[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 Gurch matthew.brit...@btinternet.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew.brit...@btinternet. ||com Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #20 from Gurch matthew.brit...@btinternet.com 2010-11-13 18:25:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) All deletions are logged in...the deletion log :) ... is not an acceptable reason to WONTFIX a request to address a clear usability issue. Duping to bug 24932, to make it easier to find this old discussion. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 24932 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC||jay...@gmail.com Resolution|DUPLICATE | --- Comment #21 from John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 2010-11-14 00:01:24 UTC --- This is the original bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||theevilipaddr...@hotmail.de --- Comment #22 from John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 2010-11-14 00:01:33 UTC --- *** Bug 24932 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #19 from Nemo_bis federicol...@tiscali.it 2010-06-07 14:54:00 CEST --- (In reply to comment #18) A filter might be a good idea though, given the revisiondelete items have there own log_action. Bug 20839 has been created and then closed as duplicate of bug 18954. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 Cenarium cenarium.sy...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||20839 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 Aaron Schulz jschulz_4...@msn.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jschulz_4...@msn.com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #18 from Aaron Schulz jschulz_4...@msn.com 2009-09-13 15:59:03 UTC --- All deletions are logged in...the deletion log :) A filter might be a good idea though, given the revisiondelete items have there own log_action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 Happy-melon happy-me...@live.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||happy-me...@live.com Component|General/Unknown |Revision deletion -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #16 from cenarium.sy...@gmail.com 2009-05-26 17:27:32 UTC --- Many deletions are automatic, and the vast majority of them are not checked. We generally trust our sysops, but we should still consider potential mistake and abuse when implementing a new functionality. The fact this topic has been surrounded by controversy makes it even more needed. Yet, this is not the primary reason justifying a separate log, but simply because those actions are not of the same type, and sufficiently different technically and in use. One will generally want to check 'page deletions' and not 'revision deletions', or vice-versa. Not having the differentiation would be more time consuming due to the volume of operations. Incidentally, I don't see what negative effects this could have. We have four quasi-unused log types on enwiki (merge, import, global rights and global account), and this is not seen as a big problem. But this one would be much more used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #14 from cenarium.sy...@gmail.com 2009-05-21 17:34:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) Internally, you have log_type and log_action. Currently, most log views are separated by log_type, not log_action. For example, log_action=block and log_action=unblock are both in the log_type=block category. Same with deletions (you'll notice how undeletions and deletions are in the same place; the same is true for protections / unprotections). Apparently, there's a log_type 'suppress', but no log_type 'hide'. So hide actions are recorded as deletions, well, since we have a log_type for suppress, I suppose we could have one for 'hide' too. It would allow to have a separate log. It may be a better idea to start splitting by log_action rather than log_type, if possible. Perhaps not by default, but the option should be there in the interface. Being able to filter a log by log_action would be interesting indeed, to have a list of undeletions for example (so a better control of 'selective deletions'). (In reply to comment #13) Sure, so perhaps the watchlist should list when the log entry for an action affecting a watched page is changed (hidden/unhidden/whatever). I think that should be done, actually - I'll file a new bug shortly. I agree, that would be an improvement. But there are still logs with no target, and plenty of pages that are not heavily watched. ..but I don't understand how these log entries would be lost or inaccessible or not transparent. For pages, it states clearly what page was affected. For logs, it states what log was affected, but it doesn't state clearly what that log entry was about (in some cases it can't, since that's what was hidden). I'm still trying to think through how to make this more readily intelligible to the user, as it's really not satisfactory right now, IMO; please see bug 18335. The issue is that the use of oversight-like tools has become quite controversial on enwiki, so users want to be able to see all those actions recorded in one place to be able to challenge them, review them one by one if they're sysop. If they are hosted in the deletion log, for 1 of those actions, there would be maybe 1000 deletions, they would be lost among deletions. So you couldn't find them easily, or you'd have to extract them specifically, which would be a pain and not live. