Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ MediaWiki Software _ Oversight has no visible logs

Posted by: LamontStormstar

So I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4chan&curid=884489&diff=99050672&oldid=99049386 in my watchlist. Shows removed edit

Go into history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4chan&curid=884489&action=history it's removed

View logs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk:4chan

Likely personal information. I was curious why no logs. None on wikipedia. None on www.mediawiki.org or meta.mediawiki.org


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:66.248.97.31 says blocked for personal information

But http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Oversight says Oversight has logs.

Apparently it no longer does.

Posted by: Gracenotes

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sun 7th January 2007, 2:37am) *

But http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Oversight says Oversight has logs.

Apparently it no longer does.

Just wanted to drop by to tell you that oversight does have logs, but those logs are only available to other oversighters. Initially, MediaWiki software did not support oversight logs for anyone, but now, at least others with similar privileges can review the summary and location of deleted edits.

Of course, there is still the issue of accountability; it may be best to have trusted editors that can review logs but not perform any actions, but this doesn't seem socially feasible.

Posted by: LamontStormstar

I don't see what would be so bad about making such logs public?

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 12:05am) *
I don't see what would be so bad about making such logs public?

People might ask questions!

Actually, if used responsibly, I'd actually support keeping oversight logs under wraps. This is assuming I had any say in the matter... Oversight logs would probably be a roadmap to where the personal-attack and privacy-violation action is that day. I suspect that people who make oversighted edits often try again, and if you're monitoring the right pages, you can see what they put in when subsequent attempts are made...

So it really sort of makes sense to hide the logs, but then again, well... User:Jayjg! dry.gif

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(Gracenotes @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 5:12am) *

it may be best to have trusted editors that can review logs but not perform any actions, but this doesn't seem socially feasible.

What about ArbCom members? No doubt some editors here have varying opinions about some of them, but surely nobody could object to them being able to see the logs.

Posted by: michael

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Thu 1st March 2007, 11:05pm) *

I don't see what would be so bad about making such logs public?


I remember reading that anti-Wikipedia sites were downloading old database dumps and retrieving the information that was later oversighted. So they stopped showing them publicy to avoid that from happening.

Posted by: jch

Developers can look at the logs for everything, of course, and a steward can make themselves oversight and look at the logs too.