29
$\begingroup$

There is a disruptive person who has been present on the site for months or years but flouts its rules. He posts nonsense and gets banned, sometimes for a year or more. He creates a new account and gets banned, either for low-quality posts or for “rule violations”. He creates a new account and gets banned. One of his accounts has a century-long ban. He has confessed/boasted (in a comment to me) to creating hundreds of accounts. Recently he has not even tried to “hide” by choosing a significantly different user name.

Certain obsessions and stylistic quirks make his posts easily recognizable. His posts attract downvotes like garbage attracts flies. He is a troll who exhibits no interest in actually learning physics and is often belligerent in comments when challenged. He also projects various of his disruptive behaviors onto other users.

When I report that he has established a new account, it sometimes takes many days for his latest account to be banned or deleted.

Is there no effective way to keep such ban-evaders from continuously disrupting the site? Other SE sites re-ban him considerably more quickly than Physics does.

Should I keep flagging posts that I am reasonably confident are from this person? Or should I just downvote and stop being bothered by the fact that bans — even for rule violations — are so ineffective?

(I refer to this person using male pronouns because I have reasons to believe he is in fact male.)

$\endgroup$
17
  • $\begingroup$ Likely related: Account "temporarily suspended" network-wide for the next 10 years, and cannot chat for 3 centuries? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 19:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @PeterMortensen The person I’m referring is almost certainly not that person. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 20:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Link some of the questions so we can see $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 20:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @hft I don’t think that level of disclosure regarding another user would be considered appropriate by our moderators. If a moderator asks me to do so, I will. Fortunately, this person’s accounts and questions keep getting deleted (either by moderators, or by him, or by the garbage collector), so currently I could point to only one question. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @hft I’m not trying to draw attention to one particular user. I want to understand why user bans are so ineffective. Is it because VPN use makes IP bans impossible? And I want to know whether I should just ignore ban violations, if there is nothing that can be done except whack-a-mole. But why have bans at all if they can be so easily evaded? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 21:01
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @hft It's not appropriate to abuse the edit function to briefly transmit private information. And Ghoster is correct that such information would be removed from this post if it were added; we almost never do user-specific callouts here on Physics Meta. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ @hft The moderators have responded with “Helpful” to flags I’ve raised for multiple accounts that I have accused of ban evasion. (I don’t recall any being declined.) I believe that they have all been the same person, but I can’t prove it. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2024 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe if it's possible to somehow detect that user uses temporary account, for example some black-listed email domains then as per definition all temporary accounts could be blocked from the start without analyzing to whom it belongs. Maybe some deep neural network could be trained to detect temporary accounts if such blacklisted metadata is in moderate amounts and has enough features. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2024 at 9:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The Charcoal team chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/11540/charcoal-hq track trolls, especially trolls that operate on multiple sites. They automatically detect comments & posts that have rude / abusive flags, and can add their own flags to speed up the removal of such material. They also accept manual reports of troll activity. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ Try having Charcoal blacklist their name so their posts can be found and deleted faster. Unless they already did so. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 19:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user16217248 What name do you mean? The offender keeps creating accounts with new names. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Ghoster A reply to 'Recently he has not even tried to “hide” by choosing a significantly different user name.' But I am not sure how 'significantly' different the names are. If they are similar enough, they could be blacklisted. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ @user16217248 Most of his user names have been quite different from each other. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 20:16
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @user16217248 There are a small number of unwelcome users who are just as clever as the folks who run Charcoal and the folks who serve as moderators and the folks for whom upkeep of the Stack Exchange community is a paid obligation. When these individuals decide to bother us for a while, it's a real hassle across the entire SE network. They seem to occasionally have a great deal of free time. It's sort of like trying to win a battle of wills with a petulant child: the adult is at a disadvantage because the adult has other things to do, while the child's time is unencumbered. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 7, 2024 at 16:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ how do you know it is the same user? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17, 2024 at 17:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
22
$\begingroup$

The lesson here is "don't feed the trolls"

This probably won't be something that can be solved easily or quickly, or maybe at all.

It's a fact that in wider society there are people who flout laws and bans by courts with staggering regularity. Some people just like causing trouble, for no useful reason.

However, there is a case for escalating this to the highest level. Perhaps some kind of ban can be made to work. Speaking as a technical person, technical people like a challenge. Perhaps someone on staff can devise a better mechanism to detect/deter this kind of nuisance. Perhaps legal steps can be taken to e.g. deny them the use of their VPN (if that's what they're doing).

But ultimately we may simply have to accept that some flies won't buzz off. Eventually, of course, they push their luck and annoy people who swat them.

What we should do, is not engage them. Just vote to close and down vote and move on. People like this want attention, take away their attention and they go away and move on.

But don't feed the trolls. Don't debate with them, or try to explain or waste your energy on them beyond the minimum required to close them down.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I know not to feed trolls. I’m looking for guidance from moderators about whether to stop flagging accounts that are likely evading a ban. And I would like to understand why other SE sites are able to re-ban such accounts much faster. One questionable account received a year-long suspension for rule violations, from two other sites, only one day after being established. That account is still under consideration by our moderators. Perhaps other sites have sleuthing techniques that our moderators could use to stop ban evaders faster. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 0:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ghoster I'm not saying you intend to feed trolls, but I've learned the hard way that trolls thrive of any attention. I don't quite understand the psychology of it, but they want attention and they don't seem to care what kind they get. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 0:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I started to write an answer about the perspective from the other side of the moderator diamond, but I'm just going to endorse this answer instead. I share @Ghoster's suspicion that there is mostly one troll in question here, and that they are a particular individual who has been unwelcome on the network for ages. Sometimes they get bored and go away for a while. The more boring their experience here, the more likely they are to go away again. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 5:50
  • $\begingroup$ @rob Should I continue to flag his accounts for moderator attention or stop bothering? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 5:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @rob I would like to discuss the moderation team’s response to his Holocaust jokes yesterday in private with the team. Is there a way I can do that? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 6:08
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ @Ghoster Your flags are helpful. Please continue. But your engagement with the user in comments is probably counterproductive. As a rule, it's better to Flag It And Move On (FIAMO) than to loiter in comments. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 6:09
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Ghoster I wasn't active yesterday and didn't see those "jokes." Let me see what the other mods think about a private chat — note that we all have different schedules. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2024 at 6:11
8
$\begingroup$

Bumped, since the stink has not gone away (or a different stink has emerged, as it always will).

I think the only answers are:

(1) Do not engage. (Easier said than done, when a question might look genuine).

(2) Vigilance and for users who have the requisite privileges to quickly flag and vote to close/delete posts from obvious ban-evaders and those who flout the guidelines.

(3) For moderators to take swift, decisive action when these issues are flagged.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with all three points. About (1) though, worth adding that usually such users at most post questions that look genuine but are either completely trivial or a duplicate of an existing question. So I would add to (1) that it isn't that difficult to spot a question that tries to pose as a genuine one by doing a bit of due diligence: both on the content of the question, and on the user posting it (incidentally, that's why as you know, there's a special review queue for "First questions") . $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 23, 2024 at 14:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.