Requests for Comment/Make staff be the only ones that can move pages

While I know we should assume good-faith in various users when they move pages, this has unfortunately resulted in multiple edit wars and reverted edits of administrator for normal users, as well as making some entitled users think that they can do it without permission of the staff or without hearing the opinions of other contributors. This has made various pages for long running shows like Family Guy, SpongeBob or The Simpsons to be protected and not allowing various users to collaborate. My proposal is to make the Staff (Administrators and Bureaucrats) to be the only ones that can move pages. This can make various edit wars to be avoided and use the Talk Pages or ask the administrators via private messages, similar to the restoration and deletion of articles, to discuss the movement of that respective page, making collaboration better and to enforce communication between staff and collaborators.  The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A|CentralAuth)18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As proposer   The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A|CentralAuth) 18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Given all the drama that comes with moving pages, especially on the TV show wikis where it was increasingly common until Street's recent rule, this absolutely should be a permanent rule for all the wikis in my opinion. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  00:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above. Zangler (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , but only for certain pages: Pretty much the only pages that are suspect to move warring are pages that include certain years in them, or certain seasons as the case with the TV show wikis. Those type of pages should definitely be move-protected, but not any of the other pages. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Now this is something that's been annoying me for quite some time now. I'm just sick of other editors acting like children over a simple page move, then resorting to warring with others, which, in this case, somehow leans towards move-warring, which is in the edit-warring range, in terms of how ridiculous this has become for some people. I'm tired of it, and of course, I won't hesitate to warn the move-warriors so they can avoid a one-week block (which I may have to if this were to continue). --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm going back to supporting this since I'm beginning to feel a need to corral the more immature side of QP. Though as Blazikeye said, this should only apply to pages notorious for this (read: The Simpsons pages on the show & episode wikis). Marxo Grouch  (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per everything above. --Moisty (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Absolutely not. This would be giving staff more control over the userbase, which is one of the main criticisms of the site. Instead, discussions for page moves should be done on the talk page. We should not be restricting the abilities of users. Just like how people are saying that deletion and restoration requests should just be discussed with a few admins rather than multiple people. Decisions should be made by the community as a whole and not by a small group of bureaucrats. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or did you desperately rewrite King's entire statement with the blatant intention of making it sound like a forced disagreement? Likely all the points brought up by your comment are the same King talked about and with the same goal too; "This would be giving staff more control over the userbase." has "This has made various pages for long running shows [...] to be protected and not allowing certain users to collaborate." to debunk it While "Instead, discussions for page moves should be done on the talk page. We should not be restricting the abilities of users." & likely everything left from the comment is entirely paralleled by "This can avoid various edit wars and use the Talk Pages to discuss the movement of that respective one, making collaboration better and to enforce communication between staff and collaborators." I await an answer with your version of the story. Zangler (talk)
 * I think I expressed my idea not so clear enough. I want to make the move of pages situation similar to the deletion and restoration of articles. While the staff can only do it, if a user shows evidence of the reception of a media and asks the administrators to do it, a change will be made on that page (Which is in this case the movement of it).  The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A|CentralAuth) 15:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Why don't you just protect pages that users keep moving? In addition, there are some cases where consensus isn't needed to move a page; some users think that post means since rather than after, and as a result, some pages end up having titles such as [insert company name here] (post-2016) when the page says they went downhill/got better in 2016, when post-2016 actually means it went downhill/got better in 2017, not in 2016. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This has caused several users to make unwanted changes based on their personal opinion without consulting others. That is why there is a lot of vandalism in highly discussed pages, as well as unwanted movements of this.   The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A|CentralAuth) 17:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @King Dice: That doesn't explain why you can't protect those pages. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 23:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is because various users can change the (pre-[blank]) title to their advantage and the move the page without consensus of no one. This has resulted vandalism and opinion-biased editions. Also, it may clog up the Protection Log.  The King of Dice   (Talk|Contributions|Q&A|CentralAuth) 16:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really buy into the "it may clog up the Protection Log" claim. If the log is long, there is a filter for page title or performer if you need to find out who or why a page was protected. It is also the same logic as don't make minor edits because it clogs up the recent changes and edit history. ᗩTOᗰIᑕᔕTᗩᖇ</b> 💬 ⌨ 21:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and : There is no such thing as clogging up the protection log as far as I know. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This would be solving a problem by getting rid of the ability when there's also many contributors who move pages in good faith. I think coming up with a way to warn users who make controversial moves without discussion is a better solution. Also, can't you set different protection levels in Mediawiki, such as restricting moving of a specific page to bureaucrats (or some usergroup), which would be ideal for pages prone to move warring? ᗩT</b>Oᗰ</b>Iᑕ</b>ᔕT</b>ᗩᖇ</b> 💬 ⌨ 02:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I would abstain from this RfC, however I believe that established and trusted users should be allowed to move pages; not just admins. This would cause easier moving, and with the limited number of staff, this will help a lot with the moving of pages. Bukkit (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  In theory this would limit move-warring, but I'm uncertain of the outcome in practice. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,crimson,indigo, #ADD8E6); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Marxo Grouch  (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) while I think a majority of movements should come with discussion and then an admin can follow up and act on that discussion, I think this is trying to solve a problem by taking away an ability rather than reasonably handling the people who are the true issue (warn them for arbitrary movements + encourage better use of the tool). If there is a move war, the involved users must be contacted to take a better approach immediately, and if necessary feel free to bring me in directly to do so. --Raidarr (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)