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #8 from cenarium.sy...@gmail.com 2009-05-20 22:45:24 UTC --- A separation of the logs is justified from a technical point of view, as those actions are of a completely different kind. It is justified for analysis and statistics purposes, and as said above, for transparency and abuse prevention. Considering the amount of controversy (past and still present) surrounding the use of oversight-like tools, it is even more justified. Furthermore, preliminary discussions on the new tool, see [[Wikipedia talk:Selective deletion]], indicate this is a big issue for the community in enabling this for admins. Log proliferation is not an issue in this case. First, I do not see why a person would like to see both the deletion log and hide log (and it is my understanding that the suppress log is already separated), but not each one separately, while the inverse is certainly true. An other log won't be a problem for a specific page, as there's a few of them in most cases, all accessible in the main log, and a more precise filtering shouldn't create any problem. And globally, it would be a problem only if the logs were of the same nature, which is not the case. As for visibility, of course if an admin hides a summary on ANI, it will be highly visible, but there are plenty of pages were this will not be so visible and abuse - or mistakes - may take place. And again, log entries can also be hidden, and their visibility is generally much lesser, as it doesn't show up in histories or watchlists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #9 from Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm 2009-05-20 23:01:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) As for visibility, of course if an admin hides a summary on ANI, it will be highly visible, but there are plenty of pages were this will not be so visible and abuse - or mistakes - may take place. And again, log entries can also be hidden, and their visibility is generally much lesser, as it doesn't show up in histories or watchlists. Deletion of one revision, multiple revisions, or all of them are all deletion, and are logged in the deletion log. Why wouldn't that be shown in the watchlist? Why is the deletion log not a visible enough place to log deletions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #10 from FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com 2009-05-21 00:25:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8 also): And again, log entries can also be hidden, Not correct in terms of overall effect. Log entries cannot be hidden without an entry in the suppression (oversight) log. The text of a log entry can be hidden, but the entry itself /cannot/ -- an entry with hidden text will either be oversighted (own log) or trivially visible to any admin who is interested or wants to check. and their visibility is generally much lesser, as it doesn't show up in histories or watchlists. Incorrect, the entry ahows up in /all/ histories and watchlists, the /only/ difference is some parts may be marked deleted -- but /any/ admin can trivially view and check these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #11 from cenarium.sy...@gmail.com 2009-05-21 02:32:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) When mentioning the watchlist, I considered hidden log entries (not edits). If you hide an entry in the user creation log, it won't show up in your watchlist (AFAIK, you can't watch the user creation log). And it's also the case for the move log, protection log, etc, even if there is a target, it doesn't show up in your watchlist (while actions to hide revisions are shown). Again, revision visibility is not the same as deletion, the effect is completely different (see comment #2). Those entries would be lost in the deletion log and largely inaccessible, thereby decreasing the transparency and abuse prevention potential, and so reducing usability and chances for the software to be enabled for admins on enwiki. Maybe it wouldn't be a big problem on wikis with low activity, but on enwiki where we have on average half a dozen deletions by minute, with peaks at several dozens by minute, it's impractical. (In reply to comment #10) We can hide the following for logs: log summary, and/or username, and/or action and target. They can also be hidden by admins when enabled, at least in the config on testwiki. Again, I was speaking of hidden log entries, that don't show up in watchlists or histories, not edits. An admin can check hidden content only when it is aware of it, if those actions are lost in the deletion log, the check won't be possible. Given the controversial nature of this, we can't afford a don't bother until a problem is finally found attitude. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 MZMcBride pub...@mzmcbride.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pub...@mzmcbride.com --- Comment #12 from MZMcBride pub...@mzmcbride.com 2009-05-21 03:03:10 UTC --- Internally, you have log_type and log_action. Currently, most log views are separated by log_type, not log_action. For example, log_action=block and log_action=unblock are both in the log_type=block category. Same with deletions (you'll notice how undeletions and deletions are in the same place; the same is true for protections / unprotections). It may be a better idea to start splitting by log_action rather than log_type, if possible. Perhaps not by default, but the option should be there in the interface. