@ColumbiasaysReinstateMonica Sure. The process is a bit easier for us 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 thanks. I just created a MetaSmoke account linked to my Stack Exchange profile. It says I now have to "Ping a metasmoke admin" for manual activation. Can you do that?
@ColumbiasaysReinstateMonica Thanks. I'd just seen the account creation and have checked the boxes which the ping is to let us know about. So, you should be good to go on metasmoke (MS). It's going to take a couple minutes to make the changes for SmokeDetector.
You may also want to look at the userscripts we have available (GitHub), as they can be quite helpful, depending on how you want to participate. For viewing, feedback & flagging in chat, I find FIRE and AIM to be the ones I use the most.
For flagging through the userscripts, your metasmoke account needs to be write authenticated with SE, which, if you haven't already done so, can be done from the authentication page and doesn't require you to also sign up for autoflagging, although it's also a required step for signing up for autoflagging.
In addition, the checkbox that says "Use my account to cast flags automatically" on this page also needs to be checked, to enable manual flagging. If you have no entries in the "ID Site Count Flags Used Today" list at the bottom of that page, then autoflagging will still not be enabled, but manual flagging through the userscripts will be enabled.
Just so you know, we normally tell people when they are getting privileges that we practice the "ton of bricks" discipline method here: If you mess-up sufficiently, or consistently, we come down like a ton of bricks :-).
To quote ArtOfCode: "TL;DR: ton-of-bricks is mostly to say that we almost never need to enforce things because things enforce themselves through having a good community here. If it gets to the point that someone's enforcing something, something's gone badly wrong."
@Das_Geek I was going to say "Yes, please. :-;", but, honestly, that one really is just self promotion. While I would have handled it similarly to how the moderator dealt with it (i.e. just delete-vote/NAA it, so the -100 rep penalty/SpamRam isn't imposed), that one was the user just finding a somewhat related question on which to post an answer to promote their just-created blog entry.
Yeah, they posted it a few other times. Once with disclosure, so I just NAA-flagged that one :D
Because most of my activity is through Natty, my muscle memory goes to the "Advanced Flagging" button for most flagging actions. It's a hard habit to break. I might just turn off the Smokey connection to the script.
that's a nifty lil' tool :p cool, as long as it is being caught somewhere haha feels like username is very on-the-nose and seems like it'll most likely exist to be rude/offensive/spam-y
@ColumbiasaysReinstateMonica Yeah that's no problem. You can override your feedback, as you correctly did. The worrying part is this repetition of "received feedback"
room topic changed to Charcoal HQ: Where diamonds are made, smoke is detected, and we break things by developing on production. 145k true positives and counting. For more information, see charcoal-se.org/about. Handy links: metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com, github.com/Charcoal-SE [dev-on-prod] [panic-driven-development] [plastic-knives] [programmatic-crowbars]
Earlier today I asked a question, seeking to clarify whether Stack Exchange (the commercial organisation) subscribes to a particular pseudo-scientific idea or not.
There ensued an animated, albeit entirely civil, discussion.
Some people supported subscribing to the idea, regardless of SE's per...
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in answer, Pattern-matching product name in body, Pattern-matching website in answer, Pattern-matching website in body, and Blacklisted website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword with email in answer and Bad keyword with email in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Glorfindel If you mean for the obfuscated email address, then, sort-of. What we tend to use has evolved over time, and is often adapted to the obfuscation the spammer has demonstrated they use. The regex I used for the gmail.com portion above is more-or-less the latest version, but what we've used really isn't standardized.
> Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Potentially bad keyword in body - Position 0-4: GLAT Potentially bad keyword in title - Position 0-4: GLAT Potentially bad keyword in username - Position 0-4: GLAT
Earlier today I asked a question, seeking to clarify whether Stack Exchange (the commercial organisation) subscribes to a particular pseudo-scientific idea or not.
There ensued an animated, albeit entirely civil, discussion.
Some people supported subscribing to the idea, regardless of SE's per...
