What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

This spammer was able to post five or more heavily spammy posts over the span of 2 hours.

Shouldn't he have triggered some ban or burnination mechanism earlier? Surely each question received more than one spam flag?

This feels like the rules might need fine-tuning. I've never seen a spammer do their work for longer than a half hour. I'm guessing this happened in a time slot that is less frequented by moderators?

Maybe impose a temporary ban if a new user attracts spam flags, until a moderator gets a chance to look at it?

enter image description here

share|improve this question
    
Perhaps it will kick in once all those questions are closed? –  Asad Feb 18 '13 at 8:35
    
That would be a flaw in the implementation, then, IMO. I bet each one received more than one spam flag. –  Pëkka Feb 18 '13 at 8:36
    
Related if not dup. meta.stackexchange.com/q/144878/187824 –  hims056 Feb 18 '13 at 8:42
    
He's only been a member for a little over 2 hours now, I'd give it a little bit of time. –  Asad Feb 18 '13 at 8:42
1  
The account has been q-banned, automatically. The system works. –  Oded Feb 18 '13 at 8:45
    
I think the real problem is we can't orbially lart idiots like this ;p –  Journeyman Geek Feb 18 '13 at 8:49
    
@Oded but only after 3 garbage posts over 2 hours, and when blocked he switched to answering. Should the ban not have kicked in more quickly? Would a temporary auto-ban in suspicious cases be an option until a mod manages to take a look? (I guess this happened at all only because of low mod coverage during this time of day) –  Pëkka Feb 18 '13 at 9:10
1  
Believe me - such users do get noticed. Assuming this account will no longer be active (looks like the OP got the hint and stopped), it will eventually be removed, as 0 active posts and no rep exists on it. –  Oded Feb 18 '13 at 9:15
    
    
@Oded air support requested. Please deploy Napalm on coordinates one oh one seven four oh four five. –  Pëkka Feb 18 '13 at 10:43
2  
It looks like this whole think took place over a span of a few hours while the majority of moderators were literally sleeping. I guess we need more European & Asian mods? Currently only 1/3 of the mods cover 2/3 of the globe. –  Bill the Lizard Feb 18 '13 at 13:36
3  
Also, this is why spam flags should stay in the moderator queue until we manually clear them. Even if the community took care of the posts by flagging them into oblivion, I want to know that this happened. We had an incident last week with a ring of sock puppets who almost destroyed a good answer using coordinated spam flags, and had we not caught it in time we never would have known it happened. These are things we should be made aware of. –  Brad Larson Feb 18 '13 at 16:41

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The post ban process is already automatic and worked in your case.

So that leaves us with request to auto-nuke account once it got several spam flags... and I'm strongly against such a thing.

  1. Valid users sometimes get excited about new product they found or started using and they post about it.
  2. Those posts appear to be spam and flagged as such, even though it was totally innocent.
  3. The posts are auto deleted at some point with -100 rep penalty for each, but the user should not be nuked having other valid contents and making an innocent mistake.

Keep in mind that account deletion is very hard to reverse.

Let's keep it manual process done by moderators, they also have failsafe mechanism e.g. they can't delete accounts with more than X reputation. (X is unknown to me)

share|improve this answer
1  
Fair enough re nuking, but the post ban triggered only after five contributions that were heavily downvoted and (I bet) flagged as spam. Am I the only person who thinks that is too late? I'm guessing this happened in a time slot that is less frequented by moderators. –  Pëkka Feb 18 '13 at 9:04
    
It's happened on meta before @Pekka, some new user just gets lucky and goes crazy when there's no moderators. I'd be in favour of auto-nuking 1 rep spam accounts but Brad Larson has a good argument against, which I hadn't considered. I guess post-banning earlier would be a good compromise.. –  ben is uǝq backwards Feb 18 '13 at 9:08
    
@Pekka agreed that the post ban mechanism can be changed e.g. smack the hammer down after the second post was downvoted plus marked as spam, if there are no upvoted posts. Anyhow, 5 spam posts is not so fatal. :) –  Shadow Wizard Feb 18 '13 at 9:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .