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.

  • 1
    You were manually banned from review by a moderator. I'm not going to guess why though. – animuson ModStaff 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
  • 8
    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
  • 4
    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
  • 8
    @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? – Ry- Nov 15 '13 at 0:03
  • 1
    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. – Ry- Nov 15 '13 at 0:10
  • 1
    @minitech no harm done! Thanks :) – Hannele Nov 15 '13 at 3:33
  • @animuson can you shed some light on why this question was marked closed? I had something similar happen to me and thought that this was the proper place for questions like this as well as the use of the [review-suspension] tag? Also when I looked on here, it seemed like this question was "on topic": meta.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic I even don't see how this question can be regarded as a duplicate since the accepted answer had details specific to Hannele's user account and would not apply across the board for others with the exact same question. – drapkin11 May 23 '20 at 21:52
  • Fwiw, I'm not too fussed about that -- since it is pretty specific to my case, I could see it being less relevant to subsequent folks, particularly if the feedback provided is better now. – Hannele May 29 '20 at 22:22

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.

  • 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 – John Dvorak Nov 14 '13 at 20:49
  • 6
    @Hannele Here is a screenshot of the spam answer.. – Josh Crozier Nov 14 '13 at 20:52
  • 7
    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? – John 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
  • 2
    @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

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