The policy is very explicit. It says that logs may be kept. If you know anything about operational requirements, you will understand that that means that logs are not routinely kept, but may be kept in order to diagnose problems. It's not practical to be more explicit than that. Aude has already explained that in the usual case, the http server itself keeps no logs (because they'd just tell ops which squids are accessing which server), and the squids themselves discard 99.9% of all accesses.

You're not likely to get any better explanation of what happens, because it's simply not practical or productive to keep you informed of which squids or servers have had logging turned on. Rest assures that nobody at the WMF cares who is accessing what page. They have more interesting problems to solve!

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:57 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/28/2010 8:09:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, nawrich@gmail.com writes:

...

There's a joke in here somewhere, maybe about applying en.wp talkpage style argumentation to "real life", but maybe we can just call this a dead issue and move on rather than argue in circles forever with Will.

I would say that you are trying to paint me as some kind of antagonist who has no purpose in my argument direction. No Ad Hominem attacks please.

There is a quite definite purpose in my point. That the WMF has no specific policy on what to retain, nor how long to retain it. That is a rather important issue for many people. I hope that people will be considerate of the nature of this privacy issue and not try to sweep it under the rug. It should be addressed clearly and directly. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l