@M-- I thought one was not supposed to add feedback on one's own manual reports? Also, that's not abusive, but NAA. There's no personal attack or abuse, and it is also not promotional. It should be flagged as NAA.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer, luncheon meat detected, potentially bad keyword in answer (128): Kotlin prepend element by dsaasd on stackoverflow.com
@RobertColumbia I am not aware of that rule (any reference?). Besides, I wasn't comfortable with the language and marked as rude. Different feelings among different people :)
@RobertColumbia I really doubt so, because I've seen them sending feedback on the manual reports themselves but sure we can bother @Makyen and ask'em if we should or we should not add feedback to manually reported posts.
@Glorfindel I think you got it wrong (or maybe it's me). @RobertColumbia isn't asking if we should add a feedback on our own report. They are asking generally if there should be any feedback on manually reported posts. Which I'm almost sure there should be. But your point is right. It's better that the user reporting it avoid giving feedback as well.
@SecretAgentMan In general, please don't give feedback on the posts which you manually report. The reason behind that desire is to have the feedback be independent of the person reporting. While it's not as critical now that we require two feedbacks on each post (only one feedback used to be required), it's still something we desire.
@Glorfindel @RobertColumbia based on the quote above from Makyen, we should give feedback on manually reported posts. Only not on your own reports. Problem solved.
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs nope, it's just a report. The idea is that you manually report it, then let others check it and make sure it's spam, and they feed back on it.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, +3 more (591): Weight Loss Pills 2020 by evelyntrujillo121 on askubuntu.com
@Glorfindel At the time, the Feedback Guidance did mention that you shouldn't give feedback to posts you report. That text was removed a few months later. I agree that it should still be in there. It's not as strict a requirement as it once was, but it's still something we encourage people not to do.
### TypeError on teward/Osiris at 2020-04-14T15:56:19Z: To match, a rule must have either 'func' or 'regex' valid! : bad keyword in {} File "ws.py", line 234, in <module> is_spam, reason, why = check_if_spam_json(a) File "/home/smokey/SmokeDetector/spamhandling.py", line 102, in check_if_spam_json is_spam, reason, why = check_if_spam(post) File "/home/smokey/SmokeDetector/spamhandling.py", line 48, in check_if_spam test, why = findspam.FindSpam.test_post(post) File "/home/smokey/SmokeDetector/findspam.py", line 378, in test_post
@tripleee Yeah, that happens when one of the rules gets messed up. It is something which needs to be covered in our CI tests, but currently isn't. I only noticed that it wasn't covered a day or two ago when encountering a similar problem due to a malformed regex in a rule.
@RobertColumbia Strictly speaking, the Guidance for Blacklisting and Watching is that we need to see 5 TP (and no FP) in MS prior moving something from the watchlist to the blacklist.
I was going to say that I don't have an issue making an exception in this instance, but it looks like @tripleee beat me to it. :)
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, numbers-only title, potentially bad keyword in body (315): 000000000000000000000000 ✏️ by butterfly00 on apple.SE
@tripleee Looking just at just the text in the posts (i.e. not at the IP addresses), that is not how we define "ongoing campaign". An "ongoing campaign" is a spammer adding a new keyword or website to a preexisting spam campaign where we have already put something on the blacklist that qualifies to be on the blacklist under the general rules. An "ongoing campaign" is not adding new entries to the blacklist which are not directly associated with an already existing blacklist entry.
OTOH, in this case, given the duplicated IP, I'm fine with conjoining the entries for both domains which share the IP address (i.e. count all posts which contain one or the other domains with the same IP address as if the posts contained both domains).
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, numbers-only title, potentially bad keyword in body (315): 000000000000000000000000 ✏️ by butterfly00 on apple.SE
tp- feedback received
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, numbers-only title, potentially bad keyword in body (315): 000000000000000000000000 ✏️ by butterfly00 on apple.SE
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 & flagging in chat, I find FIRE and AIM to be the ones I use the most.
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, the checkbox that says "Use my account to cast flags automatically" 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."
@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.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad ns for domain in answer and Bad ns for domain in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Luuklag That's unfortunate. It is possible to have FIRE and AIM running on the page without installing them as userscripts. It's a bit more complex to do. I'd have to double-check what's needed at this point. The last I checked, you can create a bookmarklet with the code in this chat message (or just run the code from the console). When you click on that bookmarklet, AIM and FIRE should be loaded into the chat page.
@Luuklag Which browser are you using? The error is going to be an issue with Stack Exchange Chat using an old version of jQuery. The error probably won't affect AIM or FIRE, probably.
@Luuklag Interesting. In FF 75.0, Mutation Events are merely deprecated, not removed. The error in FF75 is "Use of Mutation Events is deprecated. Use MutationObserver instead", and can be ignored.
I just tried to ask a question on Drones but it won't let me because I have to tag my question, there are no tags, and creating a tag requires 300 rep :(
Who has acces to the page that gives you the Token? It might be wise to remove the period that follows the token, or place a space between them, for ease of copying
@Luuklag That should be something we can fix, eventually. The automatic deploy process for metasmoke is broken at the moment, so it's not something we can fix immediately.
@tripleee Ofcourse, and it works, but I have a very fast setting on my mouse, so I had to drag back and forth a few times to not include the period in the selection.
@Makyen I got my token, so I no longer need a fix ;)
@Luuklag it's an FP as far as I can tell, there are other reasons it should be removed (VLQ etc) but as far as Smokey is concerned this is not red-flaggable and thus "acceptable"
@SmokeDetector There isn't any feedback on this that is either FP or newer than about 3 months old (or cleared/deleted). I don't see why a FP on autoflagged post notification would be triggered.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer, Bad keyword with email in answer, Potentially bad keyword in body, and Bad keyword with email in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
