I want to ask in connection with this:

I think that we recently had a user repeatedly posting link to some "paper" online with "solution" of some famous problem. (I do not remember exactly. And I do not know whether it is the same user aas in this question. But that's not important.)

In situation like that, would spam flag be right way to go?

One of the reasons I am asking is because spam flags (and similarly rude/abusive flags) can be handled without mods - if there is enough of them, then the post is deleted and flag is marked as helpful.

So if enough users would mark the post as spam, it would not have been declined by moderator.

I see that faq says that spam flags are for posts with unsolicited advertisement. (This was also discussed on our meta.)

But posting link to the same manuscript again and again perhaps can be interpreted as unsolicited advertisement?

@MartinSleziak Thierno M. Sow has made such a nuisance of himself that, while not according to guidelines, I am not exactly sympathetic to him when his posts are given the ol' spam heave-ho. It feeds into a system that helps block him from further such posts, which I consider a plus.

@MartinSleziak I think that this interpretation has been shoehorned into the situation, yes.

(Do you always see your original identicon? Or just the new one? I ask because to you your single line messages are with the original identicon, but the multiline (or multipost) messages are with the new one. It's a little distracting. Of course, you have little control over this... unless you follow the advice here. ​ ;-) ​ )

Yes, I should do something about the gravatar.

So basically in situation which I described above (like another TMS post), spam flag would be ok. And there is a possibility that it could be marked helpful without moderator intervention - if enough users flagged the same way, right?

Of course, I have no possibility to know whether this was the case in the post discussed on meta, since details of the post are known only to mods (and the user who flagged it).

But if we want to follow the rules very strictly, Thierno M. Sow's aren't spam. Did I interpret correctly what you're saying?

And I learned a new word toady: shoehorn.

@MartinSleziak Yup. Not exactly by-the-book, but given the situation it's understandable. And the situation is pretty unique: I cannot think of anyone else who continuously posts their crap here.

@MartinSleziak I think I'm starting to use our chats as an opportunity to use words/phrases that I don't get to use enough. Need to keep my English up as well!

I am glad I have an opportunity to learn. (Und vielleicht koennte ich auch mein Deutscher Wortschatz erweitern. But there are other rooms which I can use for that purpose.)

To me this would seem ideal way to handle the problem described in the post on meta. But it would probably not succeed, since currently hardly anybody visits crude chatroom.

@MartinSleziak Yeah. Normal Human's departure has left a bit of a hole. And I've always felt that the 10K tools are a little too out of sight to be useful. (I sometimes forget that we can see which posts have pending (un)delete votes.)

@arjafi Even if he was still here, that is only one delete vote.

But there is possibility that eventually some users start to use the room. (I tend to mention it on meta, when it is appropriate.)

SmokeDetector makes a post almost every day, so the room is not in danger of getting frozen.

@MartinSleziak But I think that he also created/led a bit of a movement here, and that movement has been stunted since he left. ("Well, if he's giving up, why should I bother!?")

That's probably true.

What I had in mind was current situation. Where he would probably not be able to contribute by something else than adding the close vote.

BTW is there reasonable possibility to teach SmokeDetector that it should report Thierno M. Sow's posts? (I guess he posts from different accounts. I have seen that SD has something like list of blacklisted users, but it probably assumes using the same user account.)

@MartinSleziak I need to check another chat-room or two or three, but I think that Daniel might has already let on that TMS posts should be added to SmokeDetector's heuristics.

That's good to know.

Perhaps this could be result of this?

I should have noticed, since I visit c.r.u.d.e. quite often.

@MartinSleziak Not exactly sure which "this" refers to what. But the SD reason is "Shortened URL in body", nothing about blacklisted content, which I think is what SD would say if TMS-type stuff has been included.

I see. I meant that there was at least one post by SD linking to TMS post.

But as you rightly point out, SD detected it for different reason.

It seems that math.SE is not the only place where this was posted: google.com/search?q=%22one-zero.eu%2Fresources%2F%22

Thanks a lot for the response. I should get back to typing notes for students and preparing slides for teaching. (It all starts next Monday.)

@DanielFischer I looked at the Charcoal HQ and the messages following the one linked by arjafi.

I see that one suggestion was to blacklist the word "Thierno".

Would blacklisting the domain, where he puts the papers, be a reasonable possibility?

BTW is seems that he was mentioned in that room before.

However, it seems that although he uses the same site (at least in the posts I saw), it is hidden behind url shortener.

BTW if the numbers in the room info are correct, that was my 1000th post in this room. I missed the opportunity to make a self-referential post. :-(

Wow... A rare sighting nowadays. A real live @arjafi

I disagree with the use of "spam" flags in the described situation. It is not spam. Instead it should be flagged as "rude or abusive." The behavior is rude and an abuse of the site.

I never understood why so many want to flag all kinds of things as spam, but the "rude or abusive" flag is hardly mentioned in this context.

@quid As long as you don't disagree about the rare sighting, it's fine. :-)

Even if I'd disagree with you @Asaf I'd never dare to say so. ;-)

@quid I disagree with that.

Checkmate.

:-P