Honestly I don't know much about Staging Ground. As far as I'm aware most discussion about it has taken place in public. If you have specific questions about the kind of access Charcoal will have to Staging Ground, that seems like a good MSE question or support email.
@forest Yeah that seems to be the case per this comment
@Slate Yeah Yaakov mentioned that the specifics of how Charcoal would interact with the SG would probably arrive in the form of an up-and-coming Meta SO post, so I suppose that part's answered (or at least will be)
@Spevacus Yeah if that's what Yaakov said then I'd wait until that's out and ask clarifying questions then, but I'm talking out my ass a bit because I'm not super familiar with SG
@cocomac More broadly, I know that Catija has been trying a liiiiittle bit to start opening up privileges using a different metric than reputation (a good place to start is full editing privileges), which is a position I largely share.
I know nothing about whether that's actually being explored, or if it will be in the near term, but I can hope. :D
@Ethan Overall, I think some privileges should be tied to flags not rep. But that is a larger discussion. That said, making it tied to flags (at least somewhat) would be nice IMO. People would still be able to participate as flags are a good (ish) demonstration of site knowledge. Like, if I have, say, 250 helpful flags, that's a pretty good indication that I know what I'm doing
I would like to see a couple of things we catch regularly implemented as blocks at the system level. It's difficult to qualify which things we catch (like specific reasons) but... Yeah.
@Spevacus More re mod team, again, can't speak to SG specifically. But in general we sometimes solicit feedback in the mod team, but usually imo because that part of the discussion can't / shouldn't be public for some reason, or really only conceivably concerns mods. So I can imagine why some questions would need to go in the mod team (ex., "how do moderators detect abuse?" probably shouldn't be public), but in general it's not an avenue for the bulk of the feedback on feature dev.
@Ethan It would broadly be great for people who do more "curation" than "participation". There's a prominent SOCVR regular, Jeanne Dark, who has many thousands of helpful flags, a fair few edits, and only 1k reputation. That's someone I'd love to see at the very least have close vote privileges, but also someone who definitely knows what needs a delete vote. However, they can't contribute in that way, purely due to the reputation gate.
@Slate Gotcha. Thank you for the response to that :)
How're things, by the way? Anything you can share about what you're working on lately?
I'd support if one could automatically be given privileges to the SG if you had SD feedback privileges. IMO, the Charcoal people are very good about not giving random people access, and making sure people know what you're doing so that could be one way to allow it. Charcoal isn't actually ran be SE, so IDK if it is possible, though
@cocomac I'm concerned about that kind of policy, actually, primarily because I feel like it would make Charcoal seem like a fast way to get around the system-level gates for those privileges. Not that I would personally complain, mind you, but... I could see it being problematic as users may see Charcoal as a means to get access to something that the system itself should be able to give them access to already
(i.e. people who are interested in moderating the site and are experienced enough should have access to the SG already)
@Spevacus I didn't think about that, but you're right. I realize Charcoal (itself) isn't secret, but it being relatively unknown is good IMO, and I could see that being abused. Having mods being able to manually allow it for users could work
@Spevacus No problem :) Things are good. I quite recently shifted my work scope around a bit. My long-term projects are now one part process engineering, one part stats, working on tightening up a couple key site areas that are more mod- and CM-facing. Unfortunately I don't have too many details for ya yet...
I'm really looking forward to it, though, honestly.
@forest I don't have statistics, but I'd guess most users don't know it exists. At least, I didn't know about it until I had been here for several months. Even then, I was pretty active on AU
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body, potentially bad asn for hostname in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body (43): High quality battery by hung hoang on money.SE
@Ollie 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.
@SmokeDetector tp- The same website has a few blog posts that are authored by "Nithin Jawahar" who also has the same profile picture as this user. Custom flagged.
@Makyen 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.
@Makyen User posted spam to SD's GitHub repository on the commit which added their domain to the watchlist. The spam and they have been reported to GitHub. They have been blocked blocked from the Charcoal GitHub organization. The spam has been deleted.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (167): Why is ip address listed as 172.18.0.150/24? by mahilakhra on superuser.com (@Ollie)
@JeffSchaller That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body, Bad keyword in answer, Potentially bad keyword in answer, and Bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@JeffSchaller 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.
@JeffSchaller 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.
@tripleee Sorry if I sounded alarmist. Specifically for MathOverflow, from SEDE I get median of 28 minutes on the main site and 52 on meta. Not great, not terrible. :-)
Basically, a longer time on per-site-metas is to be expected - since they are not scanned by SD. (There is only a handful of sites which allow posting on meta without any reputation requirement.)
But that's topic which was discussed here several times, I don't think there is much to add. I have simply mentioned that specific post - in the hope that it might help to get it removed. (And it seems that in this case it worked.)
@SmokeDetector tp- This looks like the user is affiliated, given the similar username and linked website, and the linked article being written a few days ago.
@SmokeDetector tpu- multiple answers linking to the same website. Username matches company address, and no other hits for the website on SE. Custom flagged.
