Welcome to the Wikipedia Counter-abuse Strategy Initiative workshop. This workshop aims to:
To predicate the need for this workshop, we must first establish the need for a reorganization. In its current state, counter-abuse activities lack a cohesive plan that binds them into a singular, coordinated strategy. This leads to potential confusion, duplication of effort, loss of vital information, misidentification of abusers, and abuse that goes unchecked. In many workings as it currently stands, it is frequent that the proverbial left hand does not know what the right hand is doing due to this lack of overall coordination. In other scenarios, some counter-abuse activities receive dutiful attention by the community, while others go virtually forgotten. It may also be, that some philosophies such as deterrence become largely ineffectual due to inconsistent application of thse activities. A sturdy foundation needs to be laid upon which all of these activities can take place, interlinked and to complement each other, a condition ostensibly not currently met by the current disharmony.
While still in an organizational phase, this workshop aims to gain a wide breadth of participation given the nature and impact of the potentially sweeping proposed changes. Any community member is invited to contribute to this workshop at any point.
Workshop organizational plan[edit] | ||
I. |
Analyze and define each type of abuse[edit]Phase I of the workshop is to analyze and define all of the current abuse faced by Wikipedia. |
Not done |
II. |
Analyze and define Wikipedia's current counter-abuse activities[edit]Phase I of the workshop is to analyze and define all of the current counter-abuse activities currently employed on Wikipedia. This is an important step because it is not possible to efficiently strategize improvements without first defining and understanding the current state of affairs. |
Not done |
III. |
Identify shortcomings[edit]Phase III of the workshop is to identify, outline, and thoroughly describe the shortcomings of the current counter-abuse strategies and explain the harm experienced and why they need to be improved upon. |
Not done |
IV. |
Threat assessment[edit]Phase IV of the workshop involves analyzing the shortcomings and the potential threats that Wikipedia faces due to particularly meticulous abuse such as agenda-driven editing and so forth. |
Not done |
V. |
Development of strategy[edit]Phase V of the workshop will be to take into account all that is previously supposed and to develop a single unified strategy for countering each type of abuse faced by Wikipedia. |
Not done |
VI. |
Proposal of strategy[edit]Phase VI of the workshop is to propose to the community to generate a consensus for approval. |
Not done |
In this section we will describe and define every type of abuse currently faced by Wikipedia.
In this section we will describe and define every single counter-abuse activity that takes place on Wikipedia. This is what actually takes place now, not what should be or what is proposed. NOTE: Stage 1 are incidents dealt with immediately but which still may comprise a pattern of abuse leading to stage 2
Stage 1[edit]Acute symptoms of abuse that can be cured relatively simply and straightforward. |
Revert & Warn[edit]We revert the edit that constitutes vandalism and then issue the editor a warning. Edit Filter[edit]The purpose of the edit filter is to tag suspicious edits and then begin to warn them and finally if they do not stop, the edit filter has the power to block said user Administrator Intervention against Vandalism[edit]Open Proxies[edit]Abuse Bots[edit]Pending Changes[edit] |
Stage 2[edit]Chronic forms of abuse that require thorough tracking and investigation to be effectively countered. |
Sockpuppet Investigations[edit]Long Term Abuse[edit]Abuse Response[edit] |
The following propositions have/will come as a result of the workshop.
Extended content
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Counter-Abuse Strategy
English Wikipedia
Prepared for: Wikipedia-EN Wikipedia-EN Counter-Abuse Strategy Report & Proposal
1 Executive Summary[edit]Objective[edit]While largely considered successful--that is, depending on which benchmarks one might use to define success, the current organization of the English Wikipedia’s (herein “Wikipedia”) counter-abuse strategy belies a sense of organization which actually is not present. It lacks a unified vision to bring together into focus the underlying purpose and goal of each of its constituent counter-abuse projects. Goals[edit]The goal of this report is to articulate the current functionality of Wikipedia’s current anti-abuse activities, to analyze those activities, and to then propose a unified strategy and vision that current and future counter-abuse projects should molded to. Rationale[edit]In realizing that the strategy is inadequate... Singular Purpose[edit]Discuss how each project might go in different directions. Accessibility[edit]Many editors and administrators might not be aware of the resources available to them. Discuss. Efficiency[edit]Wikipedia’s counter-abuse activities are not as efficient as they could be. Discuss duplication of effort. Modularity & Adaptability[edit]Discuss how the strategy and the counter-abuse activities need to be able to adapt to future changes to Wikipedia policy, such as pending changes, according to community consensus. Laying It All Out[edit]The first step is to analyze and articulate each of the present counter-abuse activities currently deployed. Editors reverting and warning[edit]On the front line is the every day faithful editor, noticing trouble, reverting, then warning the offender. It perhaps goes without saying that this is perhaps the most crucial counter-abuse activity. This makes up for probably ninety-percent of the counter-abuse activity that occurs. Administrator intervention[edit]The next level of activity takes up where warnings fall ineffective: administrator intervention. This occurs namely on Wikipedia:AIV, Wikipedia:UAA, and [the other various noticeboards]. Abusers found to have violated pertinent policy are blocked. Sock-puppet investigation[edit]Where blocking has failed, this is where abusers who have abused using multiple accounts or IP addresses are investigated by check-users, and blocked by administrators. Long-term abuse[edit]Where multiple blocks on multiple accounts and IP addresses have failed, the community turns to documenting the patterns of abusers so that they can be identified and dealt with appropriately. Abuse response[edit]When severe abuse is not curtailed by multiple blocks, abusers are reported to the internet service provider, or other responsible or-Wikipedia-EN Counter-Abuse Strategy Report & Proposal Figure 1. A visual representation of current counter-abuse activities. |