Wikivoyage talk:Recent changes patrol Voyage Tips and guide

I added a section on global rollback at Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol#Global rollbackers, though this isn't exactly policy, but rather merely the technical abilities of what GRs can do. What I didn't mention, however, was the extra ability for GRs to use the supressredirect function, which we do not have an exact guideline for how it should be used by non-admins. I'd like to propose this – it doesn't change much, but rather solidifies (and often gives reassurance, speaking as one myself) to those who are unsure if they should use suppressredirect, but since it's a new guideline, it requires discussion:

GRs also have the ability to use the supressredirect function, which allows moving a page without leaving a redirect, a feature only available to sysops on the English Wikivoyage. GRs may use these functions whenever deemed reasonable and appropriate – use your own judgment, but if you are unsure, leave a redirect and place {{delete}} – a local admin will handle it from there. Since global rollback is not locally appointed, if any misuse of either the rollback or the supressredirect function occurs, a local admin may ask you to stop using such tools or risk facing a block.

I don't think it really adds much, but it does clear a few things in the air. --SHB (t | c | m) 12:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that was called the suppressredirect function. I just know it as a choice on a menu. Your language seems reasonable, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since there aren't any objections and given how little this changes things, I will go ahead and update the page (and also update the relevant pages on Meta). --SHB (t | c | m) 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The supressredirect function is what some of you may know as "move without redirect", essentially is the ability to move pages without leaving a redirect. As of present (August 10, 2025), it is only available for local sysops and any global rollbackers (whom we permit to use provided appropriate judgment). Given this is a very helpful anti-vandalism tool, I do not see a reason why we cannot extend this tool to patrollers (who are expected to know Wikivoyage customs) and adopt the policy we have for global rollbackers (specifically, use appropriate judgement) to all users with this feature. Thoughts? //shb (t | c | m) 08:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The function basically allows you to move a page so that it disappears – which is why it is a high-trust function. As the move is still shown in the logs, the risk for misuse isn't that big, though. Actual use includes page moves to and from user space and moving away one article to substitute it with another.

I think complicated page moves should be left as admin territory, as there might be subtleties requiring deeper understanding of how article histories work.

I don't know how moving without redirect helps in anti-vandalism work. I don't think I have used it for that.

–LPfi (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It helps with page-move vandalism and avoids the possibility of a bad redirect lying around (which I've had to deal with on some other wikis for something that could happen on any wiki realistically). I disagree that page moves should be left in admin territory – complex histories are rare on this site and there have been a total of zero HistMerges on this site not done by WMF staff for that to even be remotely an issue.

As you also note, "the risk for misuse isn't that big" and if it does happen, the most logical solution is to revoke the perms misused – not limit what is usually a useful, time-saving tool to a select few users. //shb (t | c | m) 09:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you also want a bit more evidence that allowing patrollers to use this function isn't all that bad, enwikibooks has permitted the use of this function for reviewers (equivalent of patrollers) for as long as I could remember and it hasn't caused a single issue. Unlike enwikivoyage (or most wikis, really), assignment is automatic on enwikibooks – the chances of something wrong happening if patrollers had access to this tool here is far lower than on enwikibooks. //shb (t | c | m) 09:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The page moves that I consider admin territory are the complicated ones, not reverts of vandalism or plain moves to a new name, or to user space. I am not afraid of misuse here, but mistakes that take some time to clear. Complicated page moves are rare enough that admins comfortable with them can handle them – and I much prefer doing them over clearing up mistakes.

While suppressredirect doesn't allow anything that is hard to fix, I don't think non-admins should think that page swaps (which the rights allow) is included in their responsibilities, as they border the more complicated cases and have little to do with patrolling. I don't oppose patrollers moving articles to user space or reverting page move vandalism.

–LPfi (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing why patrollers shouldn't be able to do this. We should allow autopatrollers this permission, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What do you consider "complex page moves" then? We've almost never had them on this site. //shb (t | c | m) 00:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any evidence of a need here. How many times recently has a move-vandalism-related redirect needed to be deleted? Zero?

The process we have at the moment is:

1. Vandal moves a page to "Paris on wheels"
2. Patroller moves it back
3. Patroller flags the page/grabs the nearest admin to delete the "Paris on wheels" vandalism redirect.
4. Admin can deal with blocks, etc., at the same time.

The proposed process is:

1. Vandal moves a page to "Paris on wheels"
2. Patroller moves it back, suppressing/deleting the "Paris on wheels" vandalism redirect at the same time.
3. Patroller still has to grab the nearest admin to deal with blocks, etc. (but maybe has to spend more time explaining, since the vandalism redirect is gone now).

This is not saving anyone any significant time or effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

But that doesn't address why patrollers shouldn't have supressredirect and feels like opposing for the sake of it – nor does it address why global rollbackers should have it but not local patrollers, who know the ins and outs of this wiki far better than GRs. It is also wildly more convenient and efficient given that Category:Speedy deletion candidates does not get cleared within a good timeframe on this site because while not all uses of this tool involve anti-vandalism, I have deleted a fair few redirects that need to be deleted over the years (particularly categories), but instead they had to be manually deleted. It's a much better use of everyone's time when a fairly low-risk feature is granted to a group of users who are expected to be reasonably trusted than to not allow the use of the tool at all. //shb (t | c | m) 22:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bumping this up, because I'm still not convinced by the oppose reasons. Category:Speedy deletion candidates, has, in the past, sometimes not been cleaned up for 24–48 hours with a lot of it due to category moves. Any instances of page-move vandalism can be reverted much faster were this to happen (which has happened, albeit rare – but not zero). The issues of supposed complex moves is sham in my books since there have been a grand total of zero complex page moves and none of that also explains why it must be left to admins either. All of them feel like opposes for the sake of opposing. //shb (t | c | m) 11:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply