@YvetteColomb OK. It's perfectly fine to add such to the watchlist at any time. If they use a specific account, it can be added to the user blacklist. If they use a specific username or set of usernames, those can be added to the watchlist (e.g. ^(?-i:Foo Bar)$; with the (?-i:) it's case sensitive). Other moderators looking for spam/rude/abusive posts have asked for watches/blacklisting of specific users/usernames/content, even to the point of us having enough detections to autoflag the posts.
With links to some of the posts, we can develop better regexes. Sometimes, moderators have briefly undeleted content (assuming there are no user red-flags) and reported it to SD, then immediately deleted the posts again.
@Makyen The !!/blacklist command has been deprecated. Please use !!/blacklist-website, !!/blacklist-username,!!/blacklist-keyword, or perhaps !!/watch-keyword. Remember to escape dots in URLs using \.
@EriktheOutgolfer It might be helpful for there to be a checkbox to not clear the user red-flags, but it really is a fairly narrow edge-case where you don't want the red-flags cleared when undeleting a post.
For our use-case, we could develop a way for trusted users to report deleted posts without the need to undelete them. That could be done by a userscript that scrapes the information from the page visible to anyone who can see deleted posts.
@EriktheOutgolfer I'd rather see it done by something that scrapes the page, rather than expect users to obtain (copy-&-paste?) the data manually. It could be tied to one of the existing roles (admin, if nothing else), or create a new role for it.
@EriktheOutgolfer I'm not attempting to voice an opinion on what role it should be, just indicating that there are levels of role that are already trusted with the ability to do, it based on already existing capabilities ("admin" and "smoke detector runner").
@EriktheOutgolfer Who says that any particular SD instance isn't altered in some way, providing wrong content? We can go down that road as far as we want. One of the points I was making was that we already have people who are trusted to have the ability to provide erroneous content, if they choose to put out the effort to do so. The additional issue with scraping the page is that it's possible for the page HTML to change, thus causing the scraping to fail, which might result in erroneous data.
@SmokeDetector This is NAA and contains some offensive language. However, IMO, the offensive language is mild, isn't directed at anyone in particular, is used primarily for emphasis, and is something we'd consider FP (easily repairable) in an actual answer. While it certainly should be deleted, it doesn't rise to the level of being red-flagable, IMO. OTOH, I wouldn't really object to a system level block on it. I'm just not sure it rises to the level at which this project should deal with it.
@iBug @angussidney You might have missed my previous message: Your SD instances are currently down/not communicating with MS. MS went down for several minutes about a day ago. Unfortunately, none of the instances which were in standby at the time recovered without their owner rebooting them.
@Makyen 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.
