@Cow I dug through the roadmap.sh stuff and it doesn't look like spam (the first instance was decently spam looking so I get why it was added). I do not think this is spam
@EJoshuaS-StandwithUkraine 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.
@micsthepick Nitpick, which doesn't require this to be changed: (?!\.com(?<=chevwealth\.com)) (i.e., with the \.com first) would be a bit more efficient, as it's more likely to cause the negative lookaround to fail faster. With it as chev(?:y|vy|rolet)wealth(?!(?<=chevwealth)\.com), the "wealth" in the look-behind will, at that point, always be tested and always pass. With it as chev(?:y|vy|rolet)wealth(?!\.com(?<=chevwealth\.com)), then the lookbehind is only run when we know it might be the domain and we actually need to check that it's really a match to the domain watch/blacklist. From an overall performance POV, it doesn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things, because it's already fairly deep into the regex, so will only be run quite rarely. Thus, this is just a nitpick.
@Mithical @Starship @CodyGray Getting a higher percentage of autoflags is an additional responsibility. Users with the Core role are more likely to be around and able to respond to a chat ping if there's an autoflagged FP, which they can then evaluate and choose to retract, or not retract, their autoflag.
@Spevacus Congratulations! I hope that your wedding was great and that you don't see this for a while, because you're taking time offline for an awesome honeymoon.
@tripleee That number is a bit repetitive, with incrementing numbers alternating with "6". We'll need to keep an eye on it.
@tripleee Thanks. You are good with regex.
@micsthepick A bit late response, but for just executing commands, I normally run SD with python3 ./nocrash.py no_se_activity_scan no_deletion_watcher no_edit_watcher no_chat_ws_activity_timeout --loglevel=debug
4
!!/unwatch (?-i:^Anuj Singh$)
^ While I understand the desire to watch that, there are about 150 accounts on SE with that username. I'd prefer to avoid watching such a common username, unless we really need it. At the moment, all of the posts are using a specific domain, which is watched, so we should catch the posts. Thus, the watch of this username isn't necessary.
@Dragonrage Thanks for the ping. In this case, it just looks like intentional spam to me, even though they included personal contact info. I've been mostly out for a couple days. For something like PII redaction, it's probably a good idea to also raise a flag, so other moderators could deal with it.
@Makyen Whoop, I had meant to say next next-weekend (i.e. this coming weekend). Our honeymoon isn't until a bit later (middle of next month) but I greatly appreciate the well-wishes :)
Add multiple additional bookmarklets: Other searching ⠀⠀Search for text in Charcoal HQ ⠀⠀Search for a domain on Stack Exchange ⠀⠀Search for text on Stack Exchange ⠀⠀Search for a domain on Stack Overflow ⠀⠀Search for text on Stack Overflow ⠀⠀Username on SEDE user search (with login to SEDE) ⠀⠀LIKE username on SEDE user search (with login to SEDE) ⠀⠀User on SO user search (change the code to the site you're interested in) Various ⠀⠀Toggle display of SmokeDetector and metasmoke in Charcoal HQ, or other chat.SE room
@Vickel A normalized version, {{'256704892479'}}, of that pattern is already on the number blacklist. You can use !!/bisect-number +256704892479 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern, which would tell you: Matched by +256704892479 on line 2014 of blacklisted_numbers.txt: +256704892479 found verbatim
