What can be done when the a user posts the same type of content in various answers and comments on various questions despite not being relevant to the topic and the content cannot be substantiated?
The Stack Exchange system works well to cope with individuals who appear from time to time and attempt to use the system to
- propagate a pet theory
- disparage a theory
- just have a lot of argumentative strife because they enjoy it
The way it works is by voting. If someone receives sufficient negative votes the user at fault will receive an automatic ban - for a few days, I think it is five - to give them a chance to 'cool down' and to re-think the way in which they are using the system.
No moderator is involved, I understand. It is the system itself which computes widespread negative votes and takes the initiative.
On other sites with which I am acquainted (I prefer not to say which) unhelpful behaviour is rapidly sorted by voting.
On SE-Christianity, I have noticed that far more tolerance is given, by those who have voting reputation, to persons whose agenda is clearly not in the interests of the community.
I have always supposed that this is because, as a 'Christianity' site it is felt that massive tolerance should be extended.
Personally, I think that is a mistake.
Personally, I think that those with voting reputation should take the positive step required to express a discipline that will correct or prevent the behaviour.
That said, there is also a factor built into the system which prevents either unbalanced favouritism or unbalanced discrimination. The system will sense rapid up- or down- voting by one individual towards another individual and will, after a certain point, cancel out the imbalance.
I once received a batch of over-generosity from someone systematically going through all my past questions and up-voting them, resulting in about a couple of hundred rep points in a day (the maximum permitted). The following day the whole lot was cancelled out.
It's a good system : we just need to use it rightly.
So, having a semi-sympathetic moderator probably doesn't help much. I don't believe in trolls and I know, from a few conversations, that there's a person who can be reached in there.
Flag every comment you don't enjoy and I'll promise, at least until we get a new mod or two, to at least mark it as helpful, even if I don't necessarily delete the post right away.
My suggestion is to not engage a person who is talking abject nonsense. How can someone justify banning one person for a two-sided argument in comments?
Also, it takes a lot of imagination to come up with some of those answers, so I'd say lighten up a bit! Maybe Mason or El'inda will, but I don't think I'd ban a person from the site unless they're going to be nasty.
Just asking the question on meta and doing individual appropriate measures likes flagging will get results like this.
Since posting this question, I flagged some comments as being harassment. Some comments included statements that were unfounded or unsupported and others contained untruths. Facts do not lie, they can be misunderstood, but they can not lie.
Thanks for bringing up this situation eques.