Human exception handlers

I've done a pretty good job of not contributing to StackExchange over the last few months, but I haven't been able to break myself of the habit of looking in. At first I could claim to be holding out hope that I would see something on meta.stackexchange that would let me change my mind, but at this point it's pretty clear that I just don't want to give it all up yet.

So I see things that, in the past, would have required me to do something and I have to sit on my hands instead. (Aside: they still haven't pulled my diamond. It's been more than three months!)

Today I see a situation that requires, in Jeff's words, exception handling: there is a user on a site who is posting dozens of pretty bad answers to old questions. By "pretty bad" I mean a range of things including "more wrong than right" through "pointless and not adding anything" to "possibly a useful insight but so badly phrased as to be more confusing than helpful". And they are putting up several of these an hour (I guess they have some time at home...). It's not being very productive on the rep front but in the past two days they've managed to net more than one hundred rep this way (averaging a bit over two points per post).

It's not something a ordinary user can do much about because any attempt to do so would be targeted voting or a sustained pattern of negative comments (which is to say "not nice"). It needs a moderator to step in a put the brakes on it. Stack Exchange moderators can use the contact users and suspension tools for on-going poor quality contributions, and this seems like a exemplar for the need.

A lot of things that call for moderator action are like this: a user exhibits a behavior that could normally be treated by other mechanisms with unusual intensity or in a manner to reduce the effectivness of the usual controls.