49

I was just suggested an edit.

In case you are not able to view the link here's the screenshot - Warning: Abusive language

So I wanted to report this user (not just this post). Moreover, this id seems like an attempt-at-revenge to me.

Is there a way we could ban this email id (so that no more ids can be ever created using this email id)?

35
  • 3
    Maybe don't inline the extremely offensive edit text in your screenshot
    – Magisch
    May 25, 2018 at 11:12
  • If they don’t have any posts, you can flag one of your own posts.
    – Jed Fox
    May 25, 2018 at 11:13
  • 71
    You know, maybe it's time to stop pointing users at the workarounds and just implement profile flagging already.
    – user247702
    May 25, 2018 at 11:16
  • 1
    @Videonauth can i flag this comment as well?
    – BlackBeard
    May 25, 2018 at 11:17
  • 3
    @Stijn agreed. SE should take spam and r/a concerns up a notch.
    – Suraj Rao
    May 25, 2018 at 11:17
  • 2
    @BlackBeard you can flag a comment, but since comment flags go into a different queue than post-flags, it's better to flag a post in this case. And yes, just flag a post of your own, link to the profile, explain the situation as best as you can in 500 characters and that's that. Although I think you've reached the mods as well by posting this on meta.
    – Adriaan
    May 25, 2018 at 11:23
  • 1
    @Adriaan Still, it feels like a hack to me. Not what I was hoping for.
    – BlackBeard
    May 25, 2018 at 11:24
  • 7
    They're gone now. May 25, 2018 at 11:30
  • 1
    @JonClements Who are they? (the edits, the user(s), the questions with php tag) May 25, 2018 at 11:33
  • 8
    @AndréKool the Dolphins... They were thankful for the fish though... May 25, 2018 at 11:35
  • 2
    @JonClements As a diamond badge holder (Moderator) can you take this matter to the concerned people? (So that end users do not have to use these type of hacky ways of gaining mod's attention.)
    – BlackBeard
    May 25, 2018 at 11:36
  • 1
    @NickA now they're gone
    – user3956566
    May 25, 2018 at 11:44
  • 3
    @Yvette, They're not gone. May 25, 2018 at 11:56
  • 3
    I want to edit the bold text into Warning! Profane language because it isn't really NSFW somehow (For things like violent images or pornography, I would leave it being said "NSFW").
    – iBug
    May 26, 2018 at 13:02
  • 5
    @JonClements fyi this user has been targeted MULTIPLE times, with at least 5 instances I can personally testify to. Any chance of an IP ban helping here? This person is evil, the target of their harassment is even underage.
    – cs95
    May 26, 2018 at 22:07

4 Answers 4

27

Flag the answer that was edited with a custom mod flag. Explain to the mod what happened, link to the proposed edit in the custom description. Then let the mod handle it.

18

Polygnome's answer is correct: you use a custom moderator flag on the affected post, with a link to the attempted edit.

That leaves the title question: why is there no way to flag an individual user? The answer is that Stack Overflow wants to focus on the content, not on the individual user.
Unfortunately, some trolls abuse this by making accounts that don't have posts. Trolls have created accounts that had no activity beyond just having a hateful name and/or avatar.

If an account has no activity at all, other than just having a trolling name and/or avator... you could try to flag one of your own posts to explain the situation.

(Since this is now a feature-request):

IF we implement this as a feature, it needs some restrictions. It's easy to imagine a new user, angry at a downvote or comment, flagging another user's profile out of spite.
As a few examples of restrictions:

  • it should require a minimum of rep.
  • and/or it should only be possible to flag new profiles
  • and/or it should only be possible to flag profiles that don't have answers or questions.

With restrictions like that, we can use such a flag against troll accounts, without inviting too much abuse.

8
  • The `good' thing about that kind of rude behaviour is that barely anyone will encounter it, as the usual way of seeing a username/avatar is when they have activity on the site. Doesn't make it any better that it exists though.
    – Adriaan
    May 25, 2018 at 11:42
  • 1
    That or post the issue on meta. But those seems like hack to me. Why not implement this basic feature of flagging the profile? (And block this email id from further coming back)
    – BlackBeard
    May 25, 2018 at 11:43
  • @BlackBeard It's a workaround. You could post a feature request to enable us to flag profiles, though I suspect it will be declined. I expect that people would also use such a flag to simply flag people out of spite :-( . May 25, 2018 at 11:45
  • With respect to the e-mail address, I'm pretty sure that once the moderators have destroyed an account, the offending user will find it hard to create a new account. May 25, 2018 at 11:46
  • No they just delete the profile here on SO. AFAIK the don't block the email id from coming back/creating more profiles.
    – BlackBeard
    May 25, 2018 at 11:48
  • With "minimum rep" do you mean more than the current 15 required for flagging? And "new" in the sense as with answers, where answers older than 60 days can't be flagged as Very Low Quality? The last restriction seems like it can be used for this case indeed.
    – Adriaan
    May 25, 2018 at 12:12
  • @Adriaan Maybe the normal 15 rep required for flagging would be enough; there should at least be some threshold. As for the definition of a new account... I don't think troll accounts last more than a few days, let alone 60. So 60 days should be enough. May 25, 2018 at 12:20
  • -1. Not enough severity for the dev time when there's already a custom mod flag. Explain it clearly and mods are able to handle it well.
    – iBug
    May 26, 2018 at 13:04
7

This is an adjunct to flagging. If users are concerned about new accounts popping up with abusive usernames or intentions, I wrote a query here, to search for such accounts.

