[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +2 more (494): This recipe additionally assists by jesicadotson on askubuntu.com
@Dharman What's the goal with this watch? If the goal is to catch the posts by the user which you linked, that won't happen, because the user has enough reputation to be exempt from watches.
If the issue is that user's posts, then I'd suggest going through their posts and identifying the ones which are problematic. Then raise a custom mod-flag explaining the issue (over-promotion / undisclosed affiliation) and providing a list of the problematic ones. If you need to, create a Gist, or a list/longer explanation somewhere else, with additional info (if it doesn't fit in a flag).
@Makyen I raised a mod flag explaining the situation, but mod has removed only one answer and kept the rest. Not sure why, so I wanted to set a watch in case the user keeps posting more of it.
@Dharman It's really a situation where you need to contact moderators, or bring it up on meta. My personal preference would be to mod-flag. I don't know what you said in your previous mod-flag, so it's not really possible to judge the moderator's actions, assuming the one post which you linked to was the only one which was touched.
I found a new wiki answer posted yesterday which looked really spammy to me on the first sight. Upon checking the user's history I identified that they have used their answers to promote their own site/product multiple times.
I have flagged it for a moderator's attention with the following mess...
what is the use/help to others in editing questions already answered years ago?
It is happening in the earth science stackexchange https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ , where an user (R***deA****) is editing questions with accepted answers from 2015 or even earlier.
What's the point in this ...
The account that is used for feeds into chat can have a custom name, which moderators can change. I'm not sure about when a separate user is created for a feed, but it may be created as part of the process of giving the feed a custom name. There are many rooms which have custom named feeds. Here and SOCVR are just two examples.
@Daniil You would need to adjust other options in the flagging conditions. Frankly, I don't recommend doing so for Stack Overflow, given the number of high weight FP it sees.
I haven't gone to the site to check further for undisclosed affiliation, but from what's available in the two answers, I'd go with just NAA, if that. Both questions really leave it open to suggest other packages, so NAA is arguable. I'd agree they are quite poor answers (i.e. if they are going to suggest an alternate package, then they should show how to use it). [This is about the posts by Akash Banaulikar, who has other contributions.]
@Machavity I probably wouldn't have reported these, mostly because doing so generates a lot of views with people predisposed to thinking of them as spam, particularly given the user has other contributions. In the case of these, it currently feels that it's better to educate the user. OTOH, if the OP continued to post similar answers, then it would be an issue, so a watch is appropriate.
In general, I'll usually leave a comment on the post(s) and see how the user responds (e.g. stops; edits in disclosure; explicitly states no affiliation; improves the answers; does nothing). I'll usually give them a day or two to act (i.e. schedule a revisit to the posts). If the user has visited and done nothing, or if they continue to post similar promotion, then I'll treat it more forcefully as spam/undisclosed affiliation.
I found a new wiki answer posted yesterday which looked really spammy to me on the first sight. Upon checking the user's history I identified that they have used their answers to promote their own site/product multiple times.
I have flagged it for a moderator's attention with the following mess...
