What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

I've been blocked from the review queues, and I don't know why. I recently hit +2K rep on Stack Overflow, so I have just started reviewing Suggested Edits and Low Quality.

The message says that I have failed too many review audits, and I have had a few over the past few days, but I don't recall failing any. Perhaps, I've strayed from the consensus, or chosen the Improve option too often? If it is actually a moderator, shouldn't this message say something else?

This is possibly a duplicate of this question. If there's a reason, that's fine, I'd just like to know what it is. I love this community, despite its occasional prickliness, and would like to continue contributing.

share|improve this question
    
You were manually banned from review by a moderator. I'm not going to guess why though. –  animuson Nov 14 '13 at 18:37
1  
@animuson Is there any way to find out which moderator? Currently, I can only hazard guesses at what I did wrong. –  Hannele Nov 14 '13 at 18:37
7  
Presumably you don't want to discuss this publicly, in which case using the "contact us" link at the bottom of any page would likely be best, so you can discuss this with the mods/staff in private. –  Servy Nov 14 '13 at 18:55
    
@Servy Brings up a good point; do you want the details discussed publicly by the moderator in question? (not me). Someone could also post some opinions of some of your reviews which are visible on your profile, if you wanted. –  Andrew Barber Nov 14 '13 at 19:00
1  
As far as I know, all of the details of the review queue are public, no? But I have sent a message using 'Contact Us', as suggested. –  Hannele Nov 14 '13 at 19:09
    
@Hannele Most of the review actions you've taken are public (not quite all though, depending on the queue). The reason you were banned isn't technically public though (unless you want it to be; if you want to discuss it publicly you have that right). –  Servy Nov 14 '13 at 19:15
3  
Looking at some of the most recent reviews, I can't say anything stands out. So as far as community support goes here, there's not much to give, unless I'm missing something. Best discuss that directly with those involved I think. –  Bart Nov 14 '13 at 19:16
1  
Reviewing your activity, you had at least 4 that were contrary to the ultimate decision, 2-3 in a row of which went against Community ♦ directly. Don't know if that means anything. –  JoshDM Nov 14 '13 at 19:22
7  
@JoshDM Community doesn't make real reviews, just owns reviews caused by outside factors (like someone deciding to improve a suggested edit), so that shouldn't mean anything. –  psubsee2003 Nov 14 '13 at 19:32
1  
@psubsee2003 - I... I had no idea. Oh my god. My relationship with Community ♦ is a sham! A-guh. A-guh. A... w-wait, I... I'm free? I'M FREE! THANK YOU! OH THANK YOU! –  JoshDM Nov 14 '13 at 19:59
3  
Can I use this opportunity to say that this is really important? –  U2744 SNOWFLAKE Nov 15 '13 at 0:03
    
Ack, and sorry about that. The 30-day ban was supposed to be for the other two and I really didn’t look at your history as thoroughly as I should have. –  U2744 SNOWFLAKE Nov 15 '13 at 0:10
    
@minitech no harm done! Thanks :) –  Hannele Nov 15 '13 at 3:33

1 Answer 1

up vote 12 down vote accepted

It appears your ban was triggered by your review of this spam answer. While this was a serious mistake, 30 days is a bit excessive for a single error - so I've reduced the length to 1 day.

In the future, please pay special attention to answers that do nothing but recommend external sites/tools. They're often spam - and even when they're not, they often indicate a poorly-asked question.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! As I recall, it seemed like a reasonable late response to the question (to at least one other person, as well), but unfortunately I can no longer read the answer to confirm. –  Hannele Nov 14 '13 at 20:46
    
also, link-only answers typically deserve a helpful comment at best, a NAA flag even if they don't spam according to some mods –  Jan Dvorak Nov 14 '13 at 20:49
5  
@Hannele Here is a screenshot of the spam answer.. –  Josh Crozier Nov 14 '13 at 20:52
5  
Note that the author of that post also produced 2 other, identical posts on other questions. This wouldn't have shown up in review, but it's a good check to make if you're on the fence regarding the spamminess of a given answer. –  Shog9 Nov 14 '13 at 20:53
    
@Shog9 this also raises an auto-flag. Doesn't this mean we're doing redundant work by checking? –  Jan Dvorak Nov 14 '13 at 20:55
    
Thanks again! I will keep these things in mind when I can review again (and thank you for decreasing that time). –  Hannele Nov 14 '13 at 21:02
1  
@Jan: not really; flags are grouped by post, so if anything it just makes the moderator's job slightly easier if it really is spam - note that if you find such a flag in the 10K queue, spam-flagging or dispute-flagging is a great way to speed up the removal or dismissal of the post/flag. And of course, if it isn't spam it's good to have more eyes on that too. –  Shog9 Nov 14 '13 at 21:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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