Hello list admins,
we have found that globally we had over half a million mails in mailman lists that were not moderated.
So that means they got held in the moderation queues but were not accepted or discarded.
We have started deleting the oldest ones first (over 1 year old) then moved to (older than 6 months).
We are planning to setup an automated cron job to do this automatically in the background.
Currently the plan is to delete all messages that are held and older than 90 days.
Please let us know if any concerns and moderate a bit more if this affects your list.
Thank you and best regards,
Daniel
I applaud this initiative.
Risker/Anne
On 24 August 2015 at 17:10, Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello list admins,
we have found that globally we had over half a million mails in mailman lists that were not moderated.
So that means they got held in the moderation queues but were not accepted or discarded.
We have started deleting the oldest ones first (over 1 year old) then moved to (older than 6 months).
We are planning to setup an automated cron job to do this automatically in the background.
Currently the plan is to delete all messages that are held and older than 90 days.
Please let us know if any concerns and moderate a bit more if this affects your list.
Thank you and best regards,
Daniel
-- Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org Operations Engineer
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
Hello.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:10:59PM -0700, Daniel Zahn wrote:
we have found that globally we had over half a million mails in mailman lists that were not moderated.
So that means they got held in the moderation queues but were not accepted or discarded.
We have started deleting the oldest ones first (over 1 year old) then moved to (older than 6 months).
We are planning to setup an automated cron job to do this automatically in the background.
Currently the plan is to delete all messages that are held and older than 90 days.
Please let us know if any concerns and moderate a bit more if this affects your list.
Removing the symptoms is not the best approach. Orphaned lists should have new moderators appointed shortly or should be closed.
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.
I simply ignore most of the spam that comes in. I only get involved with approving items that are not spam.
J
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:43 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
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:59 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I simply ignore most of the spam that comes in. I only get involved with approving items that are not spam.
Ditto. Having old emails deleted (even with a much lower time limit such as two weeks) would actually be very useful because then I wouldn't have to fish through a huge list of spam mails on the management interface in the rare case when an email is valid and I need to whitelist it.
I think we're entering in details here. We're talking spam (99.9%) that has been sitting there for 3 months. Seems there are little objections to the deletion of those messages, great. Some suggestions for how to record that action - I guess it is up to the admins whether that is suitable and worth the effort (I dont'see an upside, but if it is very easy, why not).
I do think 2 weeks would be much too short - lets stick to the term where it's obvious (3 months), and we can re-evaluate later if it should be shorter.
Best, Lodewijk
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:59 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I simply ignore most of the spam that comes in. I only get involved with approving items that are not spam.
Ditto. Having old emails deleted (even with a much lower time limit such as two weeks) would actually be very useful because then I wouldn't have to fish through a huge list of spam mails on the management interface in the rare case when an email is valid and I need to whitelist it.
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
On 26 Aug 2015 23:54, "James Heilman" jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I simply ignore most of the spam that comes in. I only get involved with
approving items that are not spam.
So do I do!
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:43 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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
2015-08-25 20:59 GMT+02:00 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
I simply ignore most of the spam that comes in. I only get involved with approving items that are not spam.
J
I do it the same. After a few days though (4 or 5), the unapproved messages are automatically deleted. I thought this behaviour was more general.
Lists with queues that have messages older than 80 days is one approximation of orphaned.
A.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 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
2015-08-25 20:43 GMT+02:00 Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org:
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.
I know that we have discussed this already in other venues (e.g. Wikimedia-l), but a global blacklist for spam e-mails would be godsend.
C
On 08/25/2015 02:43 PM, Daniel Zahn 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.
Can lists be closed while keeping the archives?
If so, I believe https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/growth-team can be closed (the team was retired a while ago).
Thanks,
Matt Flaschen
Can lists be closed while keeping the archives?
If so, I believe https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/growth-team can be closed (the team was retired a while ago).
