@SmokeDetector k Undisclosed affiliation, irrelevant content (scipy/python answer to a question asking about ffmpeg), see also metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/324636. Site author Maxim Terleev matches display name. Warned in comments, custom flagged.
@SmokeDetector No idea what the heck this was supposed to look like, but it's definitely abusive and seems to contain a (thoroughly broken) attempt at linking...something.
The original answer:
Such A Great Blog. Thank U For Sharing Useful Information. This
Article Really Amazing And So Much Helpful For Me. In fact, I found
the information I was looking for in your article. It’s really
helpful. I have benefited from reading your article. Thank you very
much. [+ LIN...
@AJ For now I gave the MedicalSciences mods a custom flag on the guy because the posts are not as obvious as spam as spam typically is. I think they'll have no problem handling it there, but if the domain shows up elsewhere on the network I think it should get attention. So, maybe?
I'd say it's worth reporting the user here for future reference so that it's clear why the domain's watched and it can be blacklisted if they keep spamming, but no need to heap spam flags on it.
@T.J.Crowder The community can deal with spam without bothering mods. If spam is not obvious, you can write a normal comment that explains why you think it's spam. — PM 2Ring46 mins ago
The OP didn't like that suggestion because it's not anonymous. Is it ok to report non-obvious spam in this room if you don't want to post a more public comment, eg because you're scared that the spammer might retaliate in some way?
@PM2Ring Oh, reading the Charcoal HQ transcript is...a commitment, at times :-)
Though I'm pretty sure mods aren't bothered by nuking spam...I expect it's some of the easier flags, mostly. Though I think a mod spent an hour once handling one of mine after I pointed out a sneaky spam ring.
And on Physics, we occasionally get people posting pseudo-answers that are basically just promoting their crackpot theory, with a URL (often not even a clickable link) to their site. The Physics mods don't mind killing those. ;)
@Makyen These are for a spammer whose most recent activity using that name was 2 years ago. The name appears to be the actual name of real people and is in use by multiple accounts on the network.
> Url in title, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Potentially bad keyword in body - Position 8-30: abdulkarimmia.blogspot Potentially bad keyword in title - Position 8-30: abdulkarimmia.blogspot Potentially bad keyword in username - Position 8-30: abdulkarimmia.blogspot Url in title - Position 0-34: https://abdulkarimmia.blogspot.com
@Ollie That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command if you really want to add this pattern.
IMHO, it would be nice if the average members were a little more aware of how to deal with spam. There's some info in the Help center, but you have to go looking for it, it's not very prominent. Eg, on Astronomy, I've seen obvious spam posts with 6 or more downvotes, so not all downvoters spam flagged it.
> Url in title, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in title, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Potentially bad ip for hostname in body - tagmyads.com suspicious IP address 23.235.218.237 Potentially bad ip for hostname in title - tagmyads.com suspicious IP address 23.235.218.237 Potentially bad keyword in body - Position 8-20: tagmyads.com Potentially bad keyword in title - Position 8-20: tagmyads.com
@Ollie The highest number of feedbacks created in a single day thus far was by Eliah Kagan during the Review Barbequeue on September 11th, 2020 with a whopping 5,385 feedbacks on that day. Following is Rubiksmoose on Sept. 18th (also during the Barbequeue) with a similarly impressive 4,402 feedbacks.
I created this query to find that information. Note that that query does not exclude duplicates (so one person can show up multiple times).
@Spevacus That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in answer and Bad keyword in body Append -force to the command if you really want to add this pattern.
