@manatwork You are not a privileged user. Please see the privileges wiki page for information on what privileges are and what is expected of privileged users.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in answer, Pattern-matching website in answer, Bad keyword in body, and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, +7 more (595): suppstorecart.com/dx-keto/ by CarrieSwasey on askubuntu.com
^^ Examining the question, comment, and answer all by that same user strongly points toward that being a deliberate spam attempt to advertise the site.
@Das_Geek That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@ThomasWard Yeah I read it. I linked to that page in my message. As I said, the consensus was a tp, not a tpu. User shouldn't have been blacklisted for that
@Das_Geek If you look at the chat transcript, it indicates that the first feedback on that post was tpu, which means it was later changed to tp (as you've guessed).
Someone that is GitHub savvy help. I've set the SmokeDetector project to "Not Watching" so I shouldn't get emails for every commit to the project, yet, I do. How can I stop receiving emails when something is committed
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, repeating characters in body, repeating characters in title (392): Deleteddddddddddddddd ✏️ by xristos on stackoverflow.com
@Das_Geek Another time, if you feel this one is something that moderators should deal with, then you should custom mod-flag and explain why. The issue is not obvious enough such that a red flag is appropriate. If a moderator should delete it outright is debatable. While the question unclear, the offensive portion could easily be edited out.
It's a fine line between close/delete and red flags sometimes. We should err on the side of the non-penalty version when possible. But always feel free to mod flag things you feel need attention
@Machavity Fortunately, that the post notices are not shown is considered a bug with the new post notices, so will probably be fixed. In fact, they've made one unsuccessful attempt at fixing it.
@Machavity That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Andy This is happening because all members of the Charcoal-SE organization's SmokeDetectors team are automatically requested to review PRs which change *.txt files in the SD repository. The config for these automatic review requests is controlled from the CODEOWNERS file, which was added by @ArtOfCode 29 days ago.
I see the following ways which could result in you not receiving and/or seeing these emails requesting your review. However, I consider some of the following possibilities inappropriate (i.e. (B), (C), and (D) are inappropriate, IMO, but are possible):
A) Use the filtering capabilities of your email handler/reader to filter these emails into their own folder, or just auto-delete them. (This was my personal choice, but filtering is my go-to solution for email handling. I don't know how I would handle email without configurable filtering.)
B) You can be removed from the SmokeDetectors team. I consider this option inappropriate. The primary purpose of that team, as I understand that purpose, includes your membership.
D) You can change the email address to which notifications from the Charcoal-SE organization are sent. This will be for all such notifications. The email address has to be verified by GitHub, so must work at least long enough to set it up. Unless you are choosing to filter email from the Charcoal-SE organization in this way, it's not reasonable to ask that this be done just so you don't see these emails.
E) Change the CODEOWNERS file so reviews are not requested from everyone on the SmokeDetectors team. I'm not sure of the intent behind setting the team to have reviews automatically requested. I suspect it was to have email sent to everyone on the team to review these, even if they are not watching the repository. If so, then it's doing what was intended, but it's something that you don't want.
Personally, I find these requested review notifications redundant. I watch the repository, so I was already getting two notice emails for each PR (creation and the MS comment). The notices for !!/watch and !!/blacklist-* PRs are already filtered into their own folder, into which I also filter these review request notices (so, now 3 emails per PR, usually; sometimes the review request email isn't sent). Thus, the review request email is, for me, just noise, but easily ignore-able noise.
The CODEOWNERS file doesn't appear to have a way to have exceptions to those members of a team from which reviews are requested (i.e. if the team is indicated for requested reviews, then all members are requested). Thus, just adding you as an exception isn't possible.
There are multiple possible changes that could be made to the CODEOWNERS file, depending on what the desire is for everyone involved. A few options are:
E1) Just remove the *.txt @Charcoal-SE/smokedetectors line from the file. E2) Change the *.txt line to a straight list of users who want to have their review be requested for each PR changing *.txt files and, thus, receive email notifications of the requested review for these PRs. E3) Create a new team to hold the list of users from which reviews are requested. Only include those users in this new team who want notifications. This hypothetical new team would be largely redundant. E4) etc.
I'd suggest that either (A) or some version of (E) be implemented. If it's going to be (E), then I'd want to know a bit more about the intent of having the reviews requested prior to resolving on a final form for the changes, but we could make an immediate change to just a list of users, so the emails to you stop.
@ArtOfCode Sorry, once I tell it to start sending, there's not an easy "stop sending" method.
@ThomasWard Later sounds fine. Anubis is good to have, but we can manage around not having it, at least for a reasonable while. SandyShores has also been a bit unstable, but I expect to be around, so should be able deal with any issues if we need to failover to my instances.
@ArtOfCode BTW: in looking at the review request issue, I noticed that there are 2 Webhooks configured here which are supposed go to MS. However, GitHub reports that it's getting a 500 response when sending a POST to the configured URLs. The response error is "Template is missing". The errors appear to have been happening for at least a month.
I think what's happening there is that the actions are running, so whatever MS is meant to do with those hooks is getting done, it's just the final render at the end of the action that's failing
@Andy np. I'm glad I was able to help. Although, I probably should have just pinged ArtOfCode about what was desired/intended for the CODEOWNERS file. :-;
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching email in body and Pattern-matching email in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen I was reading through the Charcoal HQ pages regarding SmokeDetector. I'd like to be considered for the lowest level (SD) privileges. Purpose would be to provide fp/tp feedback to SD, especially in SOCVR. No worries either way.
@SecretAgentMan I will run your request by the other ROs. In general, the SOCVR ROs don't do unilateral decisions on SD privileges.
Do you also want SD privileges here in Charcoal HQ? I read your request as also requesting them here, but I figured I'd double-check.
This process is a bit easier if you create an account on metasmoke, but it's not required. In addition, having an account on MS does allow for the possibility of using the userscripts for feedback and flagging.
@Makyen I guess this reveals my ignorance. I'm active on only 4 sites so would privileges here be useful? I was thinking I could be value-added in SOCVR since I frequent that room and use SO often.
If I'm mistaken, then I'll do more research first rather than impose on others in the community.
