Recently, a certain user posted an answer to a question on here that a moderator commented on: it needed to provide evidence.

The answer was updated with links, upon which the moderator gave another warning that evidence needed to be provided. The OP then commented back: "You can go **** yourself, this is your first warning."

After having a chat with the guy concerned on another site about this, it turns out that he did it in jest, thought it was funny, and expected it to be deleted. However, he recently got two one year bans in succession on another site for being similarly rude to other community-members/moderators.

With the above in mind, I would have expected the next step in escalation of discipline would have been something on the lines of:

  • two year ban only on this site
  • one month network wide ban on the
    whole network

A ten year network ban seems way over the top to me, from what I've been told happened. I thought the guy had done something far more serious such as spamming and defacing the whole network with abusive, offensive posts to be as destructive as possible for the sake of it. So I would like to know if some sort of consultation takes place among moderators when giving out ten year network wide bans to members.

| |
  • 2
    Without knowing the details of this particular case (maybe a link would help?), I have to assume there's more to the story. Network bans and suspensions > 1 year are in the domain of employees, not regular moderators. It's entirely possible there's something on another site or that has been deleted which played into the decision. But I can only speculate without looking at the specific case. – Jon Ericson Aug 18 '16 at 18:26
  • 1
    As far as I'm concerned, longer suspensions than a year are something SE staff can only do, not moderators. And usually when staff are involved, you're missing a lot of context. – M.A.R. Aug 18 '16 at 18:27
  • The moderator concerned is an employee. He comes across as someone very honest and fair, from what I've seen of him on here, so I doubt he used his unique powers to issue that level of discipline without consulting anyone else. – Larry Harson Aug 18 '16 at 18:35
  • @LarryHarson I was not involved in the suspension. – Sklivvz Aug 18 '16 at 20:24
  • 1
    There is an absolutely huge amount of history in this case, not only on Skeptics but on several other sites as well. There were many escalations before this network-wide suspension – Mad Scientist Aug 19 '16 at 13:04

The network-wide suspension was not performed by the moderators of this site. We do not have the power to inflict network-wide suspensions. It was performed by Community Managers working for Stack Overflow, the company. (No, not @Sklivvz, but I don't know who or how many were involved.)

Generally, site suspensions of more than about a week are discussed amongst the mods first. All mods are automatically notified of all site suspensions, so a mod can't go rogue.

While I have no evidence, I do not believe the network-wide suspension was merely a reaction to the single inappropriate (and hardly "funny") comment. I believe it was a response to continued abuse coming from that user across a number of different Stack Exchange sites. The user waited out a number of suspensions from a number of sites (including several from Skeptics) without any visible improvement in behaviour. I think it is reasonable at some point for the Stack Overflow company to decide the commercial cost of managing this user outweighs the potential value they might contribute to the network. The resources can be better spent improving the community elsewhere.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .