RMs are controversial, but note that people in the RM itself were proposing that 2025 be removed from the title as it is unnecessary (one could also argue that it is not neutral as it implies that bahrain let itself get attacked twice or that israel attacked bahrain twice). the only reason the moving admin didnt move it to not have the 2025 is because the people who voted at the beginning (and didn't change their vote after that) didn't notice that 2025 was not needed. The TR that i created also was not overriding the RM, the title was the same save for 2025. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 23:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BodhiHarp

Can you please grant me these rights so I can move without a redirect, move subpages when I move the parent page, move category pages, and bypass the blacklisted titles. BodhiHarp 05:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done you haven't demonstrated any experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines and the various warnings on your talk page also give me pause. Salvio giuliano 16:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover&oldid=1317600670"