This is an idea I got from this answer to my last question.
The answer suggests that I flag one post per user account, to recommend deleting the user for abusive behavior. I think that this is a good solution, if an inefficient use of my time (each time I think about flagging a post, I have to look through my flagging history for that username, and even then, usernames can be changed over time).

So I wonder if it would be helpful to implement the following:

  1. Add a "delete this user" option while flagging a post (perhaps make this available only to high-rep users to avoid wrong usage).
  2. On the backend, group such flags by user (identifiable by login credentials to avoid erroneous non-grouping due to dynamic usernames) so that mods need only review one of these flags per user (at which point all such flags on that user are deemed helpful and the flaggers get their increased flag counts).

Does anyone else think this might be a useful feature?

  • 6
    For the troll that you're referring to, he creates a new account whenever we delete his old ones, so it doesn't really matter.
    – user102937
    Aug 27, 2013 at 20:35
  • There is little point in this; the user is troublesome because of the posts he creates; just flag the post and move on. Aug 27, 2013 at 20:35
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey: and his diatribe is now more rambling and unreadable as ever. Gone are the posts that managed to look like real questions.. Aug 27, 2013 at 20:54

2 Answers 2


I don't really think so.

If you see a pattern of repetitive abusive (or very suspicious) behavior from a user, just flag one of that user's post and explain the problem with as much detail as you can. Then go do something else and take that out of your mind.

Don't re-flag for the same reason on every new post the user makes, but you don't need to go back in your flagging history to see if you've ever flagged some of this user's content - that's not the point. The point is that if you see a post that is, for example, blatantly plagiarizing something, and you find out that all that user's post are of the same nature, flag once. Not once per post. (I'm pretty sure you're fine if you flag the first post, then discover later that the problem is more widespread and cast a second flag to explain more.)

What happens then (mod message, short suspension, long suspension, network-wide 50 year long ban) is not your problem. That's up to the mods and community managers to decide based on the evidence they have (they have access to more data than you do, including other people's flags).


I don't think many users are aware of the (few legitimate) reasons to delete user accounts. Even to moderators, this has been a little ambiguous until recently, where it was made necessary to state a specific reason (from a list of pro-forma reasons) in order to delete an account.

Honestly, if there is a certain kind of behavior that would require an account to be deleted, this would still be at the moderator's discretion—it's not for a "regular" user to decide, or even suggest. The flags made against a user are what counts here.

Let's flag posts that require intervention, because this is what you can actually see and handle immediately. Let moderators handle the big picture. In some cases, for example, it's not even necessary to delete accounts when they're already banned from asking. This helps in gathering evidence or "parking" credentials the user cannot use to sign up with again after we've nuked their old account.

  • 1
    I don't have a problem with flags of the form, "This user never posts anything but link-only answers to his blog. Consider burnination?"
    – user102937
    Aug 27, 2013 at 20:41
  • 1
    I have no issue with such a flag, because it describes a specific problem, but a predefined delete this user checkbox (just like not an answer or very low quality) would be way over the top.
    – slhck
    Aug 27, 2013 at 20:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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