@NobodyNada A lot of those people are just filling in the answer box that looks kind of like a reply box on a forum and posting there without getting any warnings. For those people, I have some sympathy. The warnings I described apply to an OP attempting to answer their own question, for which the box does not show and they are required to go through a significantly more substantial process.
I'm not even saying we should flag the people who ignored that to add information in an attempt at being helpful by adding more info in an "answer." Just the ones who ignored all the warnings and made no attempt at being even a little helpful, just disruptive by bumping their question to get extra attention.
@RyanM I don't disagree with you -- but I still don't think red-flags are the right tool for the job. We already have a flag exactly for this purpose: Not an Answer. Sure, it's a little less harsh than a redflag, but it still leads to prompt deletion and eventual answer bans.
Again, this is a borderline case -- I agree with Makyen that "I'm not going to feel all that bad about applying a penalty to a user that is clearly doing something that's against policy in order to gain a benefit", but I still think that a red flag is a touch overkill for a first offense.
It's definitely not an answer, but super rude or abusive is really pushing it. Definitely something Smokey should report on, but not quite flagging, yeah.
After a closer look I don't think it actually answers the question: the user doesn't need help with converting the files, but with deleting them afterwards
@NobodyNada That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
[:55542065] Blacklisted user - blacklisted for //stackoverflow.com/questions/63661059 (https://metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/261794) by the metasmoke API
> Link at beginning of answer, potentially bad keyword in answer ---------- Link at beginning of answer - Position 0-27: <p><a href="https://i.stac" Potentially bad keyword in answer - Position 0-125: <p><a href="https://i.stac" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stac" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
@tripleee Matched by ^(?:\s*<p>\s*(?:<\/?\w+\/?>\s*)*(?:<a href="[^>]*>)?\W*<img src="[^>]*>(?:<\/?\w+\/?>\s*)*)+$ on line 12198 of watched_keywords.txt
@tripleee Matched by ^(?:\s*<p>\s*(?:<\/?\w+\/?>\s*)*(?:<a href="[^>]*>)?\W*<img src="[^>]*>(?:<\/?\w+\/?>\s*)*)+$ on line 12198 of watched_keywords.txt
@Mast For that regex, it would be reasonable/good to replace edb\W*recovery\W*software with edb[\W_]*+recovery[\W_]*+software. It seems like a good time to do so is as part of moving it from the watchlist to the blacklist:
@Daniil Exactly, so I don't understand your suggestion that it already has enough weight. Yes, for this particular hit. But not all spamposts we get from apnews, what I was talking about.
user435118
7:13 AM
@Mast I was not aware and did not search for other apnews posts with lower weights.
I see 2 options. 1) Check when a watch is created whether the exact watch already exists in a PR. 2) Check when a watch is approved whether the exact watch is already on the watchlist.
