Talk:Requests for comment/Creating abusefilter-manager global group

@Huji, Daimona Eaytoy, and MusikAnimal:

Piniging Huji as proposer, Daimona Eaytoy as a supporter that was in most aspects of the conversation, and pinging MusikAnimal as he was involved in this discussion with sound recommendations and is involved with AF on a global level.

I have closed the RfC as "resolved" (see closing statement on main page) with no consensus to create the usergroup (too many differing opinions on restrictions, parameters, which wikis), however, there was clear consensus to move forward with a vote on creating the usergroup.

My recommendations are outlined on the closing statement, but I also want to see this RfC through so that it gets a fair chance of consideration.

I would proceed as follows:

Determine usergroup name and create a page for it (i.e. Abuse filter manager), slapping {{proposed|status=development}} on it. Write similar to any other usergroup including description, userrights, permission usage, requirements, etc.). This will reduce any confusion about what the group involves.
Dissect this discussion RfC and determine justifyable parameters that enable the group to effectively function in terms of userrights, parameters and restrictions while minimizing impact on local communities. Considerations should include community notification, when it is appropriate to edit a filter and to what extent.
Create voting page, whether Abuse filter manager/vote (like Global sysop/Vote) or Requests for comment/Abuse filter manager (vote), and include previously recommended multi-section approach
Notify shareholders as previously recommended

Please let me know if you have any questions and how I can help. ~riley (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@~riley: thanks for your help. I think your summary is fair, and the next steps you proposed are reasonable. I will work with Daimona and MusikAnimal on the next steps. Huji (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm happy to help, just ping me. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with the closing statement. No clear consensus, and no clear proposal. I like the idea of opening a vote with various options re opt-out, scope, etc. I'm a bit short of time at the moment, but I'd be happy to help write a stub for the new proposal and get the ball rolling. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To unify with other global userrights (global renamer, global rollbacker, global sysop, global interface editor), I would encourage "global" to be in the name, with "global abusefilter editor" being the most standardized option. It is more dignifying than helper but less authoritative than manager. ~riley (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji, Daimona Eaytoy, and MusikAnimal: I have created Abuse filter manager and it is ready to be modified/fine tuned to meet the needs of this usergroup. ~riley (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the slowness, User:~riley. It has been a few busy weeks. I'll start working on this next week if not sooner. Huji (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The page seems fine -- I've just fixed a couple of typos. I'll also be able to start working on this soon, please CC me for any doubt/question. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No pardon needed, just wanting to see this through rather than letting it die. :) ~riley (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@~riley, Daimona Eaytoy, and MusikAnimal: I updated the proposal at Abuse filter manager and created Abuse filter manager/vote. I set the voting period for March 1st to March 31st. This gives us a bit of time to review those pages and perhaps notify anyone else who might want to have input, as well as translate the introduction to voting page. Let me know of your thoughts about next steps. Huji (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal looks very well written. Many thanks to all of you! I wonder if the word "controversial" will be subject to debate, in the eyes of those skeptical about this user group. I elaborated on this a bit. Hopefully what I added is accurate. Of course feel free to edit as desired. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good elaboration, MusikAnimal. I understand parameters were put in placing for the GS vote, but is this needed? Even though we aren't likely to get many voters who don't meet the requirements, it looks bureaucratic on paper to require it. Thoughts? Voting period looks good. What are the plans to communicate this? MassMessage to noticeboards? ~riley (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Italian translation for the introduction. I don't have strong opinions about that, but I'd rather have at least basic requirements in place. Either way, I think that a new account (e.g. < 1 month registration) will not have the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision. As for communication, it's such a shame that (AFAIK) there's no standard format for an AbuseFilter noticeboard across WMF wikis. Perhaps Tech News? --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we should stick to the same voting scheme used for Global Sysop; it worked fine there, why change it now? Huji (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@~riley: what is the next step here? How do we "announce" the voting period and get people to participate? Huji (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: Announce on Template:Main Page/WM News and Tech News for starters. I would recommend a MassMessage to the Distribution list/Technical Village Pumps distribution list. Let me know if you need help with that. ~riley (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@~riley: I did the first two things. MassMessage is beyond my abilities here on meta, so your help with that would be appreciated. Huji (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]