44

I have previously asked for a CM message to be raised when a user is destroyed for spamming

Raise a Community Manager message when an account is destroyed for spamming

but I have thought of a potentially better solution that doesn't need to involve the CMs.

If I come across an account that's spammed Stack Overflow (say) and needs to be destroyed I can check to see if there are any other accounts on other sites and then do one of the following:

  1. Check for spam posts on other sites and flag those. If there are no visible posts I can move on to the next option.
  2. Drop a note in TL to say that this account has spammed Stack Overflow - this would be one message per account.
  3. Do nothing.

Unfortunately, because there are often no visible posts and the relevant mods are not currently in TL I find myself doing 3. more and more often.

It would be nice if the system could raise an automatic annotation or preferably flag on the profile for the other sites' mods to see and process next time they are logged in. It doesn't require any extra human intervention and doesn't rely on people being online at the same time.

Of course this would apply for all deletion and destruction reasons. The other sites' mods would see the reason you chose and any notes you added. Personally I wouldn't mind if they also saw that it was me who "raised the flag" so if necessary they could ping me in TL for more information.

It could also apply to suspensions (thanks @rob but I think this might be less useful as suspensions are more common. If suspensions were considered then perhaps it should only be for those a year and over or if the user has been suspended multiple times.

12
  • 5
    I can imagine this not only being useful for spammers, but also for e.g. sockpuppets. – Tinkeringbell Mod Mar 4 at 15:19
  • 7
    Relying upon communication in the TL for this sort of stuff feels informal and inefficient in comparison to this idea (but admittedly, I am not a mod and have no idea how well this works in practice). With how many spammers mods destroy daily, many of whom have profiles on other sites and continue to spam in areas the first-responding mod cannot act within, this seems incredibly handy and far more efficient than what you currently have to do. – Spevacus Mar 4 at 15:23
  • 2
    @Tinkeringbell yeah, I should have made it clear that this would apply to all deletion/destruction reasons. – ChrisF Mod Mar 4 at 15:47
  • "preferably flag on the profile for the other sites' mods" given that SO, AU and SU get far more spam than other sites (10 times or more) my worry using flag is that smaller sites may get many more flags than they are used to dealing with when spammers have multiple sites across the network. And more if you add "all deletion/destruction reasons". – DavidPostill Mar 4 at 18:18
  • 3
    @DavidPostill you have a point, but most spammers I've seen, when the do create multiple accounts, seem to concentrate on the big sites anyway. A lot go for Security too. I don't think we'll overwhelm the other sites ;) – ChrisF Mod Mar 4 at 18:38
  • Chris, should also apply for long suspensions on one site (perhaps only if already suspended somewhere else); then if someone has a negative record or many warnings a CMm could be raised, perhaps resulting in a written warning from a CM (or worse). – Rob Mar 4 at 21:29
  • 1
    @Rob - I don't think automatic suspensions are warranted. A mod on one site has determined that an account is spamming, this is to raise that fact with other mods. If they agree they can deal with the account as they see fit. – ChrisF Mod Mar 4 at 22:20
  • When doing 1, you could also come to the tavern. We have specific staff that eat spammers for breakfast, lunch and dinner there. – Luuklag Mar 4 at 22:36
  • @Luuklag that's a workaround too and not very scalable – Journeyman Geek Mod Mar 5 at 9:24
  • 2
    Something annotation style would be ideal simply because context matters for a lot. A recaltrant troll needs a little more context than a spammer. – Journeyman Geek Mod Mar 5 at 9:54
  • 2
    For blatant spammers I'd prefer destruction to be automatic in clear cases, but that does seem to be a solution SE doesn't want to implement. This seems to be the next best thing, and would be useful beyond blatant spammers. – Mad Scientist Mar 5 at 21:10
  • 2
    @Luuklag In the absence of site-wide flags, I have started adding "spam" to a spammer's user name and #spam to the link in the profile, and saving these changes network-wide. This makes it easy for other sites to literally search for "spam" accounts and then destroy them. – Tsundoku May 13 at 0:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .