Danbooru

Read the rules before proceeding!

Topic: Flag Vandalism

Posted under General

Mikaeri

provence said:

Don't know what you mean. The post is already 7 days old, so it should not be pending anymore.
But yes, it used to be possible, some users received feedback for flagging pending posts. If it is still possible, then it should be changed.

Oh, derp, forget it. Forgot it was in the red queue for a second, I'm like half-asleep right now.

Well, anyways, whoever did that should probably receive a reprimand.

  • ID: 131288
  • Permalink
  • evazion

    IIRC it has always been possible for anyone to flag pending posts. IMO it should be disallowed.

  • ID: 131289
  • Permalink
  • user 509825

    evazion said:

    IIRC it has always been possible for anyone to flag pending posts. IMO it should be disallowed.

    Completely agree on that.
    The question is: Why was it possible in the first place or was it just overlooked?

  • ID: 131290
  • Permalink
  • evazion

    It looks like it was fixed in issue #1327, but reverted because it prevented the system from creating "Unapproved in the three days" flags on pending posts. I think this could be avoided now though, now that we're using DanbooruBot for system-generated flags.

  • ID: 131291
  • Permalink
  • Chiera

    post #2835099
    Only in case such flags should come up in the future from the person that flagged it...the flag reasons stated are completely invalid.

  • ID: 135109
  • Permalink
  • Chiera

    post #2777312
    The scan artifact clause excludes posts that were originally uploaded by the artist. And this was uploaded by the artist to Twitter.
    Seems wrong to delete Twitter images for reasons like that and it happened twice on that post already.

  • ID: 136048
  • Permalink
  • Mikaeri

    Chiera said:

    post #2777312
    The scan artifact clause excludes posts that were originally uploaded by the artist. And this was uploaded by the artist to Twitter.
    Seems wrong to delete Twitter images for reasons like that and it happened twice on that post already.

    jpeg artifacts, but yes.

  • ID: 136065
  • Permalink
  • Chiera

    Mikaeri said:

    jpeg artifacts, but yes.

    Uff.
    Thanks for correcting.

    I've edited the jpeg artifact wiki a bit, to reflect the above fact.

  • ID: 136069
  • Permalink
  • Kilias

    post #2892590 - "rated as safe while it should be explicit"

    Good job on getting the rating absolutely right too, flagger.

    Edit: Nevermind, that's been taken care of while I was writing.

  • ID: 137660
  • Permalink
  • kittey

    ion288 said:

    Um, is md5 mismatch a valid reason to flag? Not that I would mind seeing a few duplicates go but there are 38k of them.

    post #2582744 post #2722111 post #2539636 and more.

    No, it’s not, IMO. Quite often they’re old versions of revised posts that some users like to keep around. In fact, all three posts you mentioned are old versions.

    If it’s an MD5 mismatch due to being a third-party edit, a post can be flagged for that instead, especially if it’s a stupid modification, introduces more artifacts or is a lossy-lossless conversion.

  • ID: 137743
  • Permalink
  • Chiera

    Md5 mismatch alone is never a valid flag reason.

    The end.

    Stuff like post #2814902 might still end up as deleted because I'm honest here: The anatomy sucks.
    But then the parent should be flagged, too.

  • ID: 137745
  • Permalink
  • ion288

    Chiera said:

    post #2898646

    Stupid flag reason is stupid.

    Flag reason is valid. Reflagging a post that has just been reapproved is flag vandalism.

  • ID: 138280
  • Permalink