Wikiversity talk:Custodianship/Archive 1

Log of freenode #wikiversity-en 8/18/06
Let's use this page for centralized discussion of the Wikiversity name for "sysop". --JWSchmidt 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a log of IRC #wikiversity-en for today, that resulted in the idea to try to use "custodians" rather than "administrators" the refer to "sysops". --JWSchmidt 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(edited for readability and brevity)

guillom: *sigh* we have 4 sysop candidates sebmol: what if we didn't call them administrators on wikiversity

 sebmol: housekeepers SB_Johnny: janitors…..It carries a connotation sebmol: it does…..one i'm not sure i like SB_Johnny: Caretakers sebmol: it is similar. but the connotation is a little better sebmol: i like caretaker. even just Staff would be fine SB_Johnny: Hey, how about comrade? :) sebmol: janistrator? SB_Johnny: Wikiworker JWSchmidt: Staff has meaning in conventional universities JWSchmidt: "process facilitators"? SB_Johnny: Facilitator is good too. SB_Johnny: Gilly is the scottish word for the guy who takes care of the estate, keeps poachers out of the woods, etc. guillom: Trustguys guillom: Assistants guillom: friends ? :) JWSchmidt: wikiservant JWSchmidt: wikistaff JWSchmidt: wikifacilitator JWSchmidt: "community support staff" JWSchmidt: community facilitator JWSchmidt: consensus facilitator JWSchmidt: consensus helper JWSchmidt: process facilitator JWSchmidt: "community process facilitator" cormaggio has joined channel #wikiversity-en  cormaggio: i was wondering if we should have some sort of nomination system and not voting system for choosing admins?  JWSchmidt: adminship should be "no big deal" sebmol: many people perceive adminship as a big deal, as a confirmation of their work, as a means to climb the ladder, as a special badge, etc. sebmol: that's why we talked about a different term earlier cormaggio: what did you come up with? sebmol: i think the serious ones were staff, facilitator and caretaker sebmol: JWSchmidt: correct me if I misinterpreted that JWSchmidt: we did not find a "best" choice cormaggio: hmm, facilitator should be about helping people learn cormaggio: not blocking Ip addresses :-D sebmol: no, we didn't. there was also a lot of noise ;-) sebmol: agreed<BR> <BR> JWSchmidt: I would like to see a new name<BR> cormaggio: janitor?<BR> cormaggio: was that already suggested?<BR> guillom: cormaggio, it was<BR> sebmol: my personal favorite is staff because it's non-descript. it doesn't imply any hierarchy or privilege<BR> sebmol: but i can live with janitor too<BR> cormaggio: does staff not imply that they are being paid?<BR> sebmol: i've run events with volunteers before and they were all called staff. there was no paid position<BR> cormaggio: true - as with the recent Wikimania, which I have a "staff" t-shirt for..<BR> JWSchmidt: "janitorial staff"<BR> sebmol: JWSchmidt: you seem to like compound words a lot<BR> cormaggio: personally, i like short names/titles<BR> JWSchmidt: just brain storming<BR> cormaggio: one-worded<BR>

