Wikipedia talk:Mass Moves

This is a start at a policy proposal for blocking users that perform excessive page moves without consensus. I'm not sure if we need this or not, but there have been some recent incidents that could have used clearer guidance on how to handle them. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While this is a problem, and a short block to immediately stop the moving may be appropriate, I'm not sure a new policy page is necessary. I think it should be brought up on WP:BLOCK and, if appropriate, a short addition would be added there. —Centrx→talk • 07:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

I have several concerns about this, It's overly broad and very subjective depending on the admin which applies to a lot of policies and guidelines I know but this is even broader than most. I also don't know if this is necessary since it codifies common sense and existing practices which are probably better done without an explicit guideline/policy to follow. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

General approach on contentious serialized operations

Actually, this proposal could be merged with the WP:SBOTS proposal. That proposal has as its general principle:

Don't serialize edits that have a reasonable chance of being perceived as contentious.

That proposal also foresees that an account performing contentious serialized edits can be blocked within minutes after a warning has been posted on the user contact page (unless the serialized behaviour stops and the user promises to undo contentious actions).

Note that I think that under AGF a user should be given the chance to reply and correct his/her behaviour before being blocked (a procedure missing from the Mass Moves proposal, and makes it unacceptable compared to for instance WP:AN3, where a block won't be given before a proper warning to the user, and the user continuing after the warning). If the serialized contentious behaviour is performed by a separate "task" account, blocking that account should be less of a moral dilemma to the blocking admin. The SBOTS proposal makes that distinction in analogy to WP:BOTS. --Francis Schonken 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge into rejected WP:SBOTS

I would recommend to keep this proposal here separate, instead of moving it into the no-consensus WP:SBOTS. --Ligulem 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, err... no, WP:SBOTS was not rejected, although the opposition to it was fierce, very fierce. No offense taken, "no consensus" is correct: it's still a proposal.

Anyhow, the point I made above, not to block unless a valid warning is ignored by the user is still valid. WP:TT in fact already has the valid warning templates: {{mp0}}, {{mp0-n}}, {{mp2}}, {{mp2-n}}, {{mp3}}, {{mp3-n}}, {{mp4}} and {{mp4-n}}. So if these templates (and their content) are "operational", the thing is maybe already solved without needing additional ruling on a separate guideline/policy page. Seems like page moves not following the established processes are already marked as "vandalism" (and listed on the WP:VAND#Types of vandalism page as "Page move vandalism"). Maybe the only thing that could be improved is sysop awareness that the tools exist to nip this in the bud and/or give a more inclusive description of page move vandalism on WP:VAND, because apparently there's more to it than the classic WoW vandalism. --Francis Schonken 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

My feelings on this depend on how excessive is defined. If we're talking about LOTS of moves without consensus I think the current blocking policy covers this under disruption. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)