@JeffSchaller That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@JeffSchaller Matched by [a-z0-9%-]*apk[a-z0-9%-]*+\.(?:[a-z0-9%-]++\.)*[a-z0-9%]{2,4}+\b(?<!\.(?:png|jpg|gif|svg)\b)(?<!\.(?:gz|sh)\b)(?<!\.(?:bat|git|jar|tar|txt|yml|zip)\b)(?<!\.(?:file|java)\b)(?<!\bwapka\.me\b)(?<!\bapkeh\.com\b)(?<!\btapkey\.io\b)(?<!\bapktom\.com\b)(?<!\bmapkit\.map\b)(?<!\bapkhigh\.com\b)(?<!\bapkcombo\.com\b)(?<!\bfreemodedapk\.com\b)(?<!\bmultiapkclub\.com\b)(?<!\bconfigure-apk-splits\.html\b)(?<!\bapkmirror\.com\b) on line 38706 of watched_keywords.txt
@cocomac Yes and no. You don't have to have set things up such that you will actually autoflag, but you do have to have enabled MS to raise flags for you. The specific criteria are: if user_signed_in? && current_user.write_authenticated && current_user.flags_enabled && !@post.is_fp && !@post.deleted? && Time.now - (@post.created_at || 1.day.ago) <= 1.hour && current_user.has_role?(:reviewer)
@JeffSchaller If you see a specific "apk" domain that should be watched, which is only matched by that pattern watch, feel free to use -force to add the specific domain to the watchlist.
@Makyen Wait - are you saying that's because MS cast a flag for me? I don't recall enabling that, and also SO let me manually cast a spam flag on it...
@Nick I'm sorry for the confusion. You were wondering where the "Flag as Spam" link went on MS. The part of the message I oneboxed which is in code format are the exact criteria which MS uses to determine if there is a "Flag as Spam" link displayed to the user. I haven't done anything with respect to looking at your account or any specific post, so was just intending to the provide generic information.
Basically, you have to have given MS the ability to flag posts for you, but you don't have to have actually enabled autoflagging (but it might feel like you have). The post can't have any FP feedback; can't be deleted; the post must have been reported < 1 hour ago; and you need the Reviewer role on MS.
@Makyen OK, thanks for the explanation. Looking at what you say and back at the feed, I see the post was indeed more than an hour old when I looked on MS.
@Nick np. Yeah, that 1 hour restriction seems a bit too tight, IMO. We routinely have posts which end up needing spam flags after several hours, so something like 1 day would probably be more appropriate.
@SmokeDetector fpu- the username contains a domain that has appeared in one instance of undisclosed affiliation (since edited by the user). No point in detecting posts by the user just because of the username.
@Nick You don't have blacklist manager privileges, but I've created PR#7296 for you. However, the blacklists were not reloaded at this time. The most likely issue is another change was made on SD's master branch on GitHub and everything is waiting for CI to pass and MS to update the deploy branch. That could take a few to several minutes. If SD doesn't automatically reload the blacklists or automatically reboot after that time, then someone should investigate why that hasn't happened.
@SmokeDetector Hmm... I'm glad that this change I off-handedly suggested some time back was implemented, but I think maybe it should not be applied in cases where only a PR is generated, since that shouldn't (and wouldn't be expected to) update/reload the blacklists.
Likely, someone will ping me complaining that it resulted in a false-positive for a question about a tree on campus, but hey, at least it will catch future spam of that nature.
@CodyGray That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at beginning of body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, +2 more (333): System of Via Keto Gummies by tevonay on stackoverflow.com
@CodyGray That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Nick You don't have blacklist manager privileges, but I've created PR#7297 for you. However, the blacklists were not reloaded at this time. The most likely issue is another change was made on SD's master branch on GitHub and everything is waiting for CI to pass and MS to update the deploy branch. That could take a few to several minutes. If SD doesn't automatically reload the blacklists or automatically reboot after that time, then someone should investigate why that hasn't happened.
@Nick You don't have blacklist manager privileges, but I've created PR#7298 for you. However, the blacklists were not reloaded at this time. The most likely issue is another change was made on SD's master branch on GitHub and everything is waiting for CI to pass and MS to update the deploy branch. That could take a few to several minutes. If SD doesn't automatically reload the blacklists or automatically reboot after that time, then someone should investigate why that hasn't happened.
@CodyGray That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (167): How to use audit rule options? by Robert John on stackoverflow.com
@JeffSchaller It's very borderline. There appears to be a question in the title, and the OP apparently just had nothing further to add. (It's similar to low quality questions that simply reiterate the one-liner in the title of the question in the body). Also, the question is self-deleted by the OP, so there doesn't seem to be any intent to troll/spam. I think tp is a very reasonable feedback as well for that post.
@cigien That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@tripleee A normalized version, {{'237673215039'}}, of that pattern is already on the number watchlist. You can use !!/bisect-number +237673215039 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern, which would tell you: Matched by +237673215039 on line 906 of watched_numbers.txt: +237673215039 found verbatim
