Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive/2013/09

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Flood flag

Hi,

I've been requested to ask for a flood flag. Thanks. --Coyau (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For how long do you need the flag?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ask Tobias1984. --Coyau (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Coyau: I already send you the link about the flooding policy. So you should know when you need it and when not. Have you considered creating a bot account for your mass edits? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I need it permanently. I've always contributed this way. I still don't understand why I suddenly have to ask for permission to contribute. --Coyau (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current solution is a bit crappy and we should really change the policy. I suggest that we should do that as soon as possible and not grant flood flags until then. Vogone talk 15:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought that the flood flag was more an optional thing that you can use if you really care about keeping the RC to two minutes instead of one - why is it being forced on people? From the very first line on the flooders' policy, the flag "may be granted". It isn't worded as if everyone who makes more than x edits needs to have it. I know that I never use it, because the rc goes too fast to patrol anyway.

I don't think anything is wrong with what we have now. If a user wants to use the flag, they can. But I don't think it's necessary to present the flag as a "you need this to edit fast" sort of thing, though a nice note on their talk page about the flag if they want it would be OK. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What Ajraddatz said. There's no policy against editing quickly. If people would like to use a separate account, they're more than welcome to ask for a bot flag (like we did with User:Docu with script). Legoktm (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We probably need an RfC to decide whether a flooder or a bot flag is mandatory for those who edit fast. I am definitely uncomfortable with granting a flooder (or a bot, for that matter) flag to the main account of a real user.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Corrected: Without time limit; I obviously have no problem granting the flag for a short time period needed to perform a task.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Making a separate account, asking for a flooder flag etc are a bit too much and may put of some users and that is not an ideal atmosphere. I don't think flooder flag is much help. Although it has not damaged in any way as far as I know and project has benefited from it far less as most people do not use it and those who use it forget to switch it off some times. As for posting a polite message on talk page about flood flag there is no uniformity. In this case user was asked to stop his/her current activity (which is perfectly fine here, as far as I know) which may not be ideal message for everyone so there must be uniformity in the message whatever it is.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the RfP:Bot discussions, if anybody can just run the bot on their personal account without the flood flag? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, the current system for approving bots and using scripts on Wikidata is very poorly done. RfBots take far too long (or go through too quickly), and we have no clear policy for semi-automation that I'm aware of. This is a problem that I've noticed for a while... perhaps I'll open an RfC on it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are running a bot then it defeats the purpose of RfP:Bot discussion but if you are just editing fast or quickly then making a separate account just for the sake of flood flag and this is what may put of some user. If you are running a bot then there is no option for RfP:Bot no matter how lengthy or cumbersome the process is.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And what would be the threshhold between editing quickly and running a script, and is there a way we can measure or monitor that? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, bots still need to go through the approval process (and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise). I'm not sure that it is possible to monitor editing fast or editing with a script. Sometimes it is obviously a script, like with hundreds of edits over a couple of minutes. But it is easy to have even fifty edits over a short period of time without using a script. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• My personal thought is that we need to codify a policy on bots and when to grant flood, because I would rather have very rapid edits done on alternate accounts if possible. It is time for an RfC on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

2013-09-01 – carlowayfc → Carloway F.C.

• Old username: Carlowayfc (talk • contributions • log • block log • SULinfo)
• New username: Carloway F.C. (SULinfo • rename)
• Redirect: yes
• Notice:

  Please log in before requesting your account to be renamed. Thank you. Vogone talk 00:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove bureaucrat and adminship on User:Denny Vrandecic (WMDE)

Hi, I am asking to remove all rights from my work-related account User:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE). Today was my last day at WMDE, and therefore I should not be using this account anymore and any rational for me having bureaucrat and admin right has gone. --Denny (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Removed[1] Thank you very much for all your efforts and all you have done for the Wikibase development. Vogone talk 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Denny (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)