[02:03:31] <legoktm>	 https://xkcd.com/1988/ A relevant commentary on docker ;)
[02:13:38] <Guest6356>	 Whereis
[15:23:49] <Yaron1>	 Hi - is this the right place to ask about Jenkins stuff?
[15:24:04] <Yaron1>	 If so, I think Jenkins needs to be activated for the new "VEForAll" extension.
[15:24:12] <Reedy>	 -releng probably
[15:24:20] <Reedy>	 You can submit patches though ;)
[15:24:25] <Yaron1>	 Oh, okay, I'll go there.
[15:24:31] <Yaron1>	 I don't understand.
[15:25:16] <Reedy>	 It's usually quite easy to do by example usually
[15:57:38] <Urbanecm>	 Hello all, is there a plan to turn $wgCheckUserLogLogins on as follow-up for T174492?
[15:57:39] <stashbot>	 T174492: Log unsuccessful login attempts in CheckUser - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T174492
[17:38:09] <Urbanecm>	 bawolff, do you have a moment?
[17:38:22] <bawolff>	 Kind of busy at the moment
[17:38:40] <bawolff>	 If its about everyone being spammed with failed login attempts, I'm aware of the issue and looking into it
[17:38:50] <Urbanecm>	 You already know about it?
[17:39:32] <bawolff>	 yep
[17:41:11] <Urbanecm>	 Ok, thank you for your investigation. I'd appreciate if you can share the outcome (if there will be something shareable). 
[17:50:08] <bawolff>	 I'll pass that along, but usually the decision of what to (or not to) share is made by people above me
[17:52:38] <Urbanecm>	 Thank you bawolff. 
[22:37:18] <Sagan>	 does somebody know how I can get the registration date from users registered before 2005?
[22:37:42] <Reedy>	 Not exactly
[22:37:50] <Reedy>	 Use their first edit date?
[22:38:36] <Sagan>	 Reedy: hm, so there is no possibility to do that, not in the DB etc? Somebody said, they've heard it's possible via DB
[22:39:00] <Reedy>	 How?
[22:39:10] <Reedy>	 Unless it's stored or computable, the DB won't help
[22:39:16] <Reedy>	 Log entries maybe? When did we start doing those for user signups?
[22:39:41] <Sagan>	 Reedy: in 2005. in the replicas everything before that has NULL for user_registration, but that are just the replicas
[22:40:03] <Reedy>	 Probably because the masters have NULL too
[22:40:15] <Sagan>	 they were not sure, they just said, that the *think* it can be done via DB, so that can be wrong
[22:42:07] <Reedy>	 We have a maintenance script for it
[22:42:23] <Reedy>	 But it looks for the timestamp of their first edit
[22:42:48] <Sagan>	 Reedy: hm, ok. then, can you give me the users at dewiki for a specific date? :)
[22:44:00] <Reedy>	 That that was their first edit?
[22:44:20] <Sagan>	 yeah
[22:47:14] <Sagan>	 Reedy: can execute that script for dewiki and the 19th march 2004?
[22:47:32] <Reedy>	 Doesn't work like that
[22:47:41] <Reedy>	 It tries to do it for all users without registration dates
[22:48:02] <Sagan>	 Reedy: hm, ok. so the output is a list with username - first edit?
[22:48:19] <Reedy>	 $this->output( "Set registration for #$id to $timestamp\n" );
[22:48:23] <Reedy>	 And fixes it in the DB
[22:48:51] <Sagan>	 hm, I guess it's not expected to be executed then, or why was it created?
[22:49:06] <Reedy>	 No idea
[22:49:16] <Reedy>	 Maybe it was disagreed that this date should be used
[22:49:30] <Sagan>	 the first user_registration for dewiki I get is 20051222065402, so it can't be the script, right?
[22:49:42] <Sagan>	 hm, ok then. thanks for searching :)
[22:51:57] <bawolff>	 Thats around when the firld was created
[22:52:26] <bawolff>	 But enwiki has some backdated stuff
[22:53:00] <bawolff>	 i think based on first edit
[22:56:19] <Reedy>	 165638 users on dewiki have no registration date
[22:56:41] <Reedy>	 1st revision has a date of 20010530113726