-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Is there any reason why this shouldn't log to the
local log with the
IP addresses munged?
Err. Yes, yes there is. Read, well, every single bloody "oh, but please,
why not make the CheckUser logs public?!? OK, in obfuscated form, then?
Why not? Umm!?" discussion spread over meta, foundation-l, etc. for the
past few months for an at-length treatise, but, essentially: that checks
are carried out is privileged information. There is nothing that can be
logged (even down to "User XYZ made <number> CheckUser checks on
<date>") that doesn't undermine the usefulness of CheckUser in both
technical and (especially) sociological senses. Further, logging with IP
addresses munged would certainly not be releasable information under the
privacy policy, so it would serve no point. Local logging could work, I
suppose, but would make it more complicated to follow the actions of one
CheckUser user.
OTOH, using the proper standard logging facility but in a shared manner
across all wikis, with restrictable fields (wiki, time frame, user, IP
range matching, CheckUser user, etc.) would be ideal. But quite a lot of
work, I'd imagine.
Yours,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org
IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDui2ikn3kUxZyJx0RAqigAJ9+c4xmfSVWZTZNx/nLRqRF3SXRFACfZJ5W
CjNlwiHtiWn12jm0s27tFXw=
=q0Cc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----