As one of the site's moderators, I'll offer my perspective.
I spend some of my "Stack Exchange" free time in the Charcoal-HQ chat room, dealing with possible spam posts. Coming from that perspective, the answer you mentioned does not strike me as spam:
- It attempts to answer the question (granted it does not fulfill all of the Question's requirements, but that's not necessary
- The author of the Answer does not appear to be affiliated with the product/company involved.
- The answer -- as of today -- has never been flagged as spam, either by the Charcoal-HQ SmokeDetector spam bot or by any user of this site. A search for "ugreen" in that room comes up empty.
- There are 203 search results today across the Stack Exchange sites for the term "ugreen", so product/company seems that some people are happily using the product.
One aspect of this particular Q&A that concerns me is the timeline:
- 2025-08-05: the Answer is posted.
- 2025-08-05: you suggested an edit to add a note about the certificate, which the answer's author approved.
- 2025-08-05: You suggested an edit to the answer which removed quite a bit of the post and replaced that with "...is not an answer to this question.", which I rejected from the Suggested Edit queue, as it removed useful information from the post and -- IMHO -- added incorrect information (as the Help Center describes, partial answers are acceptable)
- 2025-08-05: you suggested another edit which replaced the entire answer with just "Deleted garbage answer. Body must be at least 30 characters; you entered 23", which I rejected from the Suggested Edit queue as it vandalizes the answer.
If you disagree with an answer, the appropriate actions on Stack Exchange include:
- ignoring it
- adding your different perspective in an answer
- adding a comment to the answer explaining your perspective
- voting on the answer
...but not inappropriate edits months after you already interacted with the post.
Since you've added a comment (and now this Meta post), I think that's the extent of what's appropriate.
If you still believe the post is spam, you should flag it as such. I would note, however, the Help Center article says about spam that it is: "indiscriminate bulk advertisement" and links to both a HardwareRecs article and a Meta.StackExchange post that go into more detail. The HardwareRecs Help Center says this, in particular:
A post should be marked as spam only if it promotes a product, service, or similar; and is unsolicited or lacks disclosure of affiliation.
Given that the answer mentions a product that attempts to meet the question's requirements, I would not consider it unsolicited. I mention all this because there's a 50% chance (since I'm one of two moderators at the moment) that I would handle your spam flag, and so you would need to convince me that a spam flag is valid here. Given this situation, I would actually recommend against a spam flag, since that does not give you the opportunity to provide additional information; I'd suggest using the "In need of moderator intervention" so that you can add that information.
If you can point to some of the "widespread completely irrelevant comments from ugreen" and flag them as spam or "no longer needed", I'd be happy to review them.
I believe that your desire "to create a repository of knowledge of extremely hard to find, niche chargers" is perfectly in-line with Stack Exchange's mission to create a collection of Questions and Answers. It's just that not every answer is going to be a perfect answer or even very high quality. That's where the (standard) voting and comments come in. Maybe it's the case that, today, there isn't a great answer to your question; time will tell if a better solution comes along.
