@JourneymanGeek I’ve an edit pending on that post, if you want to review it.

(it’s apostrophes mainly)

@ElementsInSpace done

@JourneymanGeek Thanks!

@SmokeDetector I love junk food.

Just not actual junk food, like McDonalds and Burger King.

@AndreasmovedtoCodidact you're not a dog tho

→ 13 messages moved to Chimney

@JourneymanGeek Who says?

You're clearly messy spegetti

My creator didn’t do a very good job of programming me.

Can the person responsible for deleting spam please look at this post, english.stackexchange.com/questions/625057/delete-me-im-spam Unfortunately, the question was closed for being off-topic and the content has been severely edited, removing all trace of the previous message. It was posted 5 hours ago but it's still visible on the EL&U site.

uhhh

there's no person specifically who can do that

but we can take a look and flag

Actually, its gone @Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні :D

Is there a link which I could show users what the best procedure for handling spam is?I know you're supposed to flag suspicious content as spam without posting any comments, and I know you're not supposed to edit the post. But a link would be super handy. Thanks

@JourneymanGeek Great, three minutes ago while I've been wasting time trying to find this smoke detector site, but I don't have permission to post there... Oh well at least it's gone.

I can't think of anything off hand meta.stackexchange.com/a/58035/135565 dosen't quite fit your specific scnario

Oh, charcoal HQ

@Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні should be common sense. Spam should be flagged. If not sure it's spam, don't flag, you can downvote or flag as NAA. If you can find proof it's spam but it's not obvious spam, better custom flag with the proof you found, so mod will delete it. (e.g. user name isn't spammy, and profile is clean, but you do find some external source showing affiliation with the product/site they shared.)

Those can be done with Smokey by manual reporting, but yeah it require Smokey privileges first.

!!/amiprivileged

This ^

Or, just share link here and usually it would be enough. (need only three other users to flag.)

@ShadowWizard It was obviously spam but without a link, it was advertising the services of a specific company. In fact, it was closed with a custom reason: "I'm voting to close this question because it's an ad" Perhaps the assertive edit that followed, and the change of title (delete me I'm spam) helped it finally get deleted

@Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні We don't seem to have a good, standing post that explains how spam should be handled. The best we have is the explanation for how the spam and rude flags work, as well as the Should we edit spam question.

I could see utility in a post that's all about that and links to those two questions. We could get absurdly meta and post a question that asks whether or not such a canonical should be made.

@Spevacus We do do absurdly meta

It's the only kind of meta I like.

Meta to the power of meta?

@Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні ah, I see. So yeah, posting link here should be just enough, usually, if it's still up after a while.

@Spevacus problem is, it's sometimes case by case, i.e. post might not be strictly spam, not fall in any spam category, yet by common sense be spam. e.g. same user flooding 6 same answers with a link, but without proof they're affiliated with that site.

The flood in that case kind of making it clear it's not innocent.

@ShadowWizard That's something that could be explained in a canonical fairly easily I'd say.

@ShadowWizard I'd be spamming if I picked 6 relevant answers from Codidact and wrote "original answer taken from Codidact.com?" Oh, no. :(

@Spevacus fair. Go ahead then! ;)

@AndreasmovedtoCodidact no, as it's different answers, and hopefully each relevant to a different question on SO.

That would just be answer with external source.

But that would take away all the fun.