For site suspensions, initially, no reason was displayed, but following the arguments at Avoid the Streisand Effect - be clear about the reason when suspending an account, a brief reason for the suspension (e.g. "for rule violations", "for voting irregularities", "to cool down", etc.) is displayed.

But for network-wide suspensions, it just says

This account is temporarily suspended network-wide.

...without providing any brief reason for the suspension.

Why wasn't that request implemented for network-wide suspensions?

As far as I'm aware, network-wide suspensions are actually a series of site-wide suspensions applied by an automated script run by the SE team, with "network-wide" placed in the spot for the reason (which explains why it's possible for local moderators to unsuspend network-wide suspended users on the site they moderate). But is there a technical reason why the script can't add in a selection of text for the reason field, to show something like:

This account is temporarily suspended network-wide for rule violations.

...instead of just one set of text?

  • 2
    I'm pretty sure all network-wide suspensions are applied due to multiple suspensions on other sites, and the user failing to improve their behavior after that. All messages would be the same, so there's not much of a reason to do this. – Supa Mega Ducky Momo da Waffle Feb 3 at 4:33

My most common reason for network-wide suspension is spam.

My second-most common reason is persistent trolling.

My distant third most common reason is an otherwise-reasonable person losing their mind and suddenly causing mayhem across multiple sites. This is the only situation where I can imagine adding a reason would improve anything.

This tool should not be commonly used, and when it is used the public spectacle is the least of our worries. Saw a question this morning about a network suspension of a user who created a dozen or so accounts to post, across multiple sites... Verbatim copies of existing answers. If anyone can dig up actual evidence that this suspension wasn't warranted... Or even that this was done by a real person... They're more'n welcome to discuss it in public.

  • But why not show a reason for a network-wide suspension in the reason? Is there a technical reason? – Sonic the Introverted Hedgehog Feb 4 at 19:02
  • 1
    You're asking why we didn't build a tool to store, list, allow a choice from, and then propagate a reason for a system that's almost exclusively used in situations where the reason doesn't matter? I guess we got distracted. – Shog9 Feb 4 at 20:02

I don't think it's going to be useful.

As noted in this comment, a network-wide suspension is issued only when necessary, i.e., when a user (an account) has repeated offense on multiple sites. This prerequisite is pretty intuitive IMO, as whoever sees an account that's suspended network-wide could imagine that the account was used to abuse multiple sites.

With that explained, it's not going to be useful to show a reason for NW suspensions. Causing major or repeated harm on multiple sites itself is a reason clear enough, parallel to "voting irregularities", "to cool down", or "for rule violations" (in fact, IMO, "rule violations" is a very broad one and should include the rest - not equal to them). Even if we were to add one, there's only "rule violations" that could fit. I don't think repeated voting irregularities and heats could make it exactly feasible to apply a NW suspension - we usually just delete/destroy the account, and it'll e automatically suspended if it gets recreated. NW suspension is meant for offenses that don't warrant account deletion/destruction, but still needs forces to stop.

You must log in to answer this question.

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