Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards to have the ability to check those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to be overworked as it is.
-- mav
Seconded, definitely. I've bugged Tim Starling quite enough already about these, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
-Hephaestos
IP lookups for stewardsIs it just me or did anyone else have a problem reading John Robinson's posted message?
Rick Schwarz (aka Misterrick)
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:07:27 -0400, Rick Schwarz misterrick@verizon.net wrote:
IP lookups for stewardsIs it just me or did anyone else have a problem reading John Robinson's posted message?
Well, it is in a miniscule font. =b
He said:
Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards to have the ability to check those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to be overworked as it is. -- mav
Seconded, definitely. I've bugged Tim Starling quite enough already about these, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards to have the ability to check those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to be overworked as it is. -- mav
If a new system is implemented whereby IPs are stored in the database and not just in the log files, I would have no objection to stewards having access to these. However, until then, I do not support stewards being given access to the same logs that the developers currently have to check for IPs. Firstly, it would be largely a waste of time as they are too large to search through efficiently, and secondly, they include details of not only page saves, but also page views. This would be too much of a privacy violation if stewards had that sort of information.
Angela.
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards to have the ability to
check
those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to be overworked as it is. -- mav
If a new system is implemented whereby IPs are stored in the database and not just in the log files, I would have no objection to stewards having access to these. However, until then, I do not support stewards being given access to the same logs that the developers currently have to check for IPs. Firstly, it would be largely a waste of time as they are too large to search through efficiently, and secondly, they include details of not only page saves, but also page views. This would be too much of a privacy violation if stewards had that sort of information.
Goodness no - I wasn't thinking about giving stewards the key to the castle - (they would probably get lost and break the fine china). Just a viewing room (which I hope some developer will build for us -- which reminds me of my tip jar idea and Erik's software bounty concept...).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Angela - can you explain / point to where this is explained? Having this information more readily available seems a lot more sinister. Mark
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards
to have the ability to check
those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to
be overworked as it is.
-- mav
If a new system is implemented whereby IPs are stored in the database and not just in the log files, I would have no objection to stewards having access to these. However, until then, I do not support stewards being given access to the same logs that the developers currently have to check for IPs. Firstly, it would be largely a waste of time as they are too large to search through efficiently, and secondly, they include details of not only page saves, but also page views. This would be too much of a privacy violation if stewards had that sort of information.
Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark Richards wrote:
Angela - can you explain / point to where this is explained? Having this information more readily available seems a lot more sinister. Mark
The only information on it that I am aware of is what is written in the draft privacy policy. See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_privacy_policy#Private_logging.
This example of what is logged shows a user's IP, user-agent, the page they viewed and the time they did it:
12.345.67.890 - - [16/Jun/2004:07:10:19 +0000] "GET /wiki/draft_privacy_policy HTTP/1.1" 200 18084 "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.5"
These are available to the people listed on http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer with at least shell access.
The logs are not kept permanently (about two weeks according to the draft policy).
Angela.
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards
to have the ability to check
those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to
be overworked as it is.
-- mav
If a new system is implemented whereby IPs are stored in the database and not just in the log files, I would have no objection to stewards having access to these. However, until then, I do not support stewards being given access to the same logs that the developers currently have to check for IPs. Firstly, it would be largely a waste of time as they are too large to search through efficiently, and secondly, they include details of not only page saves, but also page views. This would be too much of a privacy violation if stewards had that sort of information.
Angela.
Why do we keep logs of page views by IP address at all? Thanks Mark
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
Angela - can you explain / point to where this is explained? Having this information more readily available seems a lot more sinister. Mark
The only information on it that I am aware of is what is written in the draft privacy policy. See
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_privacy_policy#Private_logging.
This example of what is logged shows a user's IP, user-agent, the page they viewed and the time they did it:
12.345.67.890 - - [16/Jun/2004:07:10:19 +0000] "GET /wiki/draft_privacy_policy HTTP/1.1" 200 18084
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump"
"Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/85.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/85.5"
These are available to the people listed on http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer with at least shell access.
The logs are not kept permanently (about two weeks according to the draft policy).
Angela.
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Speaking of which, it would be nice for
stewards
to have the ability to check
those logs in these cases. Our developers
seem to
be overworked as it is.
-- mav
If a new system is implemented whereby IPs are stored in the database and not just in the log files, I would have no objection to stewards having access to these. However, until then, I
do
not support stewards being given access to the same logs that the developers currently have to check for IPs. Firstly, it would be largely a waste of time as they are too large to search through efficiently, and secondly, they include details of not only page saves, but also page views. This would be too much of a privacy violation if
stewards
had that sort of information.
Angela.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Why do we keep logs of page views by IP address at all?
Vandals? Vandal-bots? Sockpuppet detection? General protection against undesirable activity? To generate pretty webalyzer statistics?
I can understand page EDITS, but why VIEWs? Mark
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Why do we keep logs of page views by IP address at
all?
Vandals? Vandal-bots? Sockpuppet detection? General protection against undesirable activity? To generate pretty webalyzer statistics? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thursday 17 June 2004 04:46, Mark Richards wrote:
I can understand page EDITS, but why VIEWs?
I think it's not technically possible right now to log only edits.
You may want to fix your mailer. You may want to fix your mailer. You may want to fix your mailer. You may want to fix your mailer.
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards
marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Why do we keep logs of page views by IP address at
all?
Vandals? Vandal-bots? Sockpuppet detection? General protection against undesirable activity? To generate pretty webalyzer statistics?
I can understand page EDITS, but why VIEWs? Mark
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
Why do we keep logs of page views by IP address at
all?
Vandals? Vandal-bots? Sockpuppet detection? General protection against undesirable activity? To generate pretty webalyzer statistics? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Mark Richards wrote:
I can understand page EDITS, but why VIEWs? Mark
We keep the apache (or squid) logs. We don't filter them into edits and views, we just compress them and stash them away. Most websites do this. They're handy for all kinds of reasons.
-- Tim Starling