custodian (finally)
JWSchmidt: custodian<BR> sebmol: it's gotta be snappy so people adopt it<BR> sebmol: custodian would be fine with me<BR> sebmol: could we all live with custodian?<BR> cormaggio: custodian is ok by me actually<BR> cormaggio: caretaker?<BR> SB_Johnny: custodian is nice...<BR> Dvorty|gone points out that the Spanish Wikipedians/Wiktionarians call admins "Wikitecarias"<BR> Dvorty|gon: or approximately "wikibrarians"<BR> <BR> cormaggio: A Wikiversity custodian is a trusted user who follows and enforces policy for protection of pages from vandalism and blocking vandals from editing. Custodians also have the power to delete pages that the community has deemed unnecessary. cormaggio: ?<BR> sebmol: A Wikiversity custodian is a trusted user who can protect, delete and restore pages as well as block users from editing as prescribed by policy and community concensus.<BR> sebmol: a little less wordy<BR> sebmol: that they follow policy is assumed, if they wouldn't, they would be neither trusted nor users ;-)<BR> cormaggio: sure - i like yours better actually sebmol<BR> Rayc: that looks good sebol<BR> JWSchmidt: I think "custodian" will work<BR> cormaggio: yes<BR> cormaggio: yes, john, so put it up on the wiki, i suppose..<BR> sebmol: should we move pages?<BR> JWSchmidt: at least on the admin policy page for discussion<BR> JWSchmidt: I hate decisions that are only on IRC<BR> JWSchmidt: unless emergencies<BR> cormaggio: well, making it so on the wiki is a reversible action - if peopel agree they leave it, if they don't they'll edit <BR>JWSchmidt: true<BR> JWSchmidt: Be bold<BR> sebmol: be bold<BR> cormaggio: yep<BR> sebmol: JWSchmidt: i'm a fan of taking action, especially on wikis<BR> JWSchmidt: wiki is reversible<BR> JWSchmidt: do it<BR> JWSchmidt: we are acting with honest good intentions<BR> <BR> cormaggio: John - i'd say all policies etc discussed on this channel must be discussed on wiki or on mailing list<BR> JWSchmidt: okay<BR> cormaggio: no decisions made on this channel are binding<BR>

Step II modification
"you will be approved for temporary custodianship"<BR>At the start of Wikiversity there was a pressing need for some custodians who could protect the project from vandals. I hope we have enough people watching for vandalism at this time. I think we could afford to allow a minimum of 5 days for community discussion of new candidated for custodianship.<BR>suggested change: "you will be approved for temporary custodianship after a 5 day comment period if you have a mentor and a bureaucrate is willing to activate you as a sysop" --JWSchmidt 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues related to the "sysop" status.
I want to go on the record that I am very much concerned to weekly opposed to this process of creating those with sysop status that is granting it to just about everybody who asks for it. This is primarily from the viewpoint that this is such a huge departure from the way it has been done on almost all of the other Wikimedia projects that it seems as though the experience and wisdom of the experience on the other Wikimedia projects is getting lost in the process.

First of all and most important, we can't "de-sysop" people locally. This to me is the #1 issue that can throw a bug into the whole process and stop it cold. As I tried to explain on the IRC channel (not listed above), we absolutely need to get the strong support of the stewards before we go off and institute this very liberal policy of granting sysop status. While policy states that stewards need to act on behalf of established policy on each project, I have seen an incredible relutance on the part of stewards getting involved in local projects even when there is very clear project support for a certain action. Even to the point of reversing the decisions of some local projects. A classic for me is the absolute apathy that stewards have for performing checkuser scans when then are explictly requested by project admins (I've done it) that go unresolved for months. I've even taken them down because the stewards simply don't even seem to care. The same could be said about admin requests that take weeks to be reviewed, and even bureaucrat requests that have taken over a month to be acknowledged.

I will also acknowledge that stewards are usually involved with other projects and don't check the steward pages constantly or as faithfully as perhaps is needed, but the point here is that if we have somebody who is getting out of hand with the admin options, it is very difficult or even impossible to stop them except by wheel warring. BTW, I got into a wheel war with Jimbo of all people, and it wasn't pretty.

Another huge issue that is of concern, and this has been raised on many forums including Foundation-l, is that custodians have access to deleted content. This also includes copyright violations and other inflamatory content that is often better left alone. One particular Wikibook that was deleted (for a good reason) has been formally requested by several individuals to have it "undeleted" so they can have a copy of it, and put me in a real awkward situation as an admin.

On the other hand, the merit that this whole concept is to remove the "elitism" that exists currently among the admins and bureaucrats on other Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia. It has been widly acknowledged that becoming an admin on Wikipedia is incredibly difficult, and the standards are getting even harder. To the point that even honest and generally trusted users are getting turned down simply because of these increasingly higher standards. If there were dozens or even hundreds of people with sysop privileges here, we can all keep each other in check just as we all do anyway in terms of reviewing content on a regular basis.

