@Machavity @Daniil My opinion is that if it's good content, then the OP should be given considerable opportunity to add disclosure. In some relatively rare cases, I'll edit in disclosure. As to leaving a comment, on those SE sites where I'm not prevented from leaving comments by our don't comment if you're not familiar with the site policy, I'll leave a comment mentioning the disclosure requirement and linking to various Meta posts and the help center.
On sites where I am prevented from commenting by the above linked policy, I'll raise a custom mod-flag giving details and leaving it up to the moderators on that site to handle as they see fit.
I largely discuss my opinion on handling low to moderate levels of undisclosed affiliation in good content in the conversation which I linked @Kulfy to a bit earlier:
> With respect to reporting single instances of undisclosed affiliation, please read the conversation around here and continuing the next UTC day (with comments by other people, but the ones I remember (and are thus easier for me to find) are the ones I wrote). The whole thing starts around here.
@Jenayah np. It's unfortunate that MS doesn't replace the older feedback with the new feedback when your MS account isn't associated with your SE account. (Not associating the accounts is what you've said you want.)
@Jenayah It shouldn't be required for you to have a stackoverflow.com account in order to associate your global account, non-SO accounts, and accounts on chat.SE & chat.MSE. MS should be authorizing with your stackexchange.com global account. A recent meta explained that SEinc will actually be forwarding that request to stackoverflow.com, either now or in the near future. However, I expect it wouldn't result in a stackoverflow.com account being created. OTOH, I have not actually tested it.
Worst case is that you could just delete an SO account, if one got created.
I can probably create an additional test account and test to see if an SO account is created, if you really want.
@Daniil The notification "[ metasmoke ] ci/circleci: rails-tests" means that someone (ArtOfCode in this case) added a commit(s) to a branch in the metasmoke GitHub repository. The continuous integration that's set up on CircleCI was run, but there were failures in the "rails-tests". Unfortunately, the "rails-tests" has intermittent failures. Looking at the output from the tests that were run indicates that this time it was not the known intermittent failures. Additional commits were added late
@Makyen I'll look around then, but as ArtOfCode said I'm pretty sure that requires an SO account. Thanks for the proposition, but don't worry about it :)
@Jenayah @ArtOfCode Having just tested it: Yes, authenticating with SE requires creation of an account on stackoverflow.com. I was, however, able to immediately delete the SO account. Caching kept it visible in that account's global account list, but it was gone in a few minutes. Once it was deleted, the association of the SE global account was maintained on MS, but I could not "Login with Stack Exchange" without re-creating an SO account. I had to use email+password to log into MS.
If I wanted that MS/SE account to also participate in autoflagging, I expect that I'd need to write-authenticate the SE account prior to deleting the SO account (or re-create a new SO account, in the process of write authenticating, then deleting that SO account).
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in answer and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
Recovered from ValueError: netloc 'csvファイル（ファイル名：list1.csv）が以下の時に『time' contains invalid characters under NFKC normalization
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching email in answer and Pattern-matching email in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body, Blacklisted website in answer, Blacklisted website in body, and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
chat.stackexchange.com/… demonstrates two tpu- feedbacks on Oct 13 which were apparently then retracted
I guess ideally deleting all tp:s should also rmblu automatically but I guess this is so rare that it has never been specified, let alone then implemented
@MichaelDodd The user was blacklisted because the original version of the post they were blacklisted for was plagiarism (reported twice). (cc @tripleee) Even after the user put all of the answer in blockquote format (other than the links to the sources), the post was deleted by a moderator due to no original content and insufficient referencing. The third time the post was reported, it had the blockquote formatting.
@MichaelDodd The first two reports were marked as TP (1, 2) with a comment about the plagiarism on both. The third report received FP feedback from three users, including myself. I, probably, provided FP feedback mostly because that third version it put the copied portion in blockquote format in response to a comment requesting teh OP to do so.
OTOH, it was still insufficient referencing, because the OP didn't include the author names. At the time, I was probably thinking that putting it in blockquote format and having links to the sources indicates that it's not the OP's work. Plagiarism, at least to me, is, primarily, representing someone else's work as your own, either implicitly or explicitly. Having the content in blockquote format and the links to "sources" put it just outside of being plagiarism, at least to me.
However, it's probably more appropriate for us to include that the post must have sufficient referencing, as described in the help center, which it still didn't have.
@Shree That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Shree That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
