29

With all of the other vote-controlled mechanisms on SE, you have every bit of information you need to vote. For example, wrt closing and reopening, you can see the post and all the comments. You're not making a blind decision. In this case, the suspension details (the warnings, the exact offence, etc) are private and only viewable by moderators (and the ...


18

Suspensions are private, and in some cases like vote fraud most of the details have to remain private at all times. The users voting to undo a suspension don't have access to all the information about the incident, how are they supposed to make a reasoned judgement without knowing what exactly happened? When a user is suspended, a lot of the information ...


15

Well, you were suspended last time around for posting low-quality questions (which are a problem because they create work and annoyance for other members of the site) and making scores of edits that didn't substantially improve the posts being edited but did clog the active lists with questions that folks had already seen (which also creates work and ...


15

I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. More than false or sketchy convictions, the bigger problem inmates face is finding work after serving ...


14

We give the short indication on the profile to avoid the Streisand effect, so other users get a general idea of why an account was suspended. The user that was suspended is always welcome to contact us (the Stack Exchange team) to let us know if they feel the suspension was unwarranted or excessive. There are checks and balances on everything that community ...


13

Suspensions go to people who break the rules of the site, are warned about it, and don't stop. There is no requirement that the user does not contribute to the site in a valuable way - or in other words, even if someone is making valuable contributions in asking, answering, and editing, that doesn't make them immune from suspensions. No amount of rep puts ...


13

I can understand why you want this: without it there is a lack of transparency and you have to take the good intentions and allegedly judicious meditations of the moderators on trust. And while I could simply refer you to the team as our oversight that only pushes the problem back a level, which is exactly the whole "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" dilemma. ...


12

So basically, you want everyone who makes a mistake and has to have their access blocked for a while to be publicly pilloried for the amusement of passers-by? That sounds like fun. But for folks you'd actually like to see return to the site in good standing, it's probably a bad idea.


12

I wonder whether I've been a moderator here for long enough (four months now) that I can talk about our decision-making process in aggregate, without revealing anything untoward about any particular suspension. How big is the Physics Stack Exchange community? Well, there are several answers to that question. I'm not a database person and you're probably ...


11

The moderators do not discuss individual suspensions in public. I suppose this doesn't technically answer the question, but then again all I can say is that there will be no answer to this question.


11

Since the automatic question/answer limitations went into place in 2017, it has been quite rare for the moderators to issue manual suspensions for low-quality contributions. I haven't double-checked but I think in 2018 I could count them on one hand. Suspensions for rudeness or for misusing multiple accounts are more common, but we don't have too many of ...


10

Bans and suspensions need to be carried out by moderators. There's no correlation between someone's ability to answer/ask physics questions and their social intelligence. Moderators, on the other hand, are usually judged by a community over a long period of time as possessing a character which enables them to consistently deal with people in a calm, fair ...


10

You can put whatever you want in your profile. (barring NSFW or generally offensive material, though the rules are pretty lax on that too) Sure, feel free to link to Quora there :)


10

As we have said repeatedly, we (moderators) do not share information about specific suspensions with anyone except other moderators and the SE team.* This means that the moderators will not explain to you what happened, and nobody else on this site knows what happened. While other non-moderator users may be able to give you examples of behavior that could ...


10

So I've read his answer many times now and I don't see how you reach the conclusion you reached here. It says: Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever be banned. What should be banned is the repeated posting of a link to an alternative physics Q&A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc)1. It is the repetitive nature of the act that ...


9

The Physics SE is a community, and like all communities it needs everyone to pull together to keep it vibrant. The two most important things we expect of site members are: ask interesting and informed questions provide interesting and informed answers There are of course other supporting activities like processing the review queues, up and downvoting, ...


7

He is not even participating on this site anymore so i don't understand the reason for this suspension. He was participating, slightly. I can't provide details on the exact reasons for suspension1, but I can tell you that he was suspended for his participation (more accurately, something he did in the course of that participation), not for his lack of it. ...


7

Is it not acceptable to post links in comments? Or is it not acceptable to post links to the same site in comments? Posting links in comments is not banned, nor should it ever be banned. What should be banned is the repeated posting of a link to an alternative physics Q&A site (such as PO, PF, Quora, etc)1. It is the repetitive nature of the act that ...


6

I certainly don't see anything wrong with links per se or repeatedly posting links to helpful webpages (e.g. wiki). I doubt that there's a blacklist of forbidden links, but you should not post links to offensive/inappropriate material or even irrelevant material. The aspect of your question regarding links to sites in which you hold a vested interest is ...


6

As a general rule, if a comment contains a link to information that is directly pertinent to the OP's question, and to any future visitors interested in the post, I do not think it should be deleted. I do not think that repeated postings of such comments should be cause for concern, with the strong proviso that each and every comment must link to content ...


6

Note that the current 6 Phys.SE moderators are democratically elected. All moderators have (electronically) signed a moderator agreement, which de facto implies that moderators cannot discuss specific users & suspensions publicly, and which in turn means that this meta discussion belongs on the mother meta (rather than on Phys.SE meta). If you have ...


6

No. The algorithm for automatic low-quality suspensions is intentionally not public to avoid users gaming it, and manual suspensions (i.e. those issued by moderators and not the SE engine) rarely carry a warning with them for the same reason. Particularly if a user already has been suspended in the past for the same behaviour, a warning is unlikely. They ...


6

The longer sentence was imposed after a day's consultation between the physics moderators; the delay occurred because we're always reluctant to impose suspensions on regular users and try not to act hastily in such cases. As usually, we will not discuss the reasons in public, but [insert-here-the-user-who-shall-not-be-named] was sent a mod message and ...


5

This has already been answered here. Yes, it can be done, as explained in the post I just linked. Of course, such a measure must be possible since the moderators themselves are not infallible. One cannot run the risk of a "rogue mod" ruining an entire site, or something like that.


5

Physics SE does not have an automated system for removing offensive posts. Posts with 3 delete votes from high rep users or 6 spam or rude or abusive flags are deleted automatically. As far as the Stack Exchange software is concerned, no new post is ever deleted without human intervention, though old, abandoned posts are sometimes deleted automatically. ...


4

Note this is not meant to be a public shaming or pilloring of the suspended user. Quite the contrary, the idea is to give the user his or her voice back, and let them make a plea for there case. Given that suspending and unsuspending a user is a mod-only decision, allowing the whole community to debate the issue doesn't make any sense. It only satisfies ...


4

Suspensions for low quality contributions are generally tied to a large number of downvoted and/or closed questions (relative to the total number of questions the user has asked, of course). So if you want to know this: Could you point out the questions that constitute a 'low-quality' contribution and why? I would throw the question back at you: which of ...


2

Looking at the version that was closed, you have two questions that you're asking: What is the intuition for angular momentum of a point mass relative to a inertial point? I am confused that at the same time the static friction helps in pure rolling by operating in direction opposite to wheels motion as well as it provides the car the required centripetal ...


2

To expand on what Manishearth said and address the last part of the question: the guidelines on what constitutes excessive self-promotion are outlined in the help center. Avoid overt self-promotion. The community tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your ...


2

In order to avoid the problem that voting users don’t know why a person was banned, I would suggest giving the banned user a possibility to ‘Appeal to Community’, which would make the details of the ban public (at least to the users eligible to vote on the appeal). One could take this a little further by first requiring one of these users to vouch for the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible