This is a feature request stemming from this question: Should you be allowed to run in a mod election if you've been banned for bad behavior?

I realize that suspensions are private, but I think that it's entirely reasonable that a community should be informed if someone that they may vote to lead their site has been banned and how many bans they have suffered. Asking candidates to opt-in to sharing this info is reasonable, in my opinion.

I request that all mod candidates have their suspension count displayed on their election blurb right where "helpful flags" and "meta score" are.

  • 4
    I second this. When you become a mod, everything you've ever done gets a diamond next to it, which means it is seen in a different light. This is something that should be no different. Commented May 31, 2013 at 3:41
  • 3
    I think this should exist, but be optional. It doesn't seem right to put candidates in the position of defending themselves instead of presenting themselves. That's not the way I view an ideal election.
    – user206222
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 5:14
  • While I fully support the feature, I wonder what will be the real outcome of that. What are the odds that the current mods had suspensions in the past? Still, it is absolutely the right thing to do.
    – bla
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 5:40
  • @KnightswhosayNi It's optional in that you can choose not to run; what's the point in full disclosure if it's optional? Commented May 31, 2013 at 15:21
  • I can't figure out how this is different from the first post, it says "shouldn't his election profile show the number of times that his user account has been banned" and this says "all mod candidates have their suspension count displayed on their election blurb" Commented May 31, 2013 at 15:23
  • @MichaelMrozek The first post is a discussion about whether or not they should even be allowed to run or if a visual indicator is appropriate. This is a feature request based on the consensus that seems to have come from that discussion.
    – MDMarra
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 15:26
  • Ah. In the future you can probably just stick a [feature-request] tag on the original post Commented May 31, 2013 at 15:30
  • 1
    There is some precedent to having a separate [feature-request] when the idea was spawned from a [discussion]. The "hollow diamond" feature request comes to mind. Granted, I don't spend most of my time on mSO, so if this is a faux paus, feel free to close as a dupe.
    – MDMarra
    Commented May 31, 2013 at 15:37

1 Answer 1


When this question was asked, nothing in the system prevented users with recent suspensions from standing for election. When those candidates stood, there was invariably drama. Sometimes the drama overwhelmed the election, leaving everybody feeling a little dirty at a time when we should be happy to be electing more caretakers for a site. Even when a candidate with a recent suspension is elected anyway and does fine as a moderator, the drama lingers.

That's why users who have been suspended anywhere on the network within the last year are now barred from standing for election. The check is manual, not automatic, so that if there were extenuating circumstances, the Community team can still decide to let a nomination proceed. But in the cases you're worried about -- those suspensions that you would want to be disclosed -- those users just can't be candidates now in the first place.

A year is long enough. We don't need to shame users for years and years because of some long-since-corrected screwup. We probably all have things we've done in the distant past that we're not proud of, things we'd like to make disappear but the Internet is forever. Ancient suspensions don't need to be trotted out in every election.

If somebody with a bad record is still causing problems somewhere, you can rely on somebody bringing it up, and then voters will know.

You must log in to answer this question.

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