@nbro: I think we should reserve "spammer" for posts that try to promote some external resource, anything from dodgy AI conferences to the usual pills, potions and magic finances. The site has some strong rules associated with marking content as spam, and it is inappropriate to use those tools against site users that simply don't meet site quality targets
A user who repeatedly asks low quality questions, or provides low quality answers, or who argues excessively in comments, should go through the moderation stages that we have of course. I thought some of that was automated for early stages (e.g. too many negative questions or. answers start to limit what the account can do), and that full on active moderation was a last resort for people who evade the automation and continue to cause problems.
Yes, spammer is not the right word, according to the definition of spammer. Do you have a better name for someone that seems to have 10 IQ when asking questions? But it's not just that. There's a difference between someone that asks 1-2 poor questions (and then improves after some constructive feedback) and someone that continually asks poor questions to the point that you wonder if they are asking in good faith or not (even if after the constructive feedback, which is ignored completely).
I think that kind of user might be some variant of "Help vampire" i.e. somehow they still feel compelled to use the site and follow less than useful patterns, because they get something from the experience. I would not want to asume malice, even if interactions can sometimes cause such a user to lash out at the negative feedback the questions get.
Handling members of the public that don't "get" the site, or who simply want it to be something it is not, and keep using it that way, is I think one of the less rewarding tasks in moderation. Such people are not happy to be blocked from doing things that they see nothing wrong with themselves
@nbro You suspended the user multiple times, but for how long? I guess you went all the way up to 1-year. Would it have been possible to do it for 2 years? Or would have have to get a CM to approve that? This would actually stop the user from asking questions, whereas deleting their profile can easily be undone by the user recreating it?