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #13 from Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm 2009-05-21 03:17:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) (In reply to comment #9) When mentioning the watchlist, I considered hidden log entries (not edits). If you hide an entry in the user creation log, it won't show up in your watchlist (AFAIK, you can't watch the user creation log). And it's also the case for the move log, protection log, etc, even if there is a target, it doesn't show up in your watchlist (while actions to hide revisions are shown). Sure, so perhaps the watchlist should list when the log entry for an action affecting a watched page is changed (hidden/unhidden/whatever). I think that should be done, actually - I'll file a new bug shortly. Again, revision visibility is not the same as deletion, the effect is completely different (see comment #2). I understand how it is different... Those entries would be lost in the deletion log and largely inaccessible, thereby decreasing the transparency ..but I don't understand how these log entries would be lost or inaccessible or not transparent. For pages, it states clearly what page was affected. For logs, it states what log was affected, but it doesn't state clearly what that log entry was about (in some cases it can't, since that's what was hidden). I'm still trying to think through how to make this more readily intelligible to the user, as it's really not satisfactory right now, IMO; please see bug 18335. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 Sam Korn sam.k...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam.k...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Sam Korn sam.k...@gmail.com 2009-05-18 08:19:35 UTC --- I agree with Cenarium here. Deleting a page has effects other than the appearance in the deletion log -- red links appear, diff links fail to work, etc. RevisionDelete, on the other hand, is far more silent -- you can only tell the action has been taken by viewing the individual revision or by viewing the log. Therefore the log is far more important for transparency and prevention of abuse. These (important) functions would be helped by a separate log, as normal deletions are of such volume that revision deletions will be swamped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #3 from FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com 2009-05-18 09:02:49 UTC --- But removal of data (by any means) is only ever a problem if something is hidden that shouldn't have been hidden, and something is only hidden (in this sense) at a point where a user would have seen it but for the action taken. (ie, a redaction of (say) an edit summary that nobody has ever looked at anyway isn't making any difference; it's a potential problem only at the point someone looks at the record and /would/ have seen it but now cannot/will not.) With RevDel, at that point the user can always (without fail) know that material has been hidden and any user who should be able to check it was correctly hidden, can do so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #4 from FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com 2009-05-18 09:06:36 UTC --- Additional observation -- The logic you're suggesting also has a major flaw. It's fine for full page deletion. But the delete log also has revision deletion by normal admin delete (full delete + restore all but N revisions). Those are far more silent, create no redlinks, etc, and yet no separate log has ever been suggested as essential for those. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #5 from Sam Korn sam.k...@gmail.com 2009-05-18 09:14:41 UTC --- FT2 is arguing that oversight of the use of this tool should be entirely reactive. I disagree -- it should be possible to perform proactive oversight. The argument about deletion-selective undeletion is, I think, somewhat specious. It would have been impossible to log those events without a new functionality that does the whole action at once -- which is what RevisionDelete is. The need for the delete-undelete method has been obviated by the superior RevisionDelete system; my argument is that that system can be further improved by the provision of a separate log. I don't see any benefits of the combined log; there are significant benefits to a separate log. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 --- Comment #7 from FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com 2009-05-18 15:23:48 UTC --- Actually - proposed that. It's got potential to help. See bug 18836. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
[Bug 17806] Specific log for revision deletions
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17806 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ft2.w...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com 2009-05-09 09:43:34 UTC --- Once RevDel is available to admins, no special log will be needed since any admin will be able to view (or review), ordinary redaction, if they want to. At most this would therefore be a transitory measure, not worth amending the interface for. What would be useful would be a toolserver tool to list the RevDel items in the deletion log, for use until such a time as admins can view them natively through MediaWiki. But thats a separate matter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
