At least the DBAs know how to handle the chat-related databases.

If I want mods to move a bunch of comments to chat or just delete them (mine and another person's), should I flag my post which has the comments, or flag one of the comments?

@forestdistrustsStackExchange Depends which mod you ask, but generally the consensus leans toward "flag the post." Flagging comments is specifically for "I want this specific comment deleted."

ah ok

Especially if you want them moved to chat, which isn't exactly deletion. (I know it is internally, but...)

Well I don't really care which it is.

I'd still flag the post either way. Also gives the mod room to disagree with you on exactly which comments should go without declining some of your flags :-p

I deleted all my comments to hopefully put some pressure on them.

lol...well, that's one way to get what you want :-p

I had a conversation including some of my comments wiped off an MSE post the other day in response to my flag, but I left the comments up so that the thread wouldn't be too weird if they only wanted some of it gone.

Though they ended up removing enough that my comments were all removed, which was what I'd have done in their place (though I might have edited one of them instead of deleting it).

@forestdistrustsStackExchange The SRE team here's pretty good and there's quite a few... messy... things...

@forestdistrustsStackExchange NLN flags for 'gone'ness, custom flag to move. Especially if you self deleted a bunch of comments

Waffles.

@RyanM yes

→ 10 messages moved to Chimney

^ flags needed

@Luuklag well they're wrong... easy to mistake for those not familiar with those things.

@JourneymanGeek yep, one down, many to go

@RyanM give! ;)

If a moderator flags a post, can they review their own flag?

Depends on the type of flag.

If I flag an answer as NAA or VLQ, it goes into the queue and I won't be served the review there.

But I can still handle the flag through the mod dashboard/by visiting the flagged post.

Other flags are binding, like spam/rude-abusive. They carry out an immediate action, in this case deleting the post as rude/offensive/spam.

Good to know

Not a spammer.

Why would a link to csrc.nist.gov count as a spam link?

@forestdistrustsStackExchange not 100% bulletproof, but it's one of many heuristics that "link at the beginning of body" tends to be spam.

Why not whitelist certain sites? nist.gov is not going to try to sell you viagra.

They might try to sell you a FIPS certification, though.

there is a whitelist, but it's rather short

Why not add to it whenever a report turns out to be a false positive?

Because we link to nist.gov a lot on Cryptography.

because that'd be a ton of work

do you know just how fps are caught?

no

There's been discussion of doing that, but it's complicated because we'd need to decide for what purpose, exactly, whitelisting takes effect

There is a simple-to-add-to whitelist, but the current implementation has...a lot of problems.

And it'd be a lot of work to fix it

So the whitelists that do the bulk of the work are in the code

and those are more work to change

In the whitelist like... hardcoded?

@forestdistrustsStackExchange One example

oh wow

That's... not good.

PRs welcome ;-P

URL_REGEX = regex.compile(
    r"""((?:(?:https?|ftp)://)(?:\S+(?::\S*)?@)?(?:(?!(?:10|127)"""
    r"""(?:\.\d{1,3}){3})(?!(?:169\.254|192\.168)(?:\.\d{1,3}){2}))"""
    r"""(?!172\.(?:1[6-9]|2\d|3[0-1])(?:\.\d{1,3}){2})(?:[1-9]\d?|1\d\d|2[01]\d|22[0-3])"""
    r"""(?:\.(?:1?\d{1,2}|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])){2}(?:\.(?:[1-9]\d?|1\d\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-4]))"""
    r"""|\b(?:(?:[A-Za-z\u00a1-\uffff0-9]-?)*[A-Za-z\u00a1-\uffff0-9]+)(?:\.(?:[A-Za-z\u00a1-\uffff0-9]-?)"""
    r"""*[A-Za-z\u00a1-\uffff0-9]+)*(?:\.(?:[A-Za-z\u00a1-\uffff]{2,})))(?::\d{2,5})?(?:/\S*)?""", regex.U)

[screams internally]

(with the note that if you do want to try to improve things you should probably discuss implementation strategy in Charcoal HQ beforehand)

ah

Ugh, I wish I could flag without having an account on that site.