Wiktionary talk:Requests for flood flag

Unflagging
I'm assuming admins should unflag themselves when they're done. Should non-admins report back when they're done? --Bequw → τ 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators should always remove the flood flag once they are done using it. Non-administrators should just message one of the administrators on their talk page when they need the flood flag taken off.  There is no need to for them to report back here when they are done, as it could be very easy for them to message an active administrator to have it taken off. Razorflame 06:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments triggered by first request

 * Moved from WT:RFFF

Let's try out a request to see how it goes --Bequw → τ 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Using AWB to convert "cf." to "compare".
 * WT:Todo/obtuse abbr contains page list
 * There's about 2k words, so at 10/min that would take several hours. Let's call it a day and I can unflag myself when I'm done.
 * Would you also change "Cf" to "Compare", capitalized? If so, I'm glad to second this. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'd also handle those with and without periods and the French version (cfr.). --Bequw → τ 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. So I seconded the nomination, above. (Conditionally, yes, but the condition is being met.) That means that, according to the above-listed procdure, which was authored by Bequw and has not yet met with any consensus, Bequw can have the flag. That does not seem to me to mean that he actually can have the flag. Anyone want to weigh in on this? We need a procedure. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure, but perhaps we could say two admins, besides the nominator if they're an admin, have to approve it? I'm not really sure.  I can see reasons why a streamlined version would allow us to get more done, and reasons why too little caution could result in an enormous mess.  In any case, I support this motion as well.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If needs be, I support this as well. Perhaps we should set up a WT:WL-type page, but with a minimum of say 48-hours between the request being made and the request being granted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put in both suggestions. I hope that there are sufficient admins watching this page to make the two admins requirement painless. As both new requirements have been met, I think I'll take the FF out for a test drive. --Bequw → τ 23:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure that it should be at least two days since the administrators give approval for the flag, not two days since the start of the request, but that's just me. Razorfl<b style="color:#003">am</b><b style="color:#000">e</b> 23:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine the 48 hours is to allow sufficient time for negative opinions. What purpose would it serve to have it be 48 + &lt;time for admin (1st or 2nd?) approval>? I think a more efficient/streamlined safeguard is just allowing dissenting admins to remove the FF pending a new consensus. --Bequw → τ 03:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bequw on this. If there are no objections and two independent supports in 48 hours then I think the flag should be granted. If there are subsequent objections the flag can be removed by any sysop pending consensus. What we haven't defined is what constitutes consensus in the case of disagreement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also agree with Bequw. As for consensus, I don't think there's think there's an absolute definition, which may well be for the best.  With votes, 70-75% is generally considered a "consensus", so I think three to one should be enough to allow Bequw to continue with his project with a clear conscience.  This does not mean that Razorflame's entire viewpoint is negated simply because three of us disagree with him.  He is quite welcome to present arguments and try to sway others.  If we always waited until everyone completely agreed on something, we'd never get anything done around here.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds good (Thryduulf's suggestion of two days between the initial request and the granting of rights: in fact the entire procedure as outlined above now). Re "set up a WT:WL-type page", that's what this page is, no? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears that this page will be the WT:WL-type page. This discussion really should be on the talk page if it is to become that though :). Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving and other thoughts
A couple of other questions come to mind -
 * 1) When should requests be removed from this page, and should they be archived?
 * I think requests should remain on this page until the task is complete (to provide context to any subsequent queries or objections). This will require someone to note on this page when they are finished, but I don't think this will be any great hardship. If the requests are not archived, then I think it would be prudent to leave the request on the page for a time (24 hours? 48 hours?) after the end of the task and any noting of the change in flag status (see below), if they are archived I don't see a need to wait. I don't have an opinion about whether they should be archived or not though.
 * I agree, except that if a request is not archived then I think it should remain on display for a good month after the end, just in case of errors. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentatively agree with msh210 on the month long bit. We should consider the possibility that we'll end up using this a lot, and leaving it on for a month will make for an overly crowded page, and so some flexibility might be warranted.  However, I would like to see these archived, for a few reasons.  One it would allow a quick and easy reference, as I suspect there will be times when we'll need to refer back to these.  Also, I simply think it would be useful to see what sorts of things people are being authorized to do with this flag, so that we can look back to precedents when making future decisions, and to come up with more uses of the flag.  Finally, I just think it'd be of historical interest.  What'd be really sweet is if we could set up some kind of JS button, which would archive the thread automatically, and have a list of all the discussions, with links to their archives, sortable by user, decision, job-type, etc.  Just a thought.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that we should archive the requests. They should be kept at least a week after the close and a month is fine (as long as the page doesn't get too crowded). --Bequw → τ 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The request that it be a month was assuming we don't archive. (At least that was my intent.) Otherwise, AFAI'm concerned, we can archive immediately. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Should admins be allowed to set/unset the flag themselves?
 * I cannot think of any reason not to allow admins to turn off the flag on their own account at any time. Also I think we can trust admins enough to set it only in accordance with consensus on this page, so we should allow them to set it themselves also.
 * I agree. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Quite frankly, I generally think it better if the admin set their own flag, as this gives them better control.  It'd be a minor pain in the ass if someone set your flag while you were away, and consequently when you returned you couldn't engage in a few discussions before you attacked your project (I do believe that folks shouldn't be doing just any old thing with the flood flag on, they should be doing the task described, and only that).  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether edits other than those approved for the flag can be made with the flag on has not been discussed. Is everyone in agreement with Atelaes? (I'm not sure, myself. I mean, we trust the editor enough to flood-flag him, so why shouldn't he also make other edits, on such a temporary basis? Plus, what if there's a delay in removing the flag: why should he wait to get back to editing?) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The requirement is a bit of a pain (while I was completing my task I had 5 windows queued up with comments/corrections to make once the flag was off). It's not necessarily that we don't trust them, it's that the edits won't show up on anyone's watchlist or RC. Editing high-traffic discussion pages w/ the FF would be fine because interested readers would be notified soon enough by others' edits. But I wouldn't want them editing other pages. They can use an alternative account in conjunction with their main one (I could've given the FF to my BequwBot account). Or, if they don't care about revealing their IP address they can just make their edits that way and not in the edit summary/sig who the user was. --Bequw → τ 18:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Noting changes of status - do we want people to note on this page when they change their or someone else's status per a request, or will the user rights log be enough?
 * I can see the benefit in a quick "done" type message, but can equally see how this might be a bit bureaucratic for what is meant to be a lightweight process. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think switches on and off should be noted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that if an admin removes another user's FF, they should let the user know on their talk page. Otherwise they might not know for a while. --Bequw → τ 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea for an admin to note on the users talk page when they set it as well for the same reason. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it terribly cumbersome to jot a quick "flag set", job done, flag removed" on the page, to help everyone keep up to speed. Users should certainly be notified by anyone changing their flag.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Minorness
Edits should be marked as "Minor", right? Or does this matter at all? --Bequw → τ 04:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB
When logging in with AWB, it said that 'bot = true' but then didn't show the Bots tab (that allows auto-saving). This was alright for my last request because I wanted to look at each, but for my next project/request (idea) I wouldn't have to look at each. Any ideas, or should I just use the python framework to run the regex's automatically? --Bequw → τ 22:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeat tasks
(from project page)
 * My first pass only made one replacement per line. Here's a list of ones that I'll clean up in a second pass. --Bequw → τ 20:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're going to be using basically the same process as you used last time, then I've got no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you should get the flood flag as soon as two other administrators approve the request. I don't see a need for a waiting period unless there is contention about the person getting the flood flag before the two administrators approve the request.  I think that in all cases, a waiting time of maybe 6-12 hours is good enough for unanimously supported requests, with longer waiting periods for those with contention.  Furthermore, I think that regular users should also be allowed to approve requests on here because while they may not be administrators, they might still have some contentions about allowing certain users the flood flag.  Therefore, I think that two regular users should equal one administrator approval.  If two regular users (who are established and have edited within the last month) approve a request, I think that that should count for a single administrator approval.  Also, I think that users should be granted the flag immediately if they get 3 or more administrator approvals before the 6-12 hour waiting period for unanimously approved requests has elapsed, as the community would obviously not have any problems with said user gaining the flood flag.  Hope this provides some new points of view, <b style="color:#00C">Raz</b><b style="color:#009">or</b><b style="color:#006">fl</b><b style="color:#003">am</b><b style="color:#000">e</b> 22:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should automatically assume that 3 administrators in support of something automatically equals unanimous consensus, nor do I think the waiting period should be reduced from the current 48 hours - at least for new requests. For repeat requests - i.e. the same person doing the same task within a reasonable time period of the previous request being approved (1 month? 2 months?), then I wouldn't object to unanimous support from three uses (including at least 2 administrators) and 6 hours wait being the criteria. The same procedure for objections (i.e remove/deon't grant the flag until consensus has been reached) should imo always apply. Without wishing to offend or denigrate non-admin users, until we have a defined set of "trusted, established non-administrators" then I don't support changing the requirements. Feel free to move this comment to the talk page if you think it fits better there. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

