It looks based on https://github.com/miraheze/RemovePII/blob/master/includes/RemovePIIJob.php#L80 that we should actually be checking https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-CheckUser/blob/master/cu_log.sql#L25

@Dmehus: Looking at it, it's only the log entry remaining. There should not be any data.

It should be first renamed, once the rename from RemovePII is done, as technically it is just the user ID that is being removed from database, not username, so as long as rename for user is done first, then it should be removing it from checkuser.

Oh, if it doesn't work with the extension the script doesn't either. RhinosF1 is right, the way its done now removes acting user not target user it seems.

In T7992#161169, @RhinosF1 wrote:

@Dmehus: Looking at it, it's only the log entry remaining. There should not be any data.

@RhinosF1 That's correct. No CU data exists when searching for the deleted or renamed user. I guess it's more of a cosmetic thing thing, so we may not need to do anything?

It's just weird that before, the user was renamed and the CU log entries were removed. So if we wanted to replicate that functionality from the removepii.php script, I'd suggest a fix, but you're right, this can probably be lowered to normal or low priority, or closed as declined.

@Dmehus: I agree it's a bug. Just pointing out that it's simply the log retained.

In T7992#161173, @RhinosF1 wrote:

@Dmehus: I agree it's a bug. Just pointing out that it's simply the log retained.

@RhinosF1 Yep, that's entirely fair.

In T7992#161168, @RhinosF1 wrote:

It looks based on https://github.com/miraheze/RemovePII/blob/master/includes/RemovePIIJob.php#L80 that we should actually be checking https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-CheckUser/blob/master/cu_log.sql#L25

@RhinosF1 Oh, nice find. :)

https://github.com/miraheze/RemovePII/pull/20 - although I'm not certain it will work, and testing RemovePII is quite difficult (especially when needing to test CU which sysadmins don't have access to nor really should, and don't know if it's a good idea to add just for testing). I don't think it'll cause it to error though.

In T7992#161176, @Universal_Omega wrote:

https://github.com/miraheze/RemovePII/pull/20 - although I'm not certain it will work, and testing RemovePII is quite difficult (especially when needing to test CU which sysadmins don't have access to nor really should, and don't know if it's a good idea to add just for testing). I don't think it'll cause it to error though.

Technically, you could add checkuser and checkuser-log permissions temporarily to sysadmin and test it on a test account, if you needed it, ideally linking to the Phabricator ticket in your log summary.

In T7992#161177, @Dmehus wrote:

In T7992#161176, @Universal_Omega wrote:

https://github.com/miraheze/RemovePII/pull/20 - although I'm not certain it will work, and testing RemovePII is quite difficult (especially when needing to test CU which sysadmins don't have access to nor really should, and don't know if it's a good idea to add just for testing). I don't think it'll cause it to error though.

Technically, you could add checkuser and checkuser-log permissions temporarily to sysadmin and test it on a test account, if you needed it, ideally linking to the Phabricator ticket in your log summary.

Yeah. Another thing for me personally is that I'm currently mobile until September 15th, so someone else will likely need to test or at least someone else deploy to test3 for me to test from there.

In T7992#161178, @Universal_Omega wrote:

In T7992#161177, @Dmehus wrote:

In T7992#161176, @Universal_Omega wrote:

https://github.com/miraheze/RemovePII/pull/20 - although I'm not certain it will work, and testing RemovePII is quite difficult (especially when needing to test CU which sysadmins don't have access to nor really should, and don't know if it's a good idea to add just for testing). I don't think it'll cause it to error though.

Technically, you could add checkuser and checkuser-log permissions temporarily to sysadmin and test it on a test account, if you needed it, ideally linking to the Phabricator ticket in your log summary.

Yeah. Another thing for me personally is that I'm currently mobile until September 15th, so someone else will likely need to test or at least someone else deploy to test3 for me to test from there.

Ah, okay. True, perhaps @RhinosF1 or @Reception123 can test it on test3wiki when it's deployed there, adding the needed user rights on metawiki with the clear testing reason. Testing user account should be identifiably named, like "RhinosF1 (RemovePII test account)" or "Reception123 (RemovePII test account)". You'll need to perform the check on the test account prior to running RemovePII, though.

This task can probably be made public, I don't think it's a true security issue.

In T7992#161217, @Universal_Omega wrote:

This task can probably be made public, I don't think it's a true security issue.

Probably can now, since there's not any non-public data in the task, assuming @Owen and @Reception123 have no objections.

https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T7995#161251

Regarding this, @Universal_Omega, what do you mean here? When we used the removepii.php script, the CheckUser log data for the bottom line is removed.

In T7992#161253, @Dmehus wrote:

https://phabricator.miraheze.org/T7995#161251

Regarding this, @Universal_Omega, what do you mean here? When we used the removepii.php script, the CheckUser log data for the bottom line is removed.

Well not according to the code, the code for that is 100% exactly the same between the RemovePII extension and maintenance script.