Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Probationary shadowban for new accounts

Post

Probationary shadowban for new accounts

+2
−7

I'd like for communities to be able to opt in to a feature that shadowbans new accounts for a brief period of time. Moderators should be able to release accounts from the shadowban manually; they should also be released from the shadowban after the time period expires.

The initial duration can be quite short—an hour, maybe?—but ‘suspicious activity’, definition TBD but with some suggestions below, should rapidly increase the duration of the shadowban (say by doubling it for each red flag).

This would help prevent users who have been subject to other sorts of anti-abuse moderation (like STAT) from simply creating new accounts on new IP addresses and continuing their existing patterns of behavior. Across Codidact, we have, to my knowledge, exactly one user who does this, and does it frequently, and I would like it to stop once and for all.

Edit: The value of a short shadowban has been questioned in one answer, and ironically enough the motivation I had for that is in line with a different answer: the idea is to give the suspicious user enough rope to incriminate himself. Post once, and your post appears to the rest of the world in an hour. Post again before that hour is up, with some red flags in the second post, and now the ban is extended, and both posts remain hidden from the world for longer. This is better than a rate limit, because it lets us see the true colors of the suspicious user faster. And it's better than not imposing the shadowban at all initially, because there is no interval during which other users can be distracted by the posts that would be retroactively obliterated if the new user is successfully re-exiled.

Of course this is all predicated on moderators taking an active role in responding to new activity and firmly rejecting ban-evading accounts; nothing I could propose can substitute for that. But if I were such a moderator, I would want a tool like this to make it so that I can keep the community clean without having to watch it 24/7 for sneaky ban evaders.


Suggestions for ‘suspicious activity’:

  • Posting multiple questions all at once
  • Questions that are unusually short
  • Per-community lists of suspicious words—I can be 99.99% certain that any new account in the Mathematics community that posts a question with the words ‘pictorialize’ or ‘soothsay’, for example, is That Guy
History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

I’d like to try to understand this better. Is it that all new users would automatically not have thei... (2 comments)
Broader discussion (2 comments)
I’d like to try to understand this better. Is it that all new users would automatically not have thei...
Julius H.‭ wrote 9 months ago

I’d like to try to understand this better. Is it that all new users would automatically not have their content circulated and visible to other users, until passing a ‘probationary period’?

I can see the value in this. My only suggestion would possibly be a change in terminology. A “probationary period” sounds more understanding to me, as a way of asking users to demonstrate good will or intentions over time, in order to enter the site fully. On the other hand, “shadowban”, even if it means the same thing here, sometimes calls to mind (to me) that the user is not transparently informed about how a site policy is being applied to them. Is that part of the idea you had in mind? Thank you

r~~‭ wrote 9 months ago

the user is not transparently informed about how a site policy is being applied to them. Is that part of the idea you had in mind?

It is.

The idea is to use automated processes to extend the probationary period based on triggers that we don't reveal to non-moderators. (Revealing the triggers would make many of them gameable.) If the user knows when the probationary period ends, they can refrain from making additional posts until that point and then go on to behave differently after the period is over, defeating the mechanism. If the user is kept in the dark, they are encouraged to act naturally, and possibly trip additional triggers. Then moderators can catch them before any of their content goes public.