@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in answer and Bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@SmokeDetector It would probably be good for someone to put an R/A flag on this, so the images get deleted automatically. I think I muscle-memory clicked spam.
@emirps 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.
@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.
@Pilot6 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.
@Spevacus Yes, it's taking a long time to scan that one. Prior to your initial report, it was already being scanned. SD didn't loose connection to this room for command. Commands for any particular room are single threaded. SD must complete the prior command prior to it moving on to the next command from that room.
@Makyen Yeah, I thought it was in a state of endlessly-hanging, which I figured a reboot was proper for. The second time it was hanging the way it was, I figured that the scan time was just really high (and to be fair, that's a lot of content to run regexes against) so I was just planning on letting that go, though I am curious when it will catch up, and am worried that I'm overloading it.
@Spevacus Unfortunately, the stats data only covers scanning in the main scan threads. It doesn't include scans which are performed from chat commands.
That would put it from, about, 12:09 EST to 12:23 EST, a difference of about 14 minutes (assuming the report was generated from my command after the reboot here as opposed to the one from prior to the reboot.)
I assume the reboot immediately terminated the scan.
Assuming scan time is calculated in seconds on !!/stats, that's around 840 seconds compared to stackoverflow.com/q/75037757 's 2424 seconds. So not the worst, but certainly not great. I can't see that SO question and there's no MS link for it, but I imagine it's quite content-heavy to generate such a high scan time.
@Spevacus The SO question really isn't anything special. I'm assuming that it happened to be scanned during the relatively recent time where a regex was added to the watchlist which had catastrophic backtracking and/or combined with other regex entries to cause such an issue and was caught in CI testing. However, I haven't verified that.
@Spevacus That pattern may be a North American number. If it is, please use a format which starts with an optional 1 followed by possible separator text and has the main number in the format 930-556-2212 where - could be a single alpha character or any [\W_]*+. Alternately, you can add the comment (?#IS NorAm) to the end of the pattern to force also using the alternate normalized form, or (?#NO NorAm) if it's not a North American phone number and it's incorrectly recognized as one. Perhaps try !!/watch-number 930-556-2212. Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
I'm not sure that was generated by ChatGPT. It doesn't have the usual signatures that I look for. However I think it was very obviously plagiarized from somewhere just based on the fact that it has the words "in this blog".
@Spevacus Yeah I'm still not completely convinced it's ChatGPT though. Could be some other AI, but to me it doesn't look like something ChatGPT would output. Kind of a moot point I guess though since it was very obviously copied from somewhere.
@Pilot6 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.
@Pilot6 If you'd like privileges for SmokeDetector, we're happy to give them to you, but we won't force them upon you. If you do want them, then it's a bit easier on us if you create an account on metasmoke, but that's not required. If you haven't already read it, there's an Introduction to Participating in Charcoal, which has some useful information.
@Pilot6 I've added you to the privilege list for SmokeDetector (SD) here in Charcoal HQ, which also applies to several other rooms. You should run the !!/amiprivileged command to verify. It would be a good idea to read through the Feedback Guidance, SmokeDetector wiki, and SmokeDetector commands (in particular feedback).
You've already read the Introduction to Participating in Charcoal. I've linked it here to have it in the same wall of text as the rest to make it more convenient to find.
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, and flagging in chat, I find FIRE and AIM to be the ones I use the most. I also find SIM (install) convenient.
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 authenticating is also a required step for signing up for autoflagging.
In addition, to enable manual flagging through the userscripts, the checkbox that says "Allow metasmoke to raise flags for my account" on this page also needs to be checked. 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."
Quoting NobodyNada [with a bit added]: "Note that 'mess up' doesn't mean 'make a mistake', it means 'do something intentionally irresponsible/antagonistic' [or consistently do something wrong and not change when it's, repeatedly, pointed out]. Charcoalers are generally quite friendly, forgiving of mistakes, and willing to help each other learn. We recognize that our systems and policies have quite the learning curve -- so don't be afraid of us :)"
@Pilot6 SD doesn't scan suggested edits. It does scan posts after they have been edited. In other words, SD won't detect anything until the edit is applied to the post.