Finally, I want to make mention that ordinary registered users can help combat vandalism and other project issues about as well as admins. You can mark pages for deletion, revert edits, move pages, create new pages, and access almost every page on the Wiki with very few exceptions. There are even protections available now that make pages editable only for registered users, so we can help fight off anon users who might try to vandalize prominent pages (such as has happened with Main Page).

Also, the sysop privileges are not needed at all for anybody who wants to form a learning experience, nor those who want to participate in those learning groups. This really is the janitor crew that cleans up after everybody, and has the "keys" to the buildings so they can do that cleanup which is necessary. --Robert Horning 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

case study. We already had our first removal of sysop permissions. As shown at Custodian requests, User:Mirwin requested to be removed from the sysop ranks at 06:14, 20 August 2006. At 07:57, 20 August 2006, User:Sebmol requested that a Steward remove sysop status from Mirwin. By 8:15 it was done. Wikiversity custodianship: easy come, easy go. --JWSchmidt 17:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that while this is good so far as it goes (a statistical study of n=1 BTW), I am concerned about long-term issues related to Wikiversity. That said, Wikiversity seems to be getting incredible support from developers and other interested supporters including stewards, and some people who know the difference between the official places to make requests and where to really make them if you want them done (there is a huge difference here.... documentation on Meta is absolutely horrid on this point and I think somewhat deliberate).  This example doesn't change my mind but rather seems to demonstrate a good ol' boys club that simply should not be right now.  --Robert Horning 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean about an "ol' boys club", "where to really make" requests, and "deliberate" bad documentation. If any of these systems (on Meta) are not as efficient as you would like them to be, please tell the people who monitor those pages, or make it clearer by editing them. It is true that you can get swift action on IRC (if that's what you're referring to here) by pinging a developer - hey, that's the one and only reason I'm a bureaucrat* - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get swift action on Meta (within reason). Or have I somehow missed your point, perhaps? Cormaggio 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that Custodian status is not given to anybody who wants it. There's a process that needs to be followed and capacities that constrain new custodianships. Right now, for example, we have several candidates without mentors. As long as there are no mentors available, requests for custodianship will not be granted which I think is a very wise decision. Once the two custodians currently in mentorship emerge, they can take on their own mentees. -- sebmol ? 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict: slightly duplicating what Seb is saying, but I'll paste it in anyway): I'd also have to say, in response to Robert's main point above - that I agree we shouldn't get too laissez-faire about handing out custodianship - I fully agree with your earlier point about simply getting stuck in and helping out in the numerous way anyone can without needing those few extra custodian abilities. I would only say that we have been fairly casual about it in our first week in order to get the importing (from meta and wikibooks) we need to do done, and to keep a general eye on things. And we don't have too many that we can't monitor eachother - and, as you can see, not every request on WV:CC has been acted on. Cormaggio 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions at Wikipedia about the term "administrator"
Rename admins to janitors - discussion at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is mentorship the only path to custodianship?
There was some discussion at IRC #wikiversity-en about the possibility of becoming a custodian without having a mentor. Should there be a process by which a custodian candidate could ask for community evaluation/discussion/support and then be made a custodian without having a mentor? --JWS 15:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the end if it leads to a better wiki(versity), the means for becoming custodian is not important.
 * Custodians should be seen only as normal users, which have access to tools to help the community. The power to decide still is in the hands of the community - we are wiki.
 * Probably there will be many pro and contras, but how about doing this in Wikiversity style ? Let's evaluate this with an experiment to learn from it. Erkan Yilmaz ( my talk page, wiki blog ) 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At Requests for Custodianship it says "Candidacies that have not secured a mentor within one week are archived". We could just remove that and replace it with, "If you do not have a mentor, try to gather community support for you candidacy. If you get a show of support then you can ask a bureaucrat to start your one month probationary period without a mentor."<BR>--JWSchmidt 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

