Wikipedia talk:Abuse response/Strategy

Bots and automated functions
(Moved from archive main talk page.) Developing... Thorncrag   00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Count and list blocks across an IP range
 * Count edits across an IP range
 * Count warnings across an IP range
 * I just found a new way to do these lol, I still have to look into what is possible without killing the toolserver. Are we looking for these on IRC or onwiki? (Wiki is going to be a heck of a lot longer just because of BRFA and other programing delays. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Escalating forms of contact
[Forthcoming]

Information packet for ROs
[Forthcoming]

Regular meetings
It has been proposed to set a regular scheduled meeting to take place on.

Nomination process
I propose changing from self-nomination to requiring an existing project member to nominate another. Reasons should be obvious. Please Support/Oppose/Discuss here. This will take effect immediately for any new nominations following any currently open.
 * ✅ as proposer.    Thorncrag    00:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Some of our best users are self nominated, but I see the ful reasoning behind it. Maybe we could say contact a project coord if your're interested. I think since we already go through the nom process, it's good enough. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just learned that the proposal the way it is now is against community principles, so have to oppose for now. Bobby122   Contact Me   (C)  01:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Self electing groups are not consistent with Wikipedia's community principles, particularly relating to the openness of the project. See Requests_for_comment/Self_electing_groups for more information. Netalarm talk 01:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As per Netalarm. Phearson (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I can see benefits from introducing the proposal, Delta and Netalarm concerns are valid. Acather96 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably wouldn't work... There are often people who want to join but don't know anyone else in this project. Pilif12p : Yo  19:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Supporting alternative proposal. Mlpearc   powwow  15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - I oppose as well. Self nomination is essential with Wikipedia, if sysops can be self nominated, why shouldn't other projects? -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial Discussion

 * Just to clarify, this is not changing self-election (which we technically already are) only nomination. Modeling OTRS, where the community does not approve members they are approved by the administrators.  So we aren't as strict as OTRS.  That all being said, I would not ignore votes from outside our group on nominations, either.  So in that respect, we are not self-elected anyhow.      Thorncrag    02:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Amend proposal. I propose adding a very prominent notice on the nomination page to clarify that community votes and input is allowed and in fact very warmly welcomed. None of us would remove community votes or ignore them, so we are not self-elected.      Thorncrag
 * Right, this is like account creations, where the administrators can approve/disallow by their own choice. The only problem I had was the requirement of the nomination of a current member, which would make it a closed system. Netalarm talk 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the closer we mirror OTRS the more serious AR will be seen and will build community confidence in the department. Mlpearc   powwow  15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal
Seeing that the previous proposal wasn't thoroughly thought through, I think a sufficient compromise would be to:
 * Modify the nomination instructions to request and strongly encourage the nominee to contact a current member for guidance on nominating themselves and remove the step-by-step instructions. This will allow the project person to help them through the process and also introduce to the other members and learn about the prospect and give advice on how to proceed.

✅ as proposer. Thorncrag   02:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ - I think this is a good modification to our current system, and a good alternative to the other proposal  Enti342   MEMO

✅ - This seems better. Mlpearc  powwow  15:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ - This proposal is better. Bobby122  Contact Me   (C)  22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ - Looks better. Pilif12p : Yo  21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ Better. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ - I agree, this is quite like what happens. I believe that some sort of wikibased form/information should be done, but mainly person-to-person contact (Even if they don't have an IRC client, webchat is available.) -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 17:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Inactive and lapsing membership
We need a mechanism incorporated into the guidelines to remove inactive and lapsed members. I propose the following:
 * A member who has not actively participated (broadly construed) in project activities shall be considered inactive after a period of 30 days.
 * A member who has not actively participated (broadly construed) in project activities shall be de-listed as a project member and will be required to re-nominate thereafter to resume membership.
 * Where any disagreement exists consensus for the status change must be reached.
 * ✅ as proposer.    Thorncrag    01:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Creates extra work. Phearson (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. This will help maintain a list of users that are active so we can more easily gauge the state of the project. It'll also help us eliminate any user that's just here for "hats." (which is a significant problem in most counter-vandalism/abuse projects) Netalarm talk 06:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Per Netalarm. Acather96 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Also per Netalarm. Mlpearc   powwow  15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ sounds fine. Pilif12p : Yo  17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree, that inactive users should be moved to an inactive list. I believe after 60 days they should need to be renominated. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Just dimissing members because of inactivity is not what we should be doing, maybe in unexplained absense yes, but not if explained. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Community outreach and awareness
[Forthcoming discussion on outreach to the Wikipedia community and raising awareness]