He was both an active user and one with lot of upvotes. I think the parties who suspended him should explain why.
A suspension is a matter between the mods of the site and the user. This information is not aired publicly out of respect for that user.
To quote Jeff Atwood:
There are two parties here:
- The individual user is always informed via email why it is happening.
- Moderators have access to user account annotations that tell them why it happened.
In general, it is a private matter between the moderators and that particular user.
I believe it is the reponsibility and right of the user who was placed in timed suspension to have the freedom to discuss (or not discuss) what happened to them.
It is a basic matter of respecting other users' privacy.
Tim, Russell, User, et al.
I think you guys are correct, and that I was suspended for using the rollback option on the question repeatedly, and repeatedly requesting (through flag, comment, and chat) that the question be allowed to remain the same, or else be deleted. I can't think of what else I did, nothing I said was obscene, and even my complaints weren't all that bad. I thought the rollback option was there for my use as the author. I never thought I would be suspended for using an option the website made freely available to me.
As I said, I THINK that was the reason, but I don't actually know. Because despite the moderators' posts I NEVER RECEIVED A WARNING OR EMAIL indicating why I was suspended. When I saw this question I even check all my junkmail. Nada.
I sent an email to the stack team requesting the reason be posted here, explicitly waiving my privacy related to this suspension. Not that I be unsuspended, just that the reason be posted. I also even made these posts on related stack boards expressing the same: this one and this one,. I didn't seem to have much other recourse for addressing the issues, for all the good those three actions made.
Sklivvz, since I think you were the moderator who initiated the suspension, your turn to answer (for the first time).
(Sklivvz) Edited with the permission of Dogmafrog: find the full transcript here.
As far as I understand there are rules about how the Penalty Box feature is to be used: There are nine different reasons why someone can be banned:
Other users tend to react poorly to this user’s contributions, posting negative responses in kind and generally causing a commotion.
There is a broad sense of community resentment over this user’s behavior, and they are frequently cited in discussion about the community.
There is a dark storm cloud of moderator flags that seems to follow this user around wherever they go.
The moderators get email complaints about this user’s behavior. This user makes overtly snide, rude, or hostile comments to their fellow users.
This user does not put reasonable effort into the questions they ask of the community.
There is little or no evidence of this user learning over time, either in the topic itself or in the community norms on the site.
This user intentionally spams the site with the same question or very similar questions, over and over.
The user never gives anything back to the community, but only takes.
I don't think banning a person because they Rollback a question is in the spirit of those rules. A single disagreement with a moderator about how a question should be edited isn't included.
The rules aren't about punishing a single instance but about punishing a person who's a problem in multiple cases.
The general spirit of moderation is defined as:
Our general strategy is to discourage specific problem behaviors, not individual users. But sometimes you just can’t seem to reach people, and it becomes necessary to place accounts in timed suspension.
Without even sending Dogmafrog a warning about using the Rollback feature before the ban it's very hard to argue that Sklivvz tried to reach Dogmafrog about the behavior. I would like a detailed explanation of why Sklivvz thinks that a ban was necessary when he hadn't tried to contact Dogmafrog via email or comment to tell him that he isn't allowed to rollback.
Given the evidence, moderation is becoming too heavy handed. In this case the community reopened a question and a single moderator took it on himself to realign the site to his preferences. I'm disappointed that the other moderators backed him, but that does not excuse it. Just read through comments and histories and you can see that Sklivvz is very antagonistic in style. He seems to take personal affront whenever someone questions him. He's not above going into comment diatribes to explain when others are wrong.
Moderators should be more calm, cool, and level headed. What this looks like is a user trying to make a point about over moderation and being smacked down for daring.
I know why.
In response to one moderator's request to change the title of his post in exchange for reopening it, he left a comment, stating that his title for that question is fine, and he has no intention to change it in exchange for something.
His comment soon got deleted as if nothing had happened. But anyone who has read it will clearly remember his feeling about his own post, because it is shared among many of us here.
If you looked at the revision history of the post, you will understand he not only said it but also had tried all he could.