# System admin actions should include reason
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389
**Category:** UX
**Tags:** pr-welcome
**Created:** [June 24, 2016, 8:41am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389 "2016-06-24T08:41:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@erlend\_sh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/erlend_sh)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2016, 8:41am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/1 "2016-06-24T08:41:20Z")
I’ve heard from multiple customers who were [puzzled by how the system user was quietly taking action](https://meta.discourse.org/t/why-my-discourses-syster-always-block-users-itself/46122) on certain posts and users. What’s usually happening here is that our friendly anti-spam measures are simply taking out the :garbage:
But to anyone unbeknownst to this, automated deletions look scary because there’s really nothing to indicate that this is intended behaviour. We can do a better job of clueing the user in to what’s happening by briefly explaining _why_ @system took action by putting a **reason** into the Context column.
We’d go from this:
To this:
(Ignore the example reasons; I’m not 100% clear on what ultimately sets off a Delete action)
If keeping a record of the various anti-spam reasons sounds too cumbersome, even just putting “Reason: Spam” would be a big step forward.
---
### Author:  [@cpradio](https://meta.discourse.org/u/cpradio)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2016, 10:34am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/2 "2016-06-24T10:34:39Z")
Definitely agree, while looking at system actions, can someone look into why sometimes block user action doesn’t reference a user, plus it has no context.
(user removed from screenshot in first column so I could post it)
and another example:
Also for delete post, it would be nice if it followed the context the other delete posts have (the URL to the post)
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2016, 10:37am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/3 "2016-06-24T10:37:33Z")
Er what? System never deletes users. These users self-deleted, most likely. Users can delete their own accounts when it is less than a few days old and 1 post or less.
I agree that block could include some comments as to why the block.
---
### Author:  [@cpradio](https://meta.discourse.org/u/cpradio)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2016, 11:32am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/4 "2016-06-24T11:32:48Z")
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> System never deletes users. These users self-deleted, most likely. Users can delete their own accounts when it is less than a few days old and 1 post or less.
That is mostly true.
Except our logs show context for deleted users… I didn’t find any without context. The last example seems to be the user self-deleting themselves (just proved it is with my test environment).
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/5 "2016-06-24T18:20:34Z")
Those are not actual users – they are people who signed up and never validated their email. So they don’t really exist yet. Like if `obama@whitehouse.gov` signed up.
---
### Author:  [@cpradio](https://meta.discourse.org/u/cpradio)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/6 "2016-06-24T18:38:54Z")
Yeah, that is very tomato/tomatoe, but the log indicates a delete user by system in those cases. I’ve yet to see a log that needs context around delete user and system though.
delete post on the other hand… that occasionally has no context (the context is nice because it tells you the topic it is associated to, show doesn’t tell you the topic id/url so finding it requires manual work), and block user occasionally doesn’t reference the user it blocked.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [August 23, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/7 "2016-08-23T16:02:48Z")
@sam does the fast new user typist block enter something reasonable in the logs when it triggers? Can you confirm this please?
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [March 1, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/8 "2017-03-01T14:34:51Z")
Not really, I guess the way you can tell it triggered is that it was queued, I guess we could query the post queued table for a “log” of sorts.
---
### Author:  [@jomaxro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/jomaxro)
#### Post date: [March 1, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/9 "2017-03-01T15:03:35Z")
Just scrolled through the Stonehearth logs to see what System actions don’t have context and need it. I could only find one example:
In this case, it appears that the user deleted themselves (next log), but the context isn’t particularly clear:
* * *
While scrolling through, I also noticed that the context for `block user` is misleading, arguably incorrect:
We did not have any “human” staff member block these users. These were all users who were caught in the approval queue for one reason or another. To say `blocked_by_staff` would imply to me that a staff member clicked the block button…
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/10 "2017-03-02T01:07:40Z")
Can we improve this log message @sam to include more detail?
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2017, 1:59pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/11 "2017-03-02T13:59:40Z")
I think so, we could give a special bit of text here. added to my list unless someone beats me to it.
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2017, 8:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/12 "2017-03-10T20:46:56Z")
Added more information for auto blocking per:
[https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/16593ae8bf905def7a88d8e4b8d42e7fc2ea504b](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/16593ae8bf905def7a88d8e4b8d42e7fc2ea504b)
---
### Author:  [@emiloia](https://meta.discourse.org/u/emiloia)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2017, 12:49pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/13 "2017-06-21T12:49:29Z")
Hi Guys, good afternoon!
I wanted to know if there is any chance that the admins can see the reasons why a topic / interaction, falls into “spam”.
We usually select this from the menu and we can give OK or not. But we never have the clear reasons.
That information appears on Flags ([http://comunidad.tiendanube.com/admin/flags/old](http://comunidad.tiendanube.com/admin/flags/old)) but doesn´t appear on “Requires Aprobation” ([http://comunidad.tiendanube.com/queued-posts](http://comunidad.tiendanube.com/queued-posts))
Thank you por any help!
---
### Author:  [@cpradio](https://meta.discourse.org/u/cpradio)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2017, 12:53pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/14 "2017-06-21T12:53:27Z")
Things found at queued-posts are only there because they were entered/submitted within 3 seconds (default setting); meaning they copied and pasted the content (most likely).
Akismet (if you have that plugin), items are because they failed the Akismet screening.
---
### Author:  [@tophee](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tophee)
#### Post date: [May 8, 2018, 11:17am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/15 "2018-05-08T11:17:44Z")
When I reject a silenced post in the approval queue, shouldn’t this also be logged?
I suppose the reason why it’s currently not being done is that technically, the user has been silenced by the system user and I am merely not unsilencing him/her. But I think from a human perspective, this confirmation is a significant act that should be logged.
Not sure if it’s necessary to create a new type of action for this (`confirm_silence_user`) or whether it suffices to just re-log the silencing act but this time under my user name.
---
### Author:  [@techAPJ](https://meta.discourse.org/u/techAPJ)
#### Post date: [June 1, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/system-admin-actions-should-include-reason/46389/16 "2018-06-01T16:36:28Z")
> [@tophee](#):
>
> When I reject a silenced post in the approval queue, shouldn’t this also be logged?
The post rejections are now logged via
[https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/89eca87f167bd20e670bf3c7dbaa090a52b40eb3](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/89eca87f167bd20e670bf3c7dbaa090a52b40eb3)