I see that someone marked metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/330951 as a false positive, but I am inclined to mark it as a true positive because it appears to advertise a paid service to repair a database
@JohnMiliter That one seems debatable. A search for stellar[\W_]*+repair on MS produces 14 Total / 8 TP (57.14% TP) / 7 FP / 0 NAA, which is a fairly mixed bag. That specific one does have what feels like marketing verbiage with the recommendation in the last paragraph.
@cocomac Moderators can only nuke accounts on the sites they moderate. CMs can act across multiple sites. Moderators can make changes to some limited portion of a user's profile (e.g. the username) and can choose to save those changes to the single site or all sites (except stackexchange.com itself).
@AdrianMole That specific one? IMO yes. They're listed as an author on the linked page and don't disclose it. Although a custom flag may be preferred if a mod doesn't notice that
@cocomac I like to give the benefit of the doubt to new users about explicit disclosure (as I did in my comment, there). But this user isn't so new ...
@AdrianMole Of course - I forgot if it was SO or not, but I found someone with undisclosed affiliation, I left a comment, they fixed it, and it wasn't an issue. A mod might be able to know if they're a repeat offender, although IDK if they can say that publicly. Custom-flag could work - a mod could deal with it if needed, and no harsh punishments needed if it was an innocent mistake
@cigien A normalized version, {{'15093120146', '5093120146'}}, of that pattern is already on the number watchlist. You can use !!/bisect-number +1 (509)3120146 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern, which would tell you: Matched by +1 (509)3120146 on line 3258 of watched_numbers.txt: +1 (509)3120146 found verbatim; 5093120146 found normalized
@SmokeDetector tp- the edit is not particularly offensive, but it just adds a solution, and mild profanity. I'm counting this as vandalism (the edit should ideally have been blocked).
@SmokeDetector f Question asks about Mapbox, so it's technically within guidelines, although this is maybe pushing the limit of when you should probably disclose...
@RyanM Assuming it was you who disputed my spam flag (MetaSmoke hints that it was): I was also unsure but then I saw that the user had posted a similar swathe of links to their own (and undisclosed) repo in another post.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, numbers-only title, potentially bad keyword in body (257): 123123123123123 by Boo on stackoverflow.com
@AdrianMole Yeah, they're affiliated according to a quick web search, but also the thing was mentioned in the question, so... I didn't handle the other posts by them, just the one I responded to in MS.