pilot project - Single User Login (SUL)
At the moment there is a pilot project running for all wikimedia project custodians. More info at beta, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find where this policy was discussed or voted on.
While reviewing the history of this page I noticed that JWSchmidt changed this policy from a proposal to an official policy on 12 February 2007. However I am having trouble finding any discussion or vote that took place either on this talk page or on the talk page for Policies at around the time of the change. Now I don't doubt or question that such a discussion or vote took place, but I think proving a link to the discussion or vote could help improve or reaffirm things for anyone confused over what appears to be inconsistencies in the establishment of policies, guidelines and processes on Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">darklama 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the light of this unexplained change, and the subsequent changes to the policy for which I can also find no wide discussion and agreement, I think we must change this policy back to proposed. --McCormack 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A review template was placed on this policy page. Discussion and vote is not necessary to establish a policy; rather, that the policy stands without change for a substantial period is adequate. By placing the policy Templage, JWS was proposing that the page, indeed, become policy, and because that template was not removed (it's been three years!), or because any removal was reverted and was not sustained, that is precisely the history of the page. I do not see any attempt to materially change the policy, hence I intend to also remove the "material change" template. A change made to a policy that stands for clearly adequate time for review (in this case, over two years, must be considered as accepted. "Policy," on a wiki, does not mean "rigid rule, violations of which will be punished." It merely shows a strong precedent, such that users may expect support if they follow it. Policies are merely strong guidelines, well-established by consensus and precedent. If a policy contains some "proposal" that is not accepted, the proposal should be reverted out until consensus is established. (But a separate Custodianship guideline could be established for less-confirmed proposals that do not enjoy strong consensus, but merely some "rough consensus," probably more support than opposition.)
 * Accordingly, I will remove both templates, but if Darklama continues to disagree, he may revert my action, in whole or in part, with my consent. If there is some matter of substance improper about the policy (etiology is not of substance, in my opinion, policy is policy regardless of the exact origin), I'd ask that someone restoring one of these templates please discuss it specifically here. --Abd 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should look further down on this page. There are even recent materially changes being discussed for this page. There are parts that people do not agree on what the correct interpretation is, and what the right procedure should be, and because of this a review still makes since. -- dark lama  17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen no proposed changes that have any substantial support. The tag adds no value, because anyone watching the policy page will also see discussion on this Talk page. If there is a major change being suggested, it should receive wider notice. The policy, as-is, is quite clear, and is long-standing, the "disagreement" is based on a preposterous interpretation of the words of the policy, and I'm not sure it's even worth changing the policy to make it crystal clear that this self-contradictory interpretion is rejected. That tag would imply there is substantial controversy. However, if two editors think that the policy is seriously defective and must be changed, then I'd encourage the second editor to also revert the tag(s) back in. And to participate in the actual decision here. These change tags should not remain for three years with a policy which matches actual practice! People should know what to do. We may make small edits to the policy, and if they are accepted, that's it. If they are not, if there is actual disagreement on the policy, then a tag should go up and we should expeditiously find consensus on it. So, if the tag is replaced, a reference to the specific section of talk, at least one of them, on which the tag is based, would be in order. Otherwise it is vague and unlikely to help. --Abd 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't document actual practice either. In practice the mentorship/probationary period has been longer then 4 weeks or is extended, and there is no community announcement when a mentor wishes to go beyond the 4 weeks. Just recently actual practice shows that 48 hours isn't always given. I think in actual practice when time was given to find a new mentor more than 48 hours was given. -- dark  lama  11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-agreement modifications
The changes should be discussed, not simply inserted into an official policy. --McCormack 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Original version: "If you are not nominated for full custodianship, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. If you are unable to find a new mentor, you will lose your custodianship status but you may reapply for a new mentorship period."