Search usernames and about me by any keyword

Please flag any and all malicious activity you see. If the account has no posts, custom flag the nearest post or comment with the url and reason in the custom flag reason.

0
-32

Because Stack Overflow is not a community where you interact with users. This is by design, and personally I think it's the most important factor behind its success.

If the user is posting problematic content, by all means, report it. Moderators can see patterns and block or ban a user if necessary.

14
  • 7
    There is nothing you can flag at this user since he hasn't produced any flagable content. The username and the rejected edit are problematic. Non of them can be flagged.
    – BDL
    May 25, 2018 at 11:29
  • 1
    @BDL In which case the workaround is to mod-flag one of your own posts and explain the situation. I've had to do that before with someone who was abusing tag wiki edits, but did not have any Qs or As visible. Not a great solution though. May 25, 2018 at 11:32
  • 6
    Exactly, but the answer says "report problematic content". But it doesn't answer how to do this when there is no reportable content. What you say is absolutely correct, but the answer misses the point.
    – BDL
    May 25, 2018 at 11:35
  • @BDL If there is no content to flag, I don't see a problem
    – pipe
    May 25, 2018 at 11:41
  • 8
    @pipe the problem is that if one has a rude username/avatar/profile text is that you can't flag that, since there's no way to flag a user's profile. That's what this question is about, not whether you should flag offensive content. The content is there, there's just no straight-forward way of flagging it.
    – Adriaan
    May 25, 2018 at 11:44
  • @Adriaan Ok, maybe it's just me having a hard time getting upset about something that's not visible. Since there's no content, there's no way to get to it. As soon as there's content, it'll be flagged.
    – pipe
    May 25, 2018 at 11:49
  • 7
    I just told you, there is content. It's on a profile page. Admitted, it's hard to find, but the content exists, they just posted it in a hard-to-find place with no flagging option. You keep on missing the point of this question.
    – Adriaan
    May 25, 2018 at 11:52
  • @Adriaan Yes, you have to actively search for rude words in the list of users to find it. A pretty minor threat.
    – pipe
    May 25, 2018 at 12:00
  • 1
    @pipe so? If it's hard to find but insulting, it's fine? The user is putting themselves forward by editing, which exposes reviewers to the content. So volunteers who want to take their time to help clean up the site may be shown this... Minor or not, it should be eradicated
    – Patrice
    May 25, 2018 at 12:12
  • 1
    @Patrice I just believe that the ability to flag a user will be more damaging to the website than the current situation.
    – pipe
    May 25, 2018 at 12:18
  • 1
    @pipe fair. That's somewhat different that 'the content is hard to find, so it's not a problem' though. I don't agree it'll be damaging but I can see how someone could see it that way. I still think this is very different than saying the content isn't a problem because it's hard to find.
    – Patrice
    May 25, 2018 at 12:19
  • 3
    I think the more important point is that sure the profile by itself is very difficult to come across naturally without any additional content; but suggested edits count as additional content because it is content that is being put in front of users. Which begs the question of why there is no option to flag a suggested edit directly. Being able to flag suggested edits would alleviate most of the problem, but users can still be found on the users page. If the name contains a common name plus an expletive or what have you, then it would show up in a search for the common name.
    – user4639281
    May 25, 2018 at 19:56
  • In this particular case, there was a post by the user in question (since deleted, of course), which could have been flagged.
    – Mr Lister
    May 26, 2018 at 12:50
  • 1

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/368585/why-is-there-no-report-flag-in-a-profile
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2023-50
186693
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7RSP2BQRSVEFIKZNIR6762RKZWPBEJ3N
<urn:uuid:c2e1e43d-8091-4ee6-9f35-8dffba86ef15>
2023-12-10T12:01:03Z
172.64.155.249
text/html
sha1:4QT6ZYVUHWM6YWLMIUD7QIWCH2TRL6V4
<urn:uuid:d500dc6e-e9a1-465f-b1e9-1e44dc6e2111>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/368585/why-is-there-no-report-flag-in-a-profile
response
<urn:uuid:2eae2abf-2a35-44ed-ab6b-73180e30b28f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-66
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/