Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-05/Flood flag

Policy

I want to separate the technical aspects (enabling the feature) from the policy of using such a feature. We can enable the feature and refine our policy afterwards and after encountering issues. From the discussions it appears that most people are for the need to formally request the flood flag (even is one is already an admin) and specifying a relatively short time frame for its use. This could be done on a page such as WT:Requests for flood flag. --Bequw → τ 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Most wikis that have the flood flag only allow admins to add the flood flag to themselves, and only remove the flood flag from themselves. If we're going to have a request page then we'll need to have the bug report specify that admins can add/remove the flood flag to/from other users. --Yair rand 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As a fall back, policy could dictate that an admin can only flag themselves if someone else has approved on the request page. --Bequw → τ 03:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we request that feature; either (a) specify in the vote that the flood flag can be granted (to oneself or another) on such-and-such criteria (to be specified in the vote) or (b) specify in the vote that that the flood flag can be granted to an admin on such-and-such criteria (to be specified in the vote) and to a non-admin not at all (until such later time as criteria are voted on); and specify in the vote that the flag can be removed by any admin, with such removal not to be reverted, for any reason. Voting on the technical aspects only with no policy at all is dangerous (it implies the flag can be granted by anyone with the ability to do so), and voting on the technical aspects while forbidding the flag's use is a waste of time: why bother voting on the flag if we can't use it?​—msh210℠ 16:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There would only be a dangerous implication if one was blind to all non-vote material (of which there is much). This seems unreasonable and unlikely. How do you interpret that this vote forbids the flags' use? Being silent on the policy of usage is not the same as forbidding usage. I created the vote so that a bug request could be filed and hope that we have no need of the extra bureaucracy for hammering-out the policy. --Bequw → τ 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm alone, but I will vote against this if there's no policy included but for it if there's any reasonable (reasonable to me, of course  :-) ) policy included (including probably even "to be used only for uncontroversial purposes and not to be reflagged if someone unflags", as opposed to the current proposal, which merely says that its "primary purpose" is to be for uncontroversial edits).​—msh210℠ 16:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine as it doesn't try and specify the procedure. Done. --Bequw → τ 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand: if we know how most people seem to feel the feature should be used, then why shouldn't that go in the vote? —Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't think we need to vote on everything. I made this vote just so the bug request would be without controversy. --Bequw → τ 03:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Right (Ruakh).​—msh210℠ 16:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: if we know how most people seem to feel the feature should be used, then why shouldn't that go in the vote? I am not saying that we know how most people seem to feel the feature should be used, though. --Dan Polansky 12:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I cannot really agree with a question, so what I agree with is the tentative statement that if we know how most people seem to feel the feature should be used, then that should go in the vote. --Dan Polansky 12:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

timing

The 9th May 2010 has already passed, so why is the Template:præmature still being used on the page? Either it is removed and the vote is unleashed or the vote is being procrastinated further and the starting date is updated. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started the vote. No real point in waiting... --Yair rand 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)