5,353 Pages

This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index > League of Legends Wiki Issues > Removing move-rights from Editors and Anons
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2387 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


Awkward title!

This User has discovered an interesting flaw in our current structure. Frankly, given the way that fixing it turned out in the logs, along with the frustratingly multi-factor approach required to fix up this kind of thing, particularly when you move mainspace pages to User pages while leaving a redirect, it's quite easy to justify disabling rename/move rights for normal users. This won't really affect much, it's just for anti-vandalism and stuff. Leave a comment! ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ December 24, 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Support~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • demise paid me to Because of the collateral damage from moving pages with comments, I'd be OK restricting it to mod+ Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:18, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • NeonSpotlight Support Support — I don't like limiting a basic users' toolkit and Demise's argument is pretty shaky but at the same time I'm not sure how much of a need there is for non-mods to be able to move pages. In the 3 months from me joining and becoming a mod I only moved 1 page and that was a troll page named Vegeta which I renamed Delete Me, something that nowadays could easily be reported to a mod or categorized for deletion. Usually the only time pages are moved is because of some policy change via discussion (like removing titles in champion page names) just due to how we do things and at those times we always have a mod+ who can step in and do it. This is a weak vote, I don't really see the importance of removing the right but I also don't really see the importance of keeping it.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  04:57, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Purge this wiki's comments every once in a while and you won't have this problem. 20px-1445357.png LionsLight(talk) 05:44, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • This kind of incident is completely unprecedented, and has never happened before in this wiki's history, so there is absolutely no reason for such a change. Also, use a subst for your sig, damnit. — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 05:23, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
    • Totally agree about the whole subst thing, should be part of our sig policy. It's incredibly distracting and actually makes me want to turn on visual editor just so I can comment without being extremely distracted by that mess of noob code.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  04:45, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • @Neon - I had the subst sig working, but after ~20 or so of them it slows down load times significantly. In particular, my talk pages/other users' talk pages I use have over 70 such parses and it's quite inconvenient. I've replaced sig on this page, and will see if I can get Subst working again. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ (no timestamp tho)
      • Ah, Lions, you're missing my context. Looking even further back, I'm the one who fucked up and did the exact same kind of thing when I first came to the wiki. If the admins of the time (eg. Nysty) had banned me for it, against the "assume good faith" philosophy, I wouldn't be here today, debating against you (though you may not consider this a loss, I do). yadda yadda yadda, this led to Nysty blanket move-protecting every champion mainpage until he quit admining yadda yadda but that didn't stop me from accidentally breaking it again yadda I've still managed to be a major, positive contributor despite such minor screw-ups. Anyways, the relevant point of this is that my actions caused this to be discussed before, with the consensus that limiting user powers promotes elitist stuck-up superusers. Or something. This is is not a major issue that cannot be dealt with via active moderation and vigilance, while efforts can be used towards improving the wiki content quality. — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 22:16, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
        • Or you know, you could have not been able to do it in the first place, and then there wouldn't be an issue at all. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ 04:37, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think intention is the relevant issue here. You may have moved those pages unintentionally, the other two may have done so with malicious intent. The point is that it has been done before either by both inexperienced and malicious users or even sanctioned moves by the community (when we last changed MoS). None of these incidents are a new thing, and it's been a long time since we've known how much strain is put on the server whenever we move pages with a lot of comments on them. 20px-1445357.png LionsLight(talk) 05:58, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose — Per LionsLight. I don't see the need for this.  Technology Wizard  Talk  Contribs  18:40, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Comment — Lions is suggesting we remove Wiki comments entirely. That's a different topic altogether. And if you don't see the need for this you either haven't had to deal with this problem before, or haven't read the forum. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~04:37, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • "Purging" as in deleting all of them on a regular basis so they don't pile up into the thousands, if the wiki insists on keeping them. 20px-1445357.png LionsLight(talk) 05:58, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.