That's why I suggested an explicit "close as unwelcome" option (label to be bikeshed). And the impact of the rejection should decay over time.
In any case, my proposal is a rough sketch of how I'd approach the problem, not a production ready algorithm. But I'd expect even that basic approach to work a lot better than github's approach.
Ultimately what kills any effort to curb this behaviour is the fact that the perpetrator can always open another account.
If I was a maintainer of an open-source project, I would have a two-tier system:
-PRs from previous contributors.
-All others, sorted by lines of code, ascending.
Reasoning:
-Large PRs from someone without a track record are rare.
-It's not a huge ask to have people first solve a smaller problem.
-Small PRs are easy to verify - it's especially easy to tell if a given one-liner is impactful or just spam. Should also be easier to summarise it in the title.
-Don't quote me on that but I think LLMs are still bad at clear, concise, meaningful changes.
In any case, my proposal is a rough sketch of how I'd approach the problem, not a production ready algorithm. But I'd expect even that basic approach to work a lot better than github's approach.