Last modified: 2012-06-02 18:05:29 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 8710 - Split CheckUser log into individual, per-wiki logs
Split CheckUser log into individual, per-wiki logs
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
: 11741 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-19 22:03 UTC by Effeietsanders
Modified: 2012-06-02 18:05 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Effeietsanders 2007-01-19 22:03:35 UTC
The current situation is that all CU logs are together. Every user with CU
access on any wiki can view the whole log of every wiki. I guess it would be
better to let the CU's on the specific projects only have access to the log that
shows only the CU-actions of that specific project. Not of the other projects.

The other part of the request is that stewards have through meta access to the
combined log of all CU-actions. (as it is now available on every single wiki).

<this is a spin off from bug 8705, per request of rob.
Comment 1 Dominic 2007-01-27 21:50:43 UTC
Global logs are both useful in tracking and collaborating on crosswiki
vandals/banned users (and note that stewards are not intended to become
checkusers on wikis with local checkusers already, so such crosswiki
coordination *needs* to be done be the local checkusers, not just stewards) as
well as increasing transparency and accountability among the class of users
already trusted with such confidential information, especially since many wikis
have only two checkusers.

I agree that a local log would be useful for convenience's sake, and also
hopefully for fixing display of local language settings (if not date, since that
varies by user preference), and I'd prefer parallel global and local logs to a
global log, but I also prefer a global log to a local log.
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2007-01-29 13:08:52 UTC
Indeed, if local logs are to be made, they will be nicely formated additions to
the global log, as I see no need to get rid of the global log.

Dates are all stored as the same format already for all checks (that was done in
the last patch).
Comment 3 Larry Pieniazek 2007-07-09 13:46:34 UTC
I too would hate to see loss of the global log functionality, with the increase in crosswiki vandalism and sockery, being able to search for users or IPs elsewhere (and finding out who is working the issue) is very useful. So I would oppose this as a replacement, but be OK with this as an additional sort of log. See also http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6053 
Comment 4 bdk 2007-10-22 19:52:01 UTC
*** Bug 11741 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Aaron Schulz 2008-01-12 05:59:12 UTC
Done in r29527.
Comment 6 Larry Pieniazek 2008-01-12 15:47:39 UTC
I'd like to ask that this either be reopened (or marked as rejected), or a new bug opened to track the request for a global log, linked to here. Loss of global logging is significant impact to those CUs that perform crosswiki checks as many CUs have pointed out. This also means that stewards and ombudsmen have lost global log access, another drawback which will require significant amounts of permissions twiddling whenever checks need carrying out. It is my belief that Effie's view as stated in the original bug is a small minority. (discussion is ongoing on various lists)
Comment 7 Mike.lifeguard 2008-10-25 21:13:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> I'd like to ask that this either be reopened (or marked as rejected), or a new
> bug opened to track the request for a global log, linked to here. Loss of
> global logging is significant impact to those CUs that perform crosswiki checks
> as many CUs have pointed out. This also means that stewards and ombudsmen have
> lost global log access, another drawback which will require significant amounts
> of permissions twiddling whenever checks need carrying out. It is my belief
> that Effie's view as stated in the original bug is a small minority.
> (discussion is ongoing on various lists)
> 

See bug 13789.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links