Yes, they can be closed while keeping the archives. I made a ticket for that.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110416
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, 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 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
On 27/08/15 00:58, Risker 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
Why so? As I see the message, Lane only asked for a log entry like: "On 2015-08-27 2500 mails that had been waiting for more than 90 days were deleted from the list-admins queue"
Albeit, as I said, I do some value in getting some stats over that spam corpus (the mail files, not the mailman summary). It's also possible that it is a useless task. I can take a look at some of the less hairy queues if you wish.
PS: "Records" of admin-active lists are sent to the admins mailboxes.
On 26 August 2015 at 19:24, Platonides platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/15 00:58, Risker 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
Why so? As I see the message, Lane only asked for a log entry like: "On 2015-08-27 2500 mails that had been waiting for more than 90 days were deleted from the list-admins queue"
Albeit, as I said, I do some value in getting some stats over that spam corpus (the mail files, not the mailman summary). It's also possible that it is a useless task. I can take a look at some of the less hairy queues if you wish.
PS: "Records" of admin-active lists are sent to the admins mailboxes.
No, they aren't automatically - because that is an option that is selected by the list admins for the individual list. And for all we know, some of these unmoderated lists have been generating emails to email accounts that were long since abandoned by the original list admins.
Risker/Anne
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
No, they aren't automatically - because that is an option that is selected by the list admins for the individual list.
It used to be, but now we added a cronjob that deletes the ones older than 90 days. This all came up because we are planning the migration to a new server and it was just too much to even list the contents of that data directory.
On 27 August 2015 at 00:35, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2015 at 19:24, Platonides platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/15 00:58, Risker 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
Why so? As I see the message, Lane only asked for a log entry like: "On 2015-08-27 2500 mails that had been waiting for more than 90 days were deleted from the list-admins queue"
Albeit, as I said, I do some value in getting some stats over that spam corpus (the mail files, not the mailman summary). It's also possible that it is a useless task. I can take a look at some of the less hairy queues if you wish.
PS: "Records" of admin-active lists are sent to the admins mailboxes.
No, they aren't automatically - because that is an option that is selected by the list admins for the individual list. And for all we know, some of these unmoderated lists have been generating emails to email accounts that were long since abandoned by the original list admins.
Risker/Anne
Off the back of Anne's idea... Should we first do a purge of listadmins by
sending an email to all listadmins and purging any addresses that bounce? (This may already have been done when this "list of listadmins" was created.)
Deryck
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 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
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
On Thursday, 27 August 2015, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
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.
Bots can but shell scripts should not and will not be used to make edits
to the wikis through the API when other mediums exist. We have discussed having cron produce an email to Phabricator if a list has had a large quantity of emails deleted due to a lack of moderation. Though this is arbitrary value and would turn a simple (well idea wise) command into a calculation.
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.
We will be identifying lists which have an extremely high number of
moderated messages. We will likely query a backup of the data stored off server since we have already deleted some quantity in order to bring numbers down to suitable value for existing work to progress. After, I will look at the data and reach out to lists to evaluate if they either need to be closed, new list administrators or to educate them on best practise and work with them to implement spam rules which we already documented elsewhere if necessary.
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.
Last time a moderator logged in is not possible within mailman without
creative solutions which would be out of scope for a clean install we wish to keep. Posting that list a has 1 moderated message but b has 120 is also something I don't feel we should be doing. Especially considering some lists are kept private and aren't even displayed as lists, a collective summary of lists and their moderation numbers is not an area we should enforce.
Thanks, John Lewis
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Zahn schreef op 24-8-2015 om 23:10:
Hello list admins,
we have found that globally we had over half a million mails in mailman lists that were not moderated.
Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages waiting for moderation?
Maarten
This is the plan eventually though we're intending only to do it for lists with a significant amount of moderated emails as part of a look into whether the lists are active, need new admins or whether said admins need educating.
Once this is released, myself or Daniel will link to the phabricator comment for this list.
Thanks, John
On Thursday, 27 August 2015, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Zahn schreef op 24-8-2015 om 23:10:
Hello list admins,
we have found that globally we had over half a million mails in mailman lists that were not moderated.
Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages waiting for moderation?
Maarten
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages waiting for moderation?
Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000.
71729 ./heldmsg-wikiru 66819 ./heldmsg-wikinews 43642 ./heldmsg-maps 40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 38696 ./heldmsg-wikifa 37172 ./heldmsg-wiktionary 26928 ./heldmsg-wikimediabe 25267 ./heldmsg-wikimediake 25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 21802 ./heldmsg-libraries 21728 ./heldmsg-education 20654 ./heldmsg-wikisk 19982 ./heldmsg-wikifi 18612 ./heldmsg-wikiia 14318 ./heldmsg-wikilb 10470 ./heldmsg-wiktionarypt 10249 ./heldmsg-exyu 8508 ./heldmsg-wikiskan 5672 ./heldmsg-wikihe 5018 ./heldmsg-wikimedianz 4649 ./heldmsg-wikiquality 4337 ./heldmsg-wikiversity 2885 ./heldmsg-wikibooksde 2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 2238 ./heldmsg-juriwiki 1918 ./heldmsg-mailman 1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 1705 ./heldmsg-wikipedia 1554 ./heldmsg-wikimediafr 1537 ./heldmsg-infobg 1496 ./heldmsg-wikiar 1353 ./heldmsg-wikimk 1310 ./heldmsg-ruwikiconference 1240 ./heldmsg-wikimediahk 1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 1167 ./heldmsg-wikiml 1078 ./heldmsg-ca
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109838#1561937
we also have: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110438 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110609
for more data i have to restore already deleted stuff from bacula, but i can.
Daniel Zahn wrote:
Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000.
Something looks wrong here:
40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia
I know it's the wikimedia foundation, and lots of lists with that in the name are expected, but having the same folder 5 times with different files each isn't a bit too much? :)
Can we please move this discussion to a Phabricator ticket or something else? This list was supposed to be, I thought, only for minimal administrivia communication.
Greg
<quote name="Daniel Zahn" date="2015-08-27" time="16:08:10 -0700">
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages waiting for moderation?
Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000.
71729 ./heldmsg-wikiru 66819 ./heldmsg-wikinews 43642 ./heldmsg-maps 40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 38696 ./heldmsg-wikifa 37172 ./heldmsg-wiktionary 26928 ./heldmsg-wikimediabe 25267 ./heldmsg-wikimediake 25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 21802 ./heldmsg-libraries 21728 ./heldmsg-education 20654 ./heldmsg-wikisk 19982 ./heldmsg-wikifi 18612 ./heldmsg-wikiia 14318 ./heldmsg-wikilb 10470 ./heldmsg-wiktionarypt 10249 ./heldmsg-exyu 8508 ./heldmsg-wikiskan 5672 ./heldmsg-wikihe 5018 ./heldmsg-wikimedianz 4649 ./heldmsg-wikiquality 4337 ./heldmsg-wikiversity 2885 ./heldmsg-wikibooksde 2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 2238 ./heldmsg-juriwiki 1918 ./heldmsg-mailman 1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 1705 ./heldmsg-wikipedia 1554 ./heldmsg-wikimediafr 1537 ./heldmsg-infobg 1496 ./heldmsg-wikiar 1353 ./heldmsg-wikimk 1310 ./heldmsg-ruwikiconference 1240 ./heldmsg-wikimediahk 1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia 1167 ./heldmsg-wikiml 1078 ./heldmsg-ca
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109838#1561937
we also have: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110438 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110609
for more data i have to restore already deleted stuff from bacula, but i can.
-- Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org Operations Engineer
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
This makes the assumption that all Wikimedia list administrators have Phabricator accounts. Please don't make that assumption. The overwhelming majority of Wikimedians don't, and there is no reason to believe that mailing list administrators are in the small group that does.
Risker/Anne
On 27 August 2015 at 20:51, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
Can we please move this discussion to a Phabricator ticket or something else? This list was supposed to be, I thought, only for minimal administrivia communication.
