I have been banned for reviewing for 2 days by the auto-ban. I was given a message that said that I had failed too many recent audits - though I have not used the site in over a week, and this is the first failed audit I remember in about 2 weeks.

I just want to know if it is possible to reverse this auto-ban, as I believe it has been erroneously triggered (or at least, triggered in such a way that it seems to me illogical)

Related question: Can't do reviews after failing 1 audit


I am not sure why there is so much negativity in the comments and answers to my question here. I am not the first person to ever fail an audit, it happens, and sometimes it sucks. And as I understand it, StackOverflow is build on the principle that each action is treated independently.

Yes, I failed an audit, I made a mistake, and I am glad that it was an audit so that the vandalism would not get into SO - If you check my records, my activity, you will see I am a serious member here and I strive to try to make things right here.

I expected to get some good advise, some explanation, and hoped to get a repeal of my 2-day ban. This outright attack on me for failing an audit is uncalled for, and very immature, especially all the down-voting, what exactly is bad about the question? it seems like a straightforward question with many like it - that all have upvotes, and not downvotes. Am I such an evil anomaly as to deserve all this hate? Is this the constructive website to which I belong?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Inbar Rose, Tobias Kienzler, Andrew Barber Aug 15 '13 at 13:55

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 17
    If the answer in your link is anything to go by, not only failed audits count (and you have to admit that the last one is a pretty bad one to fail on ), but also the speed with which you review. Looking at the timestamps on some of your suggested edit reviews, you breeze through them pretty quickly. Perhaps that has contributed as well. And it seems that audits up to a month back are taken into account. – Bart Aug 15 '13 at 7:58
  • 7
    To be honest, why not take a break from reviewing and come back in two days? It's not the end of the world, really. – slhck Aug 15 '13 at 8:07
  • 11
    I'm really curious. What made you approve this suggested edit? This alone deserve long review ban, in my opinion. If I were to judge, I would extend your ban, not reverse it. – Shadow The Dragon Wizard Aug 15 '13 at 8:13
  • 6
    @InbarRose I don't understand your comment - you appear to have failed that audit 38 minutes ago. And "not paying attention" it not acceptable when it comes to reviewing, hence the ban punishment. – Duncan Jones Aug 15 '13 at 8:19
  • 2
    @DuncanJones - I think the dispute is "recent audit failures" vs "recent audit failure" – Martin Smith Aug 15 '13 at 8:21
  • 3
    You're probably getting downvoted for asking whether "it is possible to reverse this auto-ban" – people are obviously disagreeing with you. – slhck Aug 15 '13 at 8:30
  • 2
    "(...)especially all the down-voting, what exactly is bad about the question?" Downvotes are different on meta, see meta.stackexchange.com/a/92745/186983 – Matsemann Aug 15 '13 at 8:31
  • 2
    Of note @Matsemann, that has recently been changed: meta.stackexchange.com/a/191880/161198 – Bart Aug 15 '13 at 8:34
  • 2
    I'm citing this post as an example of how people are oblivious to the effect of their tone. People on Meta need to realize that our stereotypical biting sarcasm hurts. Be aware of the subtleties of your tone, and read your comments back as someone who is five times as sensitive as you. You'll find there's a lot more hostility in the Meta tone than seems at first glance. I direct this at nobody in particular, and some are better than others. Still, be sensitive with your wordings, please. – Aza Aug 15 '13 at 8:42
  • 2
    If you had only asked about why the ban happened, without asking for the ban to be reversed, I assume this would have played out differently. I agree the accusations of robo-reviewing are a little over board here and it could have probably been a little more civilized. – slhck Aug 15 '13 at 8:47
  • 3
    @slhck Meta still needs to watch its tone even if the OP is obviously incorrect or disagreed-with. We're here for support, and we set the tone for all of StackExchange. Our comments and responses are why people feel Stack Overflow is hostile. Anyway, we're getting off topic. I'll be in chat tomorrow if the thread is worth continuing. – Aza Aug 15 '13 at 8:51
  • 2
    @Emrakul This is not a question of correctness. The OP wasn't incorrect per se – they didn't make any wrong assumptions, etc. They just asked for something the community didn't want them to have. Hence the downvotes. – slhck Aug 15 '13 at 8:52
  • 3
    Sorry for the dogpile of downvotes on your question. Everyone fails audits at one time or another, some are quite subjective, and mistakes can be made even when they're not. An example of subjective problems. – Lance Roberts Aug 15 '13 at 13:49
  • 4
    @SNash Could you stop your unnecessary bashing of SO/SE? We all know by now that you prefer EE. But that doesn't mean you have to drag other users down with you in your spiral of negativity. Yes, I feel the voting was somewhat overblown here (I don't really see the need for downvotes in this case, but that's just me perhaps). But your doomsday scenarios of the OP being downvoted until he is post-banned are not grounded in fact. With the OP's participation history here on Meta, he will be just fine. – Bart Aug 15 '13 at 17:45
  • 6
    There is nothing constructive about your criticism @SNash. If anything, it's poisonous and harmful. – Bart Aug 15 '13 at 18:37

