[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Offensive body detected, offensive title detected, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, toxic body detected (156): Why is OP such a faggot? by user59301 on anime.SE (@AndrewT.)
@cigien 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.
@cigien 'neleus\\.com' is not caught by a blacklist or watchlist item.
!!/report meta.stackexchange.com/q/361844 "Google hits imply the user may be affiliated with the linked site. I'm reporting this so we have a record of it, even if it's not clearly spam at this time."
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, numbers-only title, potentially bad keyword in body, +1 more (390): 12345678901112131415 by Yehezkiel Tato on stackoverflow.com
@ppwater Please don't use unlimited quantity match-anything constructs like .*, which you used twice in this watch entry. SmokeDetector specifically warned you about using .. Using a construct like this tends to end up with matching large chunks of text, which is definitely not what we are wanting to do. In fact, having a .* at the end of your regex guaranteed that it would match everything to the end of the body text, even if it was several hundred, or thousands, of characters.
@Zoe Please be more diligent in reviewing watch/blacklist PRs. Regexes using unlimited quantity matches should be highly scrutinized, particularly when it's an unlimited match of anything, such as .* (or [\w\W]*, etc.). They should not be approved unless you know exactly what it's going to be doing and that it's going to match only the things which you intend.
In fact, .* really should just not be something we use, except in very special circumstances.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url in title, bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, potentially bad keyword in body (388): lenorawatfor.tumblr.com/ by ChristinTurne on apple.SE
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in answer, Mostly punctuation marks in answer, Bad keyword in body, and Mostly punctuation marks in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Yatin That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in answer, Potentially bad keyword in body, Potentially bad keyword in answer, and Bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
most are FP, with the TP being posts where the site has been used to host the spam, rather than be spam for that site. There are also ~125 hits on SE for that domain
@Rob 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.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword in link text in answer, link at beginning of answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, +2 more (353): Python 'is' vs JavaScript === by laxmi on stackoverflow.com
There is currently no method to flag a user account as spam (only posts). However, there is a huge influx of user accounts that are clearly spam (look for the "Autobiographer" badge on the home page, and it typically has multiple rather oddly - and often offensively - named accounts whose "About"...