Greg
<quote name="Daniel Zahn" date="2015-08-27" time="16:08:10 -0700"> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Maarten Dammers <maarten@mdammers.nl> wrote: > > Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages > > waiting for moderation? > > Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000. > > 71729 ./heldmsg-wikiru > 66819 ./heldmsg-wikinews > 43642 ./heldmsg-maps > 40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 38696 ./heldmsg-wikifa > 37172 ./heldmsg-wiktionary > 26928 ./heldmsg-wikimediabe > 25267 ./heldmsg-wikimediake > 25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 21802 ./heldmsg-libraries > 21728 ./heldmsg-education > 20654 ./heldmsg-wikisk > 19982 ./heldmsg-wikifi > 18612 ./heldmsg-wikiia > 14318 ./heldmsg-wikilb > 10470 ./heldmsg-wiktionarypt > 10249 ./heldmsg-exyu > 8508 ./heldmsg-wikiskan > 5672 ./heldmsg-wikihe > 5018 ./heldmsg-wikimedianz > 4649 ./heldmsg-wikiquality > 4337 ./heldmsg-wikiversity > 2885 ./heldmsg-wikibooksde > 2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 2238 ./heldmsg-juriwiki > 1918 ./heldmsg-mailman > 1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 1705 ./heldmsg-wikipedia > 1554 ./heldmsg-wikimediafr > 1537 ./heldmsg-infobg > 1496 ./heldmsg-wikiar > 1353 ./heldmsg-wikimk > 1310 ./heldmsg-ruwikiconference > 1240 ./heldmsg-wikimediahk > 1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 1167 ./heldmsg-wikiml > 1078 ./heldmsg-ca > > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109838#1561937 > > we also have: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110438 > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110609 > > for more data i have to restore already deleted stuff from bacula, but i can. > > -- > Daniel Zahn <dzahn@wikimedia.org> > Operations Engineer > > _______________________________________________ > Listadmins mailing list > Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Listadmins mailing list Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
I did say "or something else" didn't I? I was not prescriptive.
Also, my second sentence also still stands.
-- Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity. On Aug 29, 2015 09:09, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
This makes the assumption that all Wikimedia list administrators have Phabricator accounts. Please don't make that assumption. The overwhelming majority of Wikimedians don't, and there is no reason to believe that mailing list administrators are in the small group that does.
Risker/Anne
On 27 August 2015 at 20:51, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
Can we please move this discussion to a Phabricator ticket or something else? This list was supposed to be, I thought, only for minimal administrivia communication.
Greg
<quote name="Daniel Zahn" date="2015-08-27" time="16:08:10 -0700"> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Maarten Dammers <maarten@mdammers.nl> wrote: > > Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages > > waiting for moderation? > > Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000. > > 71729 ./heldmsg-wikiru > 66819 ./heldmsg-wikinews > 43642 ./heldmsg-maps > 40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 38696 ./heldmsg-wikifa > 37172 ./heldmsg-wiktionary > 26928 ./heldmsg-wikimediabe > 25267 ./heldmsg-wikimediake > 25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 21802 ./heldmsg-libraries > 21728 ./heldmsg-education > 20654 ./heldmsg-wikisk > 19982 ./heldmsg-wikifi > 18612 ./heldmsg-wikiia > 14318 ./heldmsg-wikilb > 10470 ./heldmsg-wiktionarypt > 10249 ./heldmsg-exyu > 8508 ./heldmsg-wikiskan > 5672 ./heldmsg-wikihe > 5018 ./heldmsg-wikimedianz > 4649 ./heldmsg-wikiquality > 4337 ./heldmsg-wikiversity > 2885 ./heldmsg-wikibooksde > 2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 2238 ./heldmsg-juriwiki > 1918 ./heldmsg-mailman > 1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 1705 ./heldmsg-wikipedia > 1554 ./heldmsg-wikimediafr > 1537 ./heldmsg-infobg > 1496 ./heldmsg-wikiar > 1353 ./heldmsg-wikimk > 1310 ./heldmsg-ruwikiconference > 1240 ./heldmsg-wikimediahk > 1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 1167 ./heldmsg-wikiml > 1078 ./heldmsg-ca > > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109838#1561937 > > we also have: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110438 > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110609 > > for more data i have to restore already deleted stuff from bacula, but i can. > > -- > Daniel Zahn <dzahn@wikimedia.org> > Operations Engineer > > _______________________________________________ > Listadmins mailing list > Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
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
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
I did say "or something else" didn't I? I was not prescriptive.