You did 5-7 reviews per minute, which suggests that you're not paying attention. Failing the obvious audit proves that you're going too fast. I feel the system is working as it should.

  • 2
    True. At last we see robo reviewers falling down! :) – Shadow The Dragon Wizard Aug 15 '13 at 8:15
  • 1
    @ShaWizDowArd and whining about that :-) – John Dvorak Aug 15 '13 at 8:15
  • I am sorry that you guys feel that way. But when you have done so many reviews as I have - you can see quickly if they are good or bad, especially when its formatting of code - or typo fixing. Takes only a few seconds. But yes - I suppose sometimes I might miss something, but its not intentional. – Inbar Rose Aug 15 '13 at 8:17
  • 3
    @Inbar no, what you are doing is pure and simple robo reviewing, which is not accepted. Reviewer is expected to pay attention. – Shadow The Dragon Wizard Aug 15 '13 at 8:18
  • 18
    @InbarRose umm... if you miss such obvious vandalism, you need to slow down – John Dvorak Aug 15 '13 at 8:18
  • Looking at some of your non-review approvals that were approved on a 3-2 vote makes me worry more than a couple of audits, honestly. – Wooble Aug 15 '13 at 12:16
  • 2
    @ Matsemann aned Wooble: Give me a Break!!! doing 5-6 review by and expert is not neccassarily bad. Just explian what's the point of pissing off a super contirbutor like @InbarRose ? Take a look at main , this person is an expert in various fields. Stop pissing people off and make them run to other computer Q/A sites. Who said SO rules should not be changed? – S Nash Aug 15 '13 at 12:35
  • 2
    @SNash I really hope that's a joke. Even assuming he is "an expert in various fields" (I glanced at his rep. It's high, but then he could be rep farming, or just ask a lot of questions, or... etc., and I'm not going to bother to check), that has no relevance here. How good someone is as a moderator depends only upon how good their work as a moderator is shown to be. If Alan Turing himself rose from the grave tomorrow and started moderating SO, but was terrible at it, he shouldn't moderate. Simple as that. Plus, less time moderating means more time breaking Nazi codes. Win-win in my book. – root Aug 15 '13 at 18:06
  • @root, what you are saying seem like a joke to me. Why anyone in the right mind spend his/her valuable time to "Farm" SO rep which is basicaly worthless. – S Nash Aug 15 '13 at 18:27
  • 1
    @SNash Why anyone in the right mind spend his/her valuable time to "Farm" SO rep which is basicaly worthless. Ah. You see, we come from two different schools of philosophical thought. When you come in contact with a complete stranger, you start from the assumption that they are in their right mind, that their time is valuable, and that their priorities are in more or less logical order. I, on the other hand, don't. – root Aug 15 '13 at 18:46

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