Platonides - yes, the one-sentence reporting that you described is what I want. If a bot can delete messages, then I presume a bot can create a log of what it does.

Risker - I do not want the spam archived or published. One reason to keep a log is to be able to automatically identify which lists are not being moderated. It could be the case that some lists get good emails but there is no moderator there. It would be preferable to close those lists entirely, and having evidence over time that a list is never moderated except when a bot clears the queue might signal which lists either should be closed or should have new moderators.

Another kind of alert could be some public noticeboard which shows how many messages are in queue and when was the last time a moderator logged in. That might be more difficult to do than just creating a log of a bot clearing things, because publishing a bot log seems like a less invasive way to get similar information.

yours,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
Lane, there is no such record keeping now on lists with active admins. Simply put, there is no value to such a list.  Many WMF mailing lists get 100-200 or more spams a *day* in their moderation queues - many of  these inactive lists have thousands of spams in them, and there's no value in publishing the spam.

Sorry, but just...no.

Risker/Anne



On 26 August 2015 at 15:32, Lane Rasberry <lane@bluerasberry.com> wrote:
Hello,

I oppose as stated.

I would support the proposal with the modification that there is reporting of deletions. The report should say which moderation queue is cleared, when the emails were deleted, and how many emails were deleted.

Deletion is useful if we have a record of what is being deleted. Deletion is not useful, and more likely harmful, if we get no feedback of what is deleted. If a report of what is deleted is too much to ask then say something more about why that is the case.

yours,




On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Zahn <dzahn@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Patrick Rother <krd@gulu.net> wrote:
> Removing the symptoms is not the best approach. Orphaned lists should
> have new moderators appointed shortly or should be closed.

Agreed. Though i think it's not an "either-or" kind of thing but we
should do both.  The question is though how to define "orphaned" list.
We would need some criteria, then a script that detects them and
somehow notifies us, or even better just creates tickets.

--
Daniel Zahn <dzahn@wikimedia.org>
Operations Engineer

_______________________________________________
Listadmins mailing list
Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia

_______________________________________________
Listadmins mailing list
Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins



_______________________________________________
Listadmins mailing list
Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins




--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
lane@bluerasberry.com