Please remember to:
maybe 75 days. not 90
- If anything it is too short. We have massive families of socks carrying out undisclosed paid editing work / spamming Wikipedia. We should really be considering lengthening it. Or at least saving data from large families of socks as when blocked they do not go away, they just change their tactics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
CU policy - local
Hello, can any wiki make it's local CU policy, or all wikis must responds to the global one?
For example before few months in ar.wiki we define (Any user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than 6 month will have their CheckUser access removed.) in global one it's (one year) --Alaa :)..! 19:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, local communities can make local CU policies, but they can only be more strict than the global policy. For example, you can choose to shorten the inactivity requirement, but you cannot lengthen it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: Thanks --Alaa :)..! 20:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Retention of data for cases resulting in indef blocks
Does Wikimedia keep data related to indefinite check-user blocks? Sometimes it does, but there is no such effort systematically. Look at Steward requests/Global/2018-05 #Global unlock for Solomon203 who did not yet. We see that check-users from en. and ja. wikipedias have nothing to say about the case. The account was globally locked and only a miraculous coincidence of factors caused the stewards to reverse. Check-users either squandered the data on Solomon203 or can’t now find them, and recently one the functionaries was busy arguing against me – not surprisingly, as they have nothing to review. A similar situation on c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Chyah. Trijnstel, a member of Wikimedia authorities, did nothing but referred to some SPI in fa.Wikipedia. Coincidence of which namely accounts did those Persians establish? There is a large IP range covering a geographically significant territory—hundreds km—and the case is further complicated by the use of proxies. Who of Commons admins or the Ombudsman commission did see those data?
Looking for a responsible admin to help with pushing for improvement in the current policies. All data related to check-user blocks, and especially to blocks against users with significant contributions, must be kept for no shorter than one year. Data for high-profile cases should be kept forever. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Data retention guidelines is probably what you are looking for. — regards, Revi 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just for the record since the incompetence of en.wiki admins and functionaries is being discussed: the block above was reviewed today and Bbb23 found the account to be technically indistinguishable. (Also pinging Green Giant so he is aware of the local results.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Thank you for the ping. To clarify, I've not seen any CU data on Solomon203 but the account was unlocked based on the arguments presented at SRG, and to facilitate unblock appeals on three wikis. I have avoided commenting on the block appeals to stay impartial. I cannot say if Solomon203 is NDC or not but I defer to the opinions of people better-placed to comment. Green Giant (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23 may perfectly be right that two Solomon203’s en.Wikipedia edits in June do not make him technically distinguishable off hordes of the Nipponese Dog’s puppets storming Wikimedia servers from a huge pool of Taiwanese IPs. Guys, I speak of retention of data from October–November in this case. You must have some notion of statistics and should understand why large data samples are important. That’s exactly the point I made. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)