@Pilot6 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Makyen That pattern may be a North American number. If it is, please use a format which starts with an optional 1 followed by possible separator text and has the main number in the format 865-369-4414 where - could be a single alpha character or any [\W_]*+. Alternately, you can add the comment (?#IS NorAm) to the end of the pattern to force also using the alternate normalized form, or (?#NO NorAm) if it's not a North American phone number and it's incorrectly recognized as one. Perhaps try !!/watch-number 865-369-4414. Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
In order to consider leaping past these requirements I'd like to see a massive inundation of a particular type of spam in which the campaign is obviously linked and the spam is obviously part of that same attack. This does not, yet, appear to be the case. I'm not going to reject the PR since that domain may become eligible for the blacklist in the near future, but for the moment, I do not think it fits the blacklist requirements.
The last time I just leapt right to blacklist was with an inundation of call girl number spam back here. Since each number was obviously a part of the same attack, and they were reusing some of the numbers, I felt like it was appropriate to throw the numbers on the blacklist as opposed to waiting for 3 or 5 TP per number due to the sheer amount of spam that was coming in.
@Spevacus There are some other criteria that would make me more inclined to more readily blacklist something, such as the severity of the spam (ex. Very annoying malware, CSAM material, any other nasty stuff) but that kind of spam is also somewhat rare.
@VLAZ If you asked a question of a room full of people in real life and someone spoke up and gave you that response, would you think them confused as to how to respond, or that they were being rude?
I'd personally consider it quite rude. However, more than once I've found that what I consider rather unpleasant is to be tolerated and not red-flagged.
Yeah, we do tolerate more than what would be tolerated by most in real life. However, that's largely the case in most online interactions, for multiple reasons.
@Spevacus While looking at it from the point of view of what would be acceptable in real life is a reasonable approximation, it's imperfect, as noted above. Personally, I try to look at it from the point of view of the asker and how I'd feel if I got such a response. Is it something I'd excuse, or something where it's fairly clear the person isn't confused and they are, at best, posting noise?
