Tag was added I have rejected it, but it was approved also this one and this one

Was I wrong in this reviews?

I think for this three I was banned for reviews.

  • 1
    It most likely wasn't the cause of a ban. Did you fail an audit recently? Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:03
  • @JanDvorak - yes test one. But can remember only one.
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:05
  • @JanDvorak - and my question is - was I wrong with this 3 edits I have posted?
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:05
  • I would have reviewed those two as you have. Though I probably would have gone to improve them.
    – Bart
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:07
  • @Bart - maybe you are right. Its some kind of - "how can I make it better next time".
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:08
  • 3
    Your suggested edit reviews look all fine. You most likely failed in some other queue e.g. first posts or late answers, the review ban is cross queue. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:09
  • @Bart - to decline it in the form it was proposed for review - was it ok or not?
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:09
  • As far as I know you only get review bans from failing some review audits. This seems to be the review edits queue, where you should never have to fail an audit. I believe all the audits there are straight vandalism.
    – Sumurai8
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:09
  • As I said "I would have reviewed those two as you have". I would have taken the same decision.
    – Bart
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:09
  • 7
    @Sumurai8 nope. Moderator can manually ban a user from reviewing. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:10
  • @ShaWizDowArd - ok you know all the answers ) Why was I banned for a month? =) I understand, that month is cause of 2 days + 7 days. But for what wrong action? )
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:11
  • @MikroDel really no idea... we need a mod or team member to look into this. Might be a simple mistake. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:13
  • @ShaWizDowArd - where should I ask such a question? Why I was banned. Here in comments it will not be readed from mod teams...
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:14
  • They will most likely stumble upon this very question.
    – Bart
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:15
  • 1
    @MikroDel ideal way would be flag one of your own posts, choose Other and ask to re-evaluate the review ban. Now that you posted here it's not really needed of course, unless you won't get any official response within a day or so. (patience is the key here :)) Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:18

1 Answer 1


Review banning happens for 2 reasons

  • You failed too many audits and were automatically banned by the system.
  • A moderator reviewed your review history (and not just audits) and found you need some time off to reevaluate how you review.

It is impossible for me to say for certain why you were banned from review but if you did not fail an audit just prior to being banned, I'd say it was a moderator who took this action, so he/she will have to chime in and say exactly why they took that action.

If you were manually review banned, it is virtually impossible you were banned based on only 3 suggest edits. You would have been banned based your entire recent review history.

NOTE: A moderator later chimed in via comments and indicated you were review banned by failing an audit in another review queue (Late Answers), however much of the following are still applicable suggestions for improving your suggested edit history

Looking through your suggested edit reviews, your recent edit is very heavy handed with rejects. You have reviewed 35 suggested edits and only approved 2 in the last 2 days. You have run into some pretty awful edits, but you rejected several that were good (or at least good in my opinion):

You also have a few of posts where you are the only reject vote, usually as "Too Minor". Since there are a lot of bad reviewers, this doesn't mean much on its own, but if your history has significant number of these (which I'm not going to go through to check), it could also be a red flag that you need to re-evaluate your review criteria.

I'm not suggesting any of the above edits where you were the only reject need to be accepted, but I am showing them as a pattern of history that you need to consider. If there are more beyond the last 2 days, then that is something worth looking into to see why you are rejecting that many that other reviewers agree with.

Ultimately, I think this might be a misunderstanding as to what constitutes a good edit. A good edit is not based on length, but it is based on what it fixes. There are 2 overall criteria I think you need to consider:

  1. Does the edit fix all/most was wrong with the post? If so then approving the edit is appropriate. If you see something else wrong that was missed, click Improve and fix it yourself. Then check or uncheck the "Suggested edit was helpful" box to indicate if the review was good enough to warrant getting an approved edit.
  2. Is the post better after the review? A small edit that only fixes a broken link or bad grammar/spelling is better than it was, so it should be approved

Now there are some additional criteria that you need to think about, such as changing too much of the post or vandalizing a post, but the above 2 are a good guideline in evaluating edits.

Tag edits are one that I think needs special mention. Just based on the brief review history I've seen, you think that any tag only edit is too minor. That is definitely not true. Some tag edits aren't necessary, but just because it is a tag only edit, you shouldn't reject it automatically. You have to look at the current tags, then look at the proposed tags and ask yourself "Is it better to have these"? Tag are key to how people find posts so if they are wrong, have extra tags that aren't relevant, or are missing key tags than the someone might have trouble finding a post. The tags also contribute to SEO (At least the most important tag on the post does) so it impact not only local searches, but people coming in via Google.

  • 1
    stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3038648 and stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3031544 my idea was - if you want to improve some link - you should ask the author of the post in a commment . Cause you can sometime land on other site that the TS wanted.
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:40
  • 1
    It is not cut and dry. That just because it is a link change, you don't need to let the OP decide. But did you notice that both links went to the same domain? Broken links due to changes in sites happen all the time. If we wanted for the OP to say "Ok", nothing would get fixed and you'd have a site of broken links. And if it gets approved but the OP doesn't like it, the OP will be notified of the edit and they can change it back if they want. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:42
  • stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3038807 is minor for me cause the someone who added tag could improve also the question. Its not wrong - its minor - can be better improved
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:42
  • @MikroDel I'm not disagreeing with you there. The point of those posts (which I clarified in my recent edit) is that if this is a repeated pattern of 1-3 votes on edits, it could be a sign that you need to adjust how you review posts. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:44
  • stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3031329 the same is this one.. if he or she edited it - why not remove for example "Please help me. " etc. Its minor
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:44
  • @MikroDel now you are just getting nit-picky. The tag is more imporant than "thanks". And what is stopping you from clicking "Improve" and removing it yourself? Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:45
  • I can improve it sure - the qeustion is not about this, but was it minor or not. If you can improve it easy - its minor in this case
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:47
  • If the question was "how can I be better in review the suggested edit with this example" - the answer will be - improve it - agree
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:48
  • 6
    @MikroDel your question was "why did I get banned". Which only a mod can answer. However "how can I do better" is an important subquestion to why did I get banned, and I tried to offer you some insight on how you can improve (plus what might have led to your ban). Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49
  • I have asked the question also in chat =) chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/rooms/89/tavern-on-the-meta
    – MikroDel
    Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 9:52
  • @MikroDel - The ban was triggered at a system level, due to this failed audit: stackoverflow.com/review/late-answers/3038938. It's hard for me to see more than this, aside from the fact that you were banned by the system for failing audits on 9/11 and 9/13, as well. Perhaps someone with a better view into the review system can comment further on what caused the system to ban you a third time here. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 15:34
  • @BradLarson does a failed audit on 1 queue ban you all queues? Obviously the answer is yes since it happened here, but I guess I'm curious as to if this has always been the case, or if it is a recent change. Commented Oct 2, 2013 at 15:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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