 * Proposed variant #1 by User:Darklama: "If your mentor evaluates you as unfit for permanent custodianship at any time during your probationary period, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor. Your mentor may request removal of your custodianship at the end of the 48 period if you are unable to find a new mentor, without any further notice or discussion by the community. You may however reapply at a later date."

I don't see the sense in this process of 48 hours to find a new mentor, to be honest. (48 hours from when exactly?) I think it is fine for the mentor to give an evaluation: either positive, negative, or a recommendation for a further mentoring period. This evaluation could be opened to discussion for a set period - say, a week. If consensus is positive, full custodianship is conferred; if clearly negative, custodian rights are removed; or, where appropriate, a further mentoring period is renewed, with a new mentor only if the original mentor has decided not to do so. Any problems with this? Cormaggio talk 09:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed variant #2 by User:McCormack: "If you are not nominated for full custodianship, you will have 48 hours to find a new mentor, or alternatively you may nominate yourself for full status. If you are unable to find a new mentor or secure the immediate approval of the community for full status, you will lose your custodianship status but you may reapply for a new mentorship period."
 * I prefer this one. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems like may be prudent to allow for the community to grant full status, but I think the word "immediate" should be removed from the last sentence. Emesee 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this, too. Sounds simpler, and friendly to all concerned. --McCormack 10:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 48 hours could be uneccessarily short - a week sounds fairer. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jtneill, Interesting.  In what sense is it fairer?  A candidate custodian is someone whom wikiversity would sufficiently trust as an editor, but not as a custodian.  Why should wikiversity leave the candidate unsupervised for a week?  And in the interim, should the candidate be allowed to touch the custodial tools? Hillgentleman|Talk 08:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough hillgentleman - 48 hours to find or new mentor or self-nominate for full status or lost tools - but I gather removal of tools from a probationary custodian is going to take longer than this to achieve, wouldn't it? I gather it requires "community consensus" that the tools be removed before the request is made to WMF?. So, how would this work here on WV in practice? e.g., the scenario is: a probationary custodian's mentor withdraws during the candidacy, the candidate doesn't find a mentor, and doesn't self-nominate for full custodianship. 48 hours passes - what takes place then? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stewards are allowed to remote the tools without discussion if its part of the community's policy, because a community's policy is based on "community consensus". This happens on English Wikibooks for instance due to inactivity, no discussion is required before removal if the criteria for inactivity are met. Just requires pointing to the relevant information like there contribution history and the log for them, to show the criteria has been met on English Wikibooks. Similarly if English Wikiversity wants custodians who have not gotten the approval of the community, there mentor or not secured a new mentor within 48 hours of there probationary period ending, then a policy just needs to make it crystal clear what conditions must be met for a steward to remove the tools, as stewards may not be familiar enough with a project to know what kind of assumptions are being made or how policy is intended to be interpreted. I think the suggestion of writing an unstable draft is probably the best approach to resolving this problem, if it is still considered a problem. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself (!!), I think we are all watching the probationaries all the time anyway. More to the point, most active custodians watch each other and help each other out. --McCormack 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposed variant #3 by User:McCormack taking Cormaggio thoughts into account: "A candidate may be transferred between mentors if all involved parties agree. At the end of the 30-day period, the mentor will give a report with one of three recommendations: positive, negative, or extension of the probationary period. The recommendation is then opened up to community discussion for the establishment of consensus (7 days or so)."


 * I've just gone through Terra's process, and I recognise that SBJ was keen to keep his initial advisory words to Terra's talk page and not to invite a wide discussion/vote. Bearing in mind that we're always trying to avoid the sourness that WP's admin process has often created, I think it's probably a good idea to have this agreement to a further probationary period between mentor and mentee as an explicit option. Hence:


 * Proposed variant #4 by User:Cormaggio: "At the end of the 30-day period, the mentor will either suggest to the candidate that the probationary period be extended, or give an evaluation of the probationary period thus far on WV:CC. The evaluation is then opened up to community discussion for the establishment of consensus (7 days or so). In the event of consensus towards a further probationary period, the candidate may seek another mentor if all involved parties agree." Cormaggio talk 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All this is good, but I note we are now extending ourselves to cover what is pretty well the entire scope of the current sections IV and V, so it might be worth going back to the original (see project page) and making a few additions to #4 so that it really is a completely replacement for the whole of sections IV and V. --McCormack 11:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me rather than discussing how to best rewrite it, there is a need to first discuss what perceived problems people have with the current policy, how people propose to address the problems, and to take into consideration that mentors are volunteering to take a custodian under there wing. A mentor or a probationary custodian might end up having other obligations, or may no longer feel conferable with their mentor/mentee, preventing the process from working as intended. There seems to be three issues that needs discussed before trying to rewrite this policy, 1) what the normal process should be for custodianship (e.g do people agree on this?), 2) what to do when the normal process fails, and 3) should mentors/mentees be accountable for having other obligations or for not wanting anything to do with there mentor/mentee, and if so how. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This could be a very long conversation - how about putting new proposed versions on a fork/draft page, and then we can 'freely' work together on shaping a new version. Obviously the mentorship process needs some further thoughtful consideration, as indicated by this thread so far. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, when I used to be known by Terra - the main reason why my RFC failed, could have been because of me just creating categories and not doing anything else other than that, in despite of that I'm trying to expand of what I do on Wikiversity - though like I said to Erkan on my talkpage I mainly prefer to do small edits and not large ones - the other main reason why I'm cautious of creating articles is because last time when I was active on wikipedia, I did start to do some but then went into serious problems with a number of user's - the categories I'm now trying to avoid due to the amount of criticisms which I received last time. DarkMage  11:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are mentors answerable to the community?
This post follows a discussion on IRC. The issue is: "Are mentors answerable to the community?" It is my understanding that all the actions of custodians, including their actions as mentors, are ultimately under community supervision. There has been a suggestion that mentors are not answerable to the community, which would mean (for example) they do not have to give reasons for their actions or behave transparently. I dislike a system where cronyism could emerge, because probationaries are over-dependent on a mentor's favour. --McCormack 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the context, but I would have thought in (this type of) wiki-land that anyone with "power" should be even more answerable to the community than those without the powers. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * McCormack, (You probably know all that - any potential for the problem of cronyism was supposed to vanish as the number of custodians grows;  In the beginning, the custodian mentor system was a means to get as many custodians as wikiversity needed quickly.)   May I suggest that on a wiki, custodian actions should be answerable (with due respects to privacy issues), but custodian inactions are unanswerable? Hillgentleman|Talk 06:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your knowledge from the past. No - I did not know that at all! But if you are right (I'm sure you are) then it is a further indication that we may need to improve and democratise the current system. It is a great problem that we are rather few active custodians, although it is good to see more content being written than in the past. If numbers cannot guarantee fairness, then we may need some improved rules to act as a safeguard instead. Anyway, this is not an urgent issue right now - but it is a medium-term thing we need to sort out. --McCormack 08:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't abide a system where someone's actions were above being answerable to the community. That's why I think the discussion process around a mentor's evaluation is a good idea. However, I don't see how "numbers" of custodians is relevant - custodian, like all other actions, are answerable to the whole community, not to the sub-community of custodians. Cormaggio talk 11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

and move pages and all subpages
It does not appear that non-flagged users can do this. Emesee 21:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean here? Are you talking about very recently logged in users, who need to wait a few days (I think) before they can move pages? Cormaggio talk 11:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's restricted to sysops. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @meta 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying moving a page that has subpages; you'll see an option to move all subpages. Non-flagged users do not have this option. Emesee 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason it's restricted to sysops? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The massive potential for abuse? – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You think it would be abused more than the normal "move" function? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was abused on Wikipedia and that is why the developers switched to restricting it use to people with the sysop flag. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I recall it was abused on more than just Wikipedia, but yes that's essentially correct. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)