Recurring spammers

**pnewton** · #1 Jan 10, '10, 8:51 pm

I was wondering if there are any solutions to such a persistant problem. We have been dealing with a daily problem this week, but in the past similar emergencies have emerged in the wee hours.

Can new members be required to wait until they start threads, for example?

I have also wondered if there were not some way, after a new user gets a certain number of reported posts, that they could not be put in stasis, as it were, until a moderator could delete them. It woud take out the element of time when some of the really bad stuff hits. The only down-side would be possible retributional use of such a tool by a group of people, but I think that would be a rarity.

Third suggestion. A new class of assistant moderators that only intervene in extraordinary circumstances: spam, banned members returning, offensive pictures or language, and the new category of abuse, threats of violence.

Pray4Life · #2 Jan 10, '10, 9:10 pm

I was wondering- if I might piggyback on your post here, pnewton- whether CAF logs IP addresses? It might be worth doing so, if not, to ban those addresses belonging to members who have repeatedly been banned/deleted for spamming, harassment, etc. I did some moderator work on a different message board and this was standard practice, and though there are ways around it, it is at least a discouragement and can slow 'em down a little. Plus I know there is some way the admins there could report members who engaged in legally questionable activities (harassment, threats, etc) to their ISP. I have seen what pnewton is referring to thanks to a couple of late nights and it is deeply disturbing.

I hope some solution can be reached to prevent this from continuing to happen.

Botan91 · #3 Jan 10, '10, 11:11 pm

I also saw this particular spammer and it was very upsetting. But I think banning new members from starting new threads would be too restrictive. This is a religious website and a lot of people come here when they have a spiritual crisis and need help as quickly as possible. I think employing more lower level moderators would be a good solution since the last night when this spammer was on I think you were the only moderator available at that time but I'm not sure.

SunnaB16 · #4 Jan 10, '10, 11:23 pm

pnewton
Has anybody ever told you that that wretched picture is hard on the eyes?!!!

**pnewton** · #5 Jan 10, '10, 11:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunnaB16

pnewton
Has anybody ever told you that that wretched picture is hard on the eyes?!!!

Do yo have any useful suggestions to add on this topic?

SunnaB16 · #6 Jan 11, '10, 12:59 am

My My! Aren`t some of us touchy!
There are two useful suggestions:
1. To remove your picture to make your Posts easier to read. That constant flickering does cause strain for some.
2. Would it be possible for you to be a bit more civil?

Sincere apologies if you meant it in jest: it`s hard to tell when we`re seeing only print.

**pnewton** · #7 Jan 11, '10, 1:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunnaB16

My My! Aren`t some of us touchy!
There are two useful suggestions:
1. To remove your picture to make your Posts easier to read. That constant flickering does cause strain for some.

I do change such things periodically, but this is for suggestion to the staff, not other members. I just like to keep things on topic. One is always free to start a new thread when one wants to introduce a new idea.

Quote:

2. Would it be possible for you to be a bit more civil?

All things are possible.

feargalmac · #8 Jan 11, '10, 4:10 am

I think Pray4Life is onto something. I have seen this in action before, but with dynamic IP's it would have to be temporary.

Pied397 · #9 Jan 11, '10, 4:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

I was wondering if there are any solutions to such a persistant problem. We have been dealing with a daily problem this week, but in the past similar emergencies have emerged in the wee hours.

Can new members be required to wait until they start threads, for example?

I have also wondered if there were not some way, after a new user gets a certain number of reported posts, that they could not be put in stasis, as it were, until a moderator could delete them. It woud take out the element of time when some of the really bad stuff hits. The only down-side would be possible retributional use of such a tool by a group of people, but I think that would be a rarity.

Third suggestion. A new class of assistant moderators that only intervene in extraordinary circumstances: spam, banned members returning, offensive pictures or language, and the new category of abuse, threats of violence.

Wow,

It seems as though everyone has digressed. As a new user, I agree with Botan91. I have viewed the forum many times before, but joined just last week because I had a question that I needed answered. Just because someone has ruined the "probationary period" by spamming doesn't mean that the rest of us aren't for real.
As far as spamming goes, if someone has confirmed their SN with an email address, then you can, as a site administrator assure that that address is barred from registering again. Additionally, SNs of people who spam should also be barred.

That's my two cents, though I haven't been subject to viewing the spam - if it's still up then an Administrator needs to remove it.

Sarah

**pnewton** · #10 Jan 11, '10, 11:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pied397

That's my two cents, though I haven't been subject to viewing the spam - if it's still up then an Administrator needs to remove it.

Sarah

And there in is the rub. An Administrator or Moderator is not always readily available. I know what you mean about new users jumping in to just ask a question. I am sure that does not need to be discouraged.

It is a sticky question.