@RyanM That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command if you really want to add this pattern.
looks like "spam + random techno term" to me; looks like quite a few of them would have been caught for other reasons; the remainder are just NAA garbage
@CodyGray Only works on SD-created PRs, alas. Xnero had put up the start of a PR that would allow some non-SD-created PRs to be merged by blacklist managers via SD, but even that wouldn't include this.
@SmokeDetector Looks like the usual "data science course in Bangalore" spam, but this one appears to actually answer the question. No spam link in the answer. Answer has been deleted on the site.
Catija also communicates with ye ole Charcoal folk fairly often, if I'm not mistaken. We've also, historically, had some of the SRE folks in here when we've had websocket/connectivity problems.
@Ollie Uhm... yeah! That's totally it. We're debating the philosophical impacts of hot peppers on moderation activity. Apparently ghost peppers make you validate all red flags. Who knew?
@Machavity aren’t flags pink if you don’t refresh the page? Does that mean refreshing makes your flag more likely to get accepted? frantically jotting down notes for getting the marshal badge.
@EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica The "Spam" and "Rude or Abusive" flags are often referred to as "red flags" due to how they appear in your flag history. They're considered "high priority" flags, cause a downvote on the post when cast, and 6 red flags (or 1 from a moderator) will automatically delete a post, imposing a 100-rep penalty.
@Machavity What would the header look like when others visit his profile? "This account has been temporarily put to sleep. The rest period ends in 8 hours."?
@SmokeDetector "Hi. The reason for using these gases is that they are monoatomic. These gases are in the group of noble gases, so they provide an environment with the least reaction to perform experiments. But what is the reason for using mercury? The same monoatomic gases behave. "
@EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica I marked it as tp due to the username. While the user may not have intended anything by the username, it's not something we would permit here.
@EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica We almost exclusively provide feedback based on the version as it was when the report was created.
So, yes, if it was reported again with the username as it is now, then we would mark it as FP, but as reported it's something we'd want to block at the system level.
@EkadhSingh The particular word used caries a variety of emotional contexts depending on how it's used, the context within which it's used, who's using it, who reads it, etc. Those emotional contexts range from dramatically negative to positive. For that particular word, it's better to error on the side of caution and not use it where the context is not crystal clear (e.g. in a username).
@tripleee Yeah, it's a bit strange. For most posts, you can also see a difference in the why data and reasons, as lots of those are "body"/"answer" depending on the type of post.
ffs. Time and again we say not to edit spam. I've been seeing some questionable actions by high-reputation users lately: Vandalism, spam editing, etc.
Speaking of which @CodyGray, I usually flag vandalism when there's been at least two instances of it, e.g. the author rejecting warnings and edits to remove it. Should I mod flag if the vandalism was commited by a high-reputation user, even if it's only once?
@Ollie Was it done to their own post? To someone else's post? In general, if there's only a single instance of them doing it to their own post which was resolved by someone rolling back and/or adding a comment asking the user not to do that, then there's not a lot of reason to involve a moderator. OTOH, if you suspect they are "rage quitting" or otherwise deleting substantial other content, then a mod flag is good. We do get autoflags for that, but it's possible to stay under that radar.
@Makyen It was their own post. Cody said they were quite insistent about it, but that was when it was deleted AFAIK. I didn't think there was much reason to mod flag, but it did seem funny that it was done by a trusted user.
@Ollie If it's on a single one of their own posts and is fully resolved by a single rollback and/or commenting on that post to ask them not to do that, and you don't think they are deleting their other content, then, no, there's really nothing there for a mod to do, so no mod flag.
OK. Another general question: Is it worth rolling back vandalism on deleted posts? Some people don't like it, and I don't either, especially if it's an answer.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body (101): How to purchase Opal Necklace? by Mary Anderson on superuser.com (@Ollie)
@Ollie I think Makyen already answered this, but... no. We aren't going to treat someone differently with respect to vandalism just because they're a high-rep user. Only mod flag if there's something for a mod to do. And, in cases where you can try to fix it yourself as a normal user (e.g., edit, rollback, retag, whatever), then you should try first, and only mod-flag if that first attempt at fixing it failed/was overridden.
