Timeline for Avoid the Streisand Effect - be clear about the reason when suspending an account
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20 at 21:40 | comment | added | CPlus | Could this list please be updated for 2024? I have seen a handful of new reasons not listed here, including 'for rollback wars' 'for posting inaccurate AI content or plagiarism' 'for ban evasion' | |
| Mar 9, 2023 at 8:01 | history | edited | V2BlastStaff | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
updated answer
|
| Mar 9, 2023 at 6:40 | comment | added | V2Blast Staff | @FedericoPoloni: Only if the "something else..." mod message template is chosen for the mod message accompanying the suspension (as indicated in the question post for the answer you linked to). "To cool down" is still shown for a few other mod message templates. | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 15:20 | comment | added | convert | "for voting irregularities" But how is that defined? | |
| May 10, 2020 at 10:17 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @DonaldDuck Apparently the reason "to cool down" has been changed to "for rule violations": meta.stackexchange.com/a/101409/243091 | |
| Feb 28, 2018 at 16:02 | comment | added | Donald Duck | I may be mistaken, but I think I've also seen someone suspended "for rule violations". Edit: I just found one. I'm not sure it's appropriate to link to the profile page here, but here is a screenshot of the suspension message: i.sstatic.net/Clb4g.png | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 19:43 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @tim I've never seen that happen in 2.5 years; let's wait for it to actually happen before making stuff up for it. | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 19:28 | comment | added | Hendrik Vogt | @Daniel: I've read about the repeated grief, but thought that the value was greater. What I meant: Being forced to cool down more than a week won't help cooling down more than having it for a week. So what I really wonder is why it's not a week or something like that. But I surely don't know enough about the history here. | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 17:48 | comment | added | Daniel DiPaolo | @Hendrik in this particular case, he's been "prolific" which has resulted in some value being generated, but also a very non-trivial amount of grief. Repeatedly. I honestly don't think even that long of a cooldown will make a difference. | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 16:46 | comment | added | Hendrik Vogt | @tombull: You're right, that really doesn't make sense. "Cooling down" more than a week already sounds strange. And the user was a valuable contributor, as far as I know, so I'm astonished at that period of time. But OK, after all it's none of my business. @Marc: That said, I'm still curious ... | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 14:26 | comment | added | Marc Gravell | @Tim good point - we should come up with some standard text for that too | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 13:59 | comment | added | user50049 | Odd case, but what if an OpenID is compromised? E.g. you nuke cookies, yet irregular behavior continues. I suggest adding "For security review" to the list :) Since we have flair and all, my only choice in that case would be 'to cool off', which isn't fair to the owner of a compromised account. Given the quirks that happened with MyOpenID when Amazon s**t itself ... it is a possibility. | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 10:20 | comment | added | tombull89 | Nice. However, is there a "maximum" term length for suspension "to cool down"? A recent suspension (meta.stackexchange.com/questions/89048/…) shows a 4 month ban which seems a bit long for a "tempoary" ban and a bit long for a chance "to cool down". Is it work setting/defining a temporary/long-term ban duration? | |
| Apr 28, 2011 at 7:45 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 155 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2011 at 19:46 | vote | accept | Shog9 | ||
| Apr 27, 2011 at 19:42 | history | answered | Marc Gravell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
