@Mast Yeah, I've been considering attempting to get permission for 5 or 6 flags on those posts. However, it hasn't gotten to the point where I've even done the preliminary effort of checking with the other Charcoal admins to see if we agree that getting permission is something we want to pursue.
If my input counts at all, I personally wouldn't mind those particular posts getting an extra flag whatsoever. It's a very consistent, malicious campaign (about 3-5 times per day, every day) that, when posted to smaller sites, can take a sizable amount of time to become deleted. It's also not a post that's immediately noticeable as spam/red flaggable to the average user, which potentially prevents an extra organic red flag from sending it to the abyss.
@Mast Actually, no rewrites would be required. There's already available tooling to define a "spam wave", and a 100% accurate definition of for one already exists for this spammer. Changing it to 5 or 6 flags would be only a few clicks. It would be a bit more work, but not all that much, if that permission was only on a per-site basis (e.g. I've also considered getting authorization from individual sites' moderators).
@Makyen I'm interested in singling them out just so we can report them with high accuracy to Google, and maybe set up automatic abuse reporting to them
@Spevacus "Organic" in this case being, a red flag from a user who is not commonly involved in site moderation activities, and wouldn't recognize more nuanced spam patterns and respond with a red flag.
@Makyen Having the actual spam wave be active for more than 24 hours at a time would require either someone with database access, or a relatively minor change to the code.
@Xnero I'll remove the Core role, if you want me to, but there's agreement that you having the role is reasonable at this time. In other words, I'll remove it if you tell me you want me to do so.
@SmokeDetector This was the original text, the spam link was edited away by some user: "If you don't want people to leave your eyes on you, you know what hour will pass. jf watches"
@tripleee Can we find those posts with a different regex? Multiple specific ones (based on paperid?) perhaps, to decrease the amount of FP it generates?
Or is this one of those cases where we probably want to keep watching the domain regardless?
@Xnero I'm confused. I'll remove it, as you asked. However, your stated reason is the opposite of what happens. Having the Core role will result in you raising more autoflags than without it. That is one of the responsibilities of having the Core role.
It is generally expected that, on average, users with the Core role will be substantially more likely to be available to evaluate the situation when pinged as a result of getting FP or NAA feedback on a post they autoflagged. In order to make it more likely that such situations are rapidly dealt with, the accounts of users with the Core role are used substantially more often for autoflagging than those accounts without the Core role.
@RyanM there are a handful of non-abusive posts that match this but they're all complaining about downvotes, so I feel that it's reasonably targeted (since this should be edited out)
IMO, spam, because it doesn't answer the question and all of it, when fluff is removed, is pretty much the link which is a product not an article or resource of any sort.
@cigien I am aware of 8 admins. Currently in this room: Makyen, ArtOfCode. Not currently in this room: Thomas Ward, angussidney, tripleee, thesecretmaster, Andy, Undo.
@hyper-neutrino The whois admin command tells you who has the "Admin" role on metasmoke. Thomas Ward and thesecretmaster are, by their own choice, categorized as developers, not MS/Charcoal administrators, but need the "Admin" role. Being an administrator for the project has significantly more people-facing issues than either of those people want to deal with.
The whois admin command hasn't been changed to special-case this, because nobody's done so and those two people can still be contacted when other people are not available for many of the MS system issues for which that command is used.
@cigien 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.
@Xnero That will happen if there are fewer non-core users with matching flagging conditions than there are core users with matching flagging conditions. Thanks for pointing that out. It's something we should change.
There's no other posts linking to that site to point to as evidence, and if the moderator didn't just delete it based on what they saw I'm not sure what else there is to say
cc @cigien since you flagged it - what was the result of the flag?
@RyanM "disputed - I know it looks like it could be spam, but actually it is identifying a likely correct answer! The link is for the image supplied, which is required by our site rules. I'll improve the answer shortly." I'll take the mod's word for it; I had followed the link and the site it lead to didn't seem to be in any way related to the image.
@RyanM "disputed - I know it looks like it could be spam, but actually it is identifying a likely correct answer! The link is for the image supplied, which is required by our site rules. I'll improve the answer shortly." I'll take the mod's word for it; I had followed the link and the site it lead to didn't seem to be in any way related to the image.
Jalal - Hi, Please Edit your question to add more explanation of these points: (a) Why are you suggesting a diode with top marking "C8", when the question is about a component with the top marking "E9"? Please explain why you believe your suggestion is useful even with the different top marking. (b) You included a photo of a product and link to it (which I have removed, at least for the moment). The original question already included their own photos (perhaps of the same item as in your photo). Why did you include the photo and link? Please explain the purpose of including them. Thanks! — SamGibson ♦14 mins ago
@Gabriel This room is for Charcoal, which focuses on detecting and eliminating spam and rude/abusive posts on all SE sites. For more information, see charcoal-se.org/about
@Makyen Yes, since if there are 3 autoflags (2 go to users, 1 to Core & 1 to non-Core) and there are less non-Core users who are eligible to flag compared to Core users the probability of autoflagging is greater for non-Core users. In my case as my flag conditions are very lenient I tend to be the only non-Core user who is eligible to flag and hence I flag.
user435118
The question is how would this problem be solved? Perhaps there could be cases where the 2 flags both go to Core users if there are more non-Core eligible flaggers than Core eligible flaggers based purely of luck.
Note to other site members: I know some of you are concerned about this answer. Let's give the author a chance to reply to my questions. Further flags are unnecessary at this point. Thanks.. — SamGibson ♦5 mins ago
