Adrian Mole

@JeffSchaller Same here - but it seems to have been there from the original post (i.e. not edited-in later).

The Q has [tag:qualcomm]

And the linked site is: mysupport.qualcomm.com/supportforums/s

Review is completed: stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/36869343

(For those who cannot see deleted posts on SO, the content is just: For better support, please post your question <here>(link). Thank you.)

This answer has just been deleted from LQA review (I cast the final delete vote) ... but is it spam? The username suggests a connection to Qualcomm - which is included in the tags - but posting that link seems very spammy, to me.

Is the poster of this answer a newly-arrived (serial) spammer? (See the second comment and their other answer; don't know what scrollflow.js is, though ...)

@metasmoke OK - Mod-deleted but not as spam. Account is 36 days old and no other (visible) posts ... is it worth further investimagation?

@metasmoke Hmm ... this may be a poor attempt at spam. Translation from Arabic for the opening reads, "Restore all non-root programs to default Android. Free for life. Android Autofill:" There's a definite catch-phrase in there!

Oh look, a "local mod" has just come into the room.

Yeah, but if their involvement is disclosed and their library is relevant to the question, then it isn't really spam.

Both answer are currently in LQA review.

@Cow No record of the user in MetaSmoke but (of course) I can't see if they have other 9deleted) posts.

Hmm. A user for 18 months just posted two (their only two) answers. They look identical and are clearly promoting their own stuff. Is this a returning spammer?

@JeffSchaller Maybe. But red flags should be for a clear reason, so they can get properly dealt with by non-mods. For stuff like that, custom mod flags are the way to go. If quick removal is also desired, then a downvote plus a [del-pls] request in SOCVR would be effective, I think.

@JeffSchaller Thanks for that link. It certainly gives some background to the posts but I still can't see why they were red-flagged.

@dan1st I still see no evidence of spam or R/A. The (numerous) double-posts could be a simple case of 'fat fingers' or some other issue with the system or the machine the poster is using.

@dan1st If it needs explaining, then it's definitely a case for a custom flag.

I came across them in SOCVR and - to be honest - I am inclined to give "Looks OK" feedback to Smokey. (I haven't, for now, though...)

(I mean the batch you posted here from user1582833.)

@dan1st Those answer aren't spam or rude/abusive. You have spotted a problem with the user but that should be handled with a custom mod flag.

@ipodtouch0218 Maybe "Theo" is a weird Welsh-Ugarit hybrid form of "Maarten?"

@ipodtouch0218 I added the canned "spam warning" comment in this answer but they link their repos in 3/4 answers.

@metasmoke The answer to this one may be from a (newish) spammer. They seem to link a lot of their answers to the same(ish) blogs/repos.

Hmm. But is the poster affiliated? Or are they just asking if it is legit? I can find no obvious sign(s) of the former.

7 years, 9 months is a long time to wait for your first spam!

I can't see if they have previous history of spam ... but the Di'mond geezers/geezettes can see that.

I think that's possible but I'm not 100% - which is why I came here to ask.

@Cow Interesting. But the Q is a year-and-a-half old, so maybe they just went to ask the 'follow up' after finding the newly-released tool?

Is this a genuine 'answer' or is it spam? First post from a user account that's been around for nearly 8 years ... looks a bit on the 'commercial' side, to me, but it also seems relevant to the question. Currently, I have a delete vote on it from the LQA review queue - it's more of a question than an answer, IMHO.

@Cow Never underestimate the privilege (and responsibility) that comes with the ability to have others act on your behalf. The right word, at the right time, delivered to the appropriate recipient, carries great weight.

@Cow Best of all the privileges - which, one day, ye may achieve - is the privilege to ask, of others, "What privilege?" ;)

OK, I'll wait in the car.

Ha! But should it be caught?

Hmm. I have just seen two of these posts in the LQA review queue (presumably flagged as "link-only" NAAs). There is nether explicit disclosure nor hard evidence that poster is affiliated with the linked resource. ... But is it spam?

What is that "Processed Meat" user? Never seen any such posts, before, but the account has been active for many years.

This account has at least one deleted spam post (I saw it as a review audit) but, given the name, should the account be nuked?

@Cow I think Mast WTFM. ;-P

I'll wait in the car.

Maybe worth a mod flag? They may have extra tools/evidence to support the decision.

@Jesse Agreed. And, as our Bovine Friend has said, the timing is suspicious.

In my book, seems like is not quite enough.

@Cow Hmm. They are all relevant to the question (so not unsolicited) and I can find no hard evidence for affiliation (even though I may suspect it).

This user has three recent answers to old questions, all linking the same tool. Is it spam? (I fired the 'warning shot' comment on one of the answers, which I came across in FA review.)

All gone ... but the account isn't nuked. Should someone wake up the SO mods? :p

That must be the quickest ~30 spam flags I've ever raised!

Hmm...

Is this spam? Considering this earlier post from the same account, is this the beginning of a pattern?

@Cow Lack of a diamond rather than lack of rep.

I don't have a strong opinion, either way. I came across it in review, asked in SOCVR and then, when I saw the other post by the same user, I came here. I'm just trying to be even-handed and to get the views of others with more experience/wisdom.