procedure
It seems as though the procedure outlined on |the page —
 * To request the flood flag, a user must specify the following:
 * the types of edits that will be made
 * the scope of affected pages
 * the amount of time needed (Note: The duration needed should be short (no more than 48 hours)).
 * If two independent administrators approve the request, and there are no disagreements within 48 hours, any administrator may use Special:UserRights to grant the flood flag to the user who made the request.
 * Avoid making unapproved edits with the flood flag (as these will not show up on watchlists).
 * Avoid making unapproved edits with the flood flag (as these will not show up on watchlists).

— has fallen into disuse. The page correctly notes that that procedure "has not yet met with community consensus": it was, in fact, put there by a small group of editors. Should its disuse be interpreted as a lack of consensus for it? I do think we should have some rules. Thoughts? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Our rule so far has been "use it whenever", which, while I'm not exactly a fan of it, seems to have worked well. -- Liliana • 00:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if an administrator needs a flood flag, submitting a request seems like extra bureaucratic work that doesn't really solve anything. It would be easier to just let the administrator set the flag themselves and unset it when they're done. —CodeCat 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree (w/CodeCat). As I see it, the main reason to use the flood flag is courtesy, and we don't want bureaucratic obstacles to being courteous. Since Special:Watchlist shows changes to the rights of owners of watched user-pages, and most admins' user-pages are watched by at least a few other admins, it's not like there's no oversight whatsoever. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, then. I've updated |the page accordingly. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The procedure would still be useful for users who are not administrators... I don't think we should remove it entirely. Just allow administrators to avoid it. —CodeCat 16:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a suggestion just to allow administrators to flood flag themselves to save time. For instance, I recently deleted a few hundred (perhaps over 1000) toneless pinyin entries which are expressly not allowed. I deleted them in bunches, so in practical terms it didn't make sense to ask for a flood flag every single time I wanted to delete some entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete page
Is this even still used? Can I just mark it with, or even ? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno. See the last section, just above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's obsolete, just nobody's made any recent requests. The system hasn't changed. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly misleading. I'm fine with just ignoring it, though. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)