Also, my second sentence also still stands.
Wasn't aware it was for "minimal" activity. I thought it was for things relevant to listadmins as a whole. Which this certainly is.
Now we're having a meta-discussion about the suitability of a topic. That's surely not what the list is for. ;-)
Yes, and it is extremely difficult to create them and therefore quite an impertinence to suggest anyone to use it. Am 29.08.2015 18:09 schrieb "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com:
This makes the assumption that all Wikimedia list administrators have Phabricator accounts. Please don't make that assumption. The overwhelming majority of Wikimedians don't, and there is no reason to believe that mailing list administrators are in the small group that does.
Risker/Anne
On 27 August 2015 at 20:51, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
Can we please move this discussion to a Phabricator ticket or something else? This list was supposed to be, I thought, only for minimal administrivia communication.
Greg
<quote name="Daniel Zahn" date="2015-08-27" time="16:08:10 -0700"> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Maarten Dammers <maarten@mdammers.nl> wrote: > > Can you publish a per list breakdown here? What lists had the most messages > > waiting for moderation? > > Here's some data for all lists that had over 1000. > > 71729 ./heldmsg-wikiru > 66819 ./heldmsg-wikinews > 43642 ./heldmsg-maps > 40495 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 38696 ./heldmsg-wikifa > 37172 ./heldmsg-wiktionary > 26928 ./heldmsg-wikimediabe > 25267 ./heldmsg-wikimediake > 25178 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 21802 ./heldmsg-libraries > 21728 ./heldmsg-education > 20654 ./heldmsg-wikisk > 19982 ./heldmsg-wikifi > 18612 ./heldmsg-wikiia > 14318 ./heldmsg-wikilb > 10470 ./heldmsg-wiktionarypt > 10249 ./heldmsg-exyu > 8508 ./heldmsg-wikiskan > 5672 ./heldmsg-wikihe > 5018 ./heldmsg-wikimedianz > 4649 ./heldmsg-wikiquality > 4337 ./heldmsg-wikiversity > 2885 ./heldmsg-wikibooksde > 2381 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 2238 ./heldmsg-juriwiki > 1918 ./heldmsg-mailman > 1821 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 1705 ./heldmsg-wikipedia > 1554 ./heldmsg-wikimediafr > 1537 ./heldmsg-infobg > 1496 ./heldmsg-wikiar > 1353 ./heldmsg-wikimk > 1310 ./heldmsg-ruwikiconference > 1240 ./heldmsg-wikimediahk > 1168 ./heldmsg-wikimedia > 1167 ./heldmsg-wikiml > 1078 ./heldmsg-ca > > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109838#1561937 > > we also have: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110438 > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110609 > > for more data i have to restore already deleted stuff from bacula, but i can. > > -- > Daniel Zahn <dzahn@wikimedia.org> > Operations Engineer > > _______________________________________________ > Listadmins mailing list > Listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/listadmins
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
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
On 08/29/2015 05:35 PM, MF-Warburg wrote:
Yes, and it is extremely difficult to create them and therefore quite an impertinence to suggest anyone to use it.
What did you find extremely difficult?
You go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/auth/start/?next=%2F , click the sunflower, and follow the prompts (further documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Help#Creating_your_account_and_no... ).
Matt Flaschen
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 08/29/2015 05:35 PM, MF-Warburg wrote:
Yes, and it is extremely difficult to create them and therefore quite an impertinence to suggest anyone to use it.
What did you find extremely difficult?
MF-Warburg was being sarcastic.
A.
listadmins@lists.wikimedia.org