flag user for vandalizing site

On the flag user page the first rule states that flagging is for commercial spam only. I'd like to see it amended to include site vandalism as a flaggable offense.

Inspired by https://www.librarything.com/topic/347150#

>1 amanda4242: Yes. I was tempted to go ahead and do so. Joined today just to vandalize the site, it seems.

My suspicion is that this is a second account so the changes aren't logged to the real account.

I think this would be good to include, at least officially - it's already an acceptable reason for flagging, I think. Checking with the developers.

No. Members can contact staff, such as Kristi, when someone is misbehaving, but I fear that this would lead to ugly spats between members as people have very different understandings of vandalism and of what level of it is serious enough. Flagging takes a user's account down, preventing them from cataloging and removing their books. It can be reversed, but it's not a small thing.

I think it would be a good RSI to have some sort of different flag that "pauses" members from certain edits, but doesn't stop them from cataloging or remove their books, but that would require a lot of code that doesn't exist now.

>5 timspalding: Maybe that could be code for authors too, who tend to advertise improperly -- the learning experiences flag. You can catalog books but no posting or editing CK until you talk to admin?

Huh. I've never seen authors abuse CK. Mostly just drive-by Talk posting.

>7 paradoxosalpha: Not saying they do but saying it could be a part of the code.

I would very much disagree with restricting authors from posting anywhere on the site if they make a mistake. There are several places where they are encouraged to post and in my opinion its counter-productive to keep them from posting there, or to keep them from apologizing if they realize they've done something wrong. Also the "how authors can use librarything" page that we direct authors to encourages authors to fill out CK for their author page and works.

This is one thing that frustrates me about the decision to make all messages private. I used to be able to go to the author's private page and IF no one had told them, I would leave a message explaining why they can not advertise their works in Talk and give them the links to what authors are allowed and encouraged to do. Now that messages are private, I don't know if someone has already done that. But if I post that information in talk, it could duplicate what has already been said, keeps the Talk string active and people get annoyed.

>10 krazy4katz:

That is why people who post in the Spam Reporting threads are asked to indicate whether they have left a message for the member.

>11 lilithcat: OK, thank you! Now I know should look at the Spam reporting threads. I usually don't do that.

>6 gilroy: After pondering this overnight, I withdraw my expanded suggestion to make it for authors too. It would create too much confusion.

Maybe not a flag but a "notify LT" for authors/publishers who may need a word about how the site works? The latest: https://www.librarything.com/topic/326412#n7390099 - that message also bumps a very old topic in the list of current topics...

Another one from today (that got flagged) can be seen at https://www.librarything.com/topic/349434#8095813 There was another copy of the same message in Book Talk, but as its own topic.