Byte Commander

!!/report meta.askubuntu.com/q/20638

is summoned

militant as ever...

Wow, I haven't been in here in a long time... not a great occasion to meet everyone again but hi :) Same thing on my years old fork and all, unsurprisingly.

!!/report askubuntu.com/q/1283442/367990

!!/watch nanowatch\.org

yeah, that might be a fair compromise for now.

askubuntu.com/q/1250202/367990 spam or nah?

!!/watch typhoon-tv\.com

!!/report askubuntu.com/a/1249623/367990

okay, thanks

I sorted the issue out with them, should be okay now and not count as spam.

Heya. Can we unwatch this pattern and unblacklist the user? metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/245673

!!/watch echothroughme\.com

yeah, right. good bot.

@Mix911 seen this? askubuntu.com/q/16371/367990

good, then we're finished :)

tell me when I can delete it again

done

alright, gonna undelete it quickly then, to get this over with. one sec...

@Pilot6 are you online?

the usual introduction and stuff should happen shortly, if you don't get notifications about things like accepting the moderator terms and access to the mod chatroom, ping one of the old ones here.

glad to have you two on the team now

Congratulations, Zanna and Ravexina!

'16 was Thomas and terdon iirc

Yes, sure. Didn't say it has to be like this, but it's not a unique situation either. I was elected '19, but I ran already in '16.

Still enough acceptable candidates for a proper election imo, although more activity and interest would always be nice

I agree with your assessment on the probable outcome, but something similar to that happened in many of the past elections too.

/shrug

unless you know someone personally, not really force, no. But I would e.g. consider Just_A_Man's wording above already on the border from campaigning to an attempt at building pressure. If they were a more influential user themselves, it might have influence.

Voting is, by design and requirement, anonymous. If you want to say who you voted for, okay, but 1) nobody must be forced to disclose their vote, and 2) nobody must be forced or pressured into vote for a certain candidate.

going back to work then. bye o/

yeah, there would be a small grey hint

Cool :)

Thanks for flagging and following up though anyway, and sorry for the confusion and inconvenience on behalf of the team.

So yeah, when in doubt, rather raise a custom flag, if the standard flag text alone doesn't describe the issue with the post well enough.

The clearer and more detailed your report is, the easier, faster and more correct we can handle it

Because yeah, comments are not obvious in the flag handling dialog

Anyway r/a was definitely an unfitting and misleading flag to pick. R/A is for offensive posts or keyboard mash garbage. If you had flagged as spam, more attention would have been drawn to the link at least, but the best action in such a situation is to raise a custom flag, with the explanation right there in the flag text.

Sure, whoever handled this flag could (should?) have looked into more detail, but the volume of flags that pile up compared to the number of mods who are currently active is high, so it's not really feasible to spend too much time on each item

However, the post itself looked good and harmless, and so did the link. From a rude/abusive flag, it's nearly impossible to conclude that a link in a years old answer suddenly turned bad now

@SasukeUchiha yes and no. by default, comments are hidden, but can be expanded in the view.

is there a TL;DR, or where do I need to start reading?

was summoned

Nobody knows everything. There are so many details to the SE system and all of its mechanics, which are also changing every now and then, that it's practically impossible to keep track of everything unless you explicitly worked with that part before. Also yeah, a less fragmented documentation would be nice, it's a bit tricky to piece information together from posts scattered across multiple meta sites and questions. Nonetheless, the ban is lifted. That is not an issue, I just didn't know where to search for it before. Now I learned that, and one more detail about audits :)

If the posts I quoted are still up to date and I interpret them correctly, I think that is correct, yes. Other than that, I understand you are upset, yet I don't appreciate the way you are communicating on the issue, including swearing and threatening. I haven't undone a review ban before, and when I searched for it yesterday I was unable to find it, to be honest. I have looked through your recently failed audits again and can understand how those might be ambiguous, or how the "Edit" was a system problem. Therefore I'm going to lift the ban, but please be more mindful too. We are also human.

@EliahKagan I am sorry, that was an oversight on my part. I corrected my answer accordingly. Apparently, "if you try to edit spam, you fail; if you try to edit anything else, you pass." - according to a 2018 MSO answer by Shog. Yet whether opening the review dialog to view the markdown, or actually submitting an edit should be counted as failure is another discussion. Once could also argue e.g. that you don't want to waste people's time on editing an already deleted post because they missed a non-obvious spam link.

@Pilot6 I agree with you that the approach is flawed, but implementing it the other way round would have flaws too. You can still always use the "link" on the right side bar to view the original post on the side, without triggering any review actions. That way you not only immediately spot any audit, you can also freely interact with the real post without the restrictions of the review UI.

@Pilot6 To correct you, there were already a few review bans recorded back in 2015. Anyway, please don't let this stop you from being a valuable member of the community. Some of the most active reviewers have dozens of bans accumulated over the years actually. I agree with you, and there are many similar complaints on the various Meta sites, that neither the review audit system nor the posts it automatically selects as audits are perfect. It surely could be improved, but that is a job for the SE development team, which we all know is overworked.

Also let me revisit the whole issue and the failed audits in question once again. After a long and both confusing and infuriating search for where in the site's wonderfully intuitive and logically organized UI the button to actually lift review bans might be, I finally just found it.