# Request for a moderator to defend his decision to suspend an account

I'd like to know, specifically, what moderator @W5VO found objectionable enough to have suspended my account for 30 days (which has now ended).

• A suspension was accompanied by a moderator message. Your explanation should be included in that message.
– Andy
Jul 18, 2016 at 11:38
• This is a private matter and isn't suited to a public place like Meta. Don't try and dramatise a situation by highlighting or drawing attention to your situation. As Andy mentioned, the mod message accompanying your suspension should explain the situation. Jul 18, 2016 at 11:41
• As a moderator elsewhere, and as a fairly neutral party familiar with the mechanics of moderation - that should have been in the mod message, and should be confidential in theory. Would you be willing to give explicit permission for that to be revealed - whatever the outcome for your standing in community? Jul 18, 2016 at 11:44
• @JourneymanGeek: Yes. Jul 18, 2016 at 11:47
• @Quill: "Cool down" is hardly specific and doesn't refer to a particular post or set of posts and I'm proceeding as advised by Olin Lathrop, so your quarrel is with him, not me. Jul 18, 2016 at 11:50
• @Quill: It is a private matter if the user chooses to keep it that way. This user clearly doesn't, and is asking the community for their opinion. While I hope this sort of thing doesn't become common, public scrutiny of moderator actions, when permitted by the user, should be allowed. It gives everyone a chance to see how the rules are applied, and to weigh in whether they agree or not. This must be done respectfully, and should be done sparingly, but it can be useful to everyone to see what the consensus of the community is. Jul 18, 2016 at 11:56
• @Olin calling out a moderator like that is a serious matter. Moderator can't possibly be called to defend each and every action he/she takes, and if so, it should be done only with those who can see the whole picture, meaning SE team. Jul 18, 2016 at 11:59
• @Shad: Mods are elected by the members, and therefore serve, at least in part, those members. Occasional public scrutiny is the best way for us to see that the mods are acting appropriately, and even for the mods to get a sense of the will of the community. My presumption will always be with the mods in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary. I seriously doubt any such evidence will emerge here, in fact I expect the opposite. However, a mechanism such as this must exist. This is the price we pay for a system that, at least in part, represents the will of the community. Jul 18, 2016 at 12:12
• @OlinLathrop: +1 :) Jul 18, 2016 at 12:16
• Any particular reason this is trying to leverage argumentum ad populum
– user16222
Jul 18, 2016 at 12:30
• @Jon: That should be obvious. The user feels he's been wronged by a mod, and wants everyone to see what happened, thinking (very wrongly) that the community will back him up. W5VO's answer just confirms what most already knew or assumed, which is that he often acted like a jerk, and the mods used the tools at their disposal to deal with it. He often went out of his way to nit-pick things I said, so I'm quite familiar with this issue. Jul 18, 2016 at 19:47
• @OlinLathrop: Take a look at your comment. Was your: "That should be obvious." necessary in terms of answering JonRB's question? Read your comment with that bit deleted and you'll see that it wasn't necessary, so why did you include it? My guess is that you intentionally trivialized JonRB's response in order to deign any responses to it - other than your own - as being trivial. Then we have your subjective "(very wrongly)" crack setting yourself up as judge and jury, and your; "he often acted like a jerk," setting yourself up as a self-appointed prosecutor, so what's your point? Jul 18, 2016 at 23:26

You were suspended for continued abuse of other users through comments. You previously received a warning, and a 7 day suspension, both for abusive comments to others. As this is a third offence, a 30 day suspension is customary.

A few recent examples. I only went back to late April, which makes this represent just under 2 months from the point of suspension. I will omit the body of anything where I personally interacted.

This is the post that got you suspended: Belay all that earlier bullshit. (link to gag me.jpg)

I suspect that your mind is already made up as to whether this course of action was fair.

Also, you keep posting comments and deleting them.

• Well, there's really no way to tell whether the course of action taken was fair since the comments were taken put of context and you posted no links to the original articles. In any case, I'm sure it makes no difference to you whether or not I think it was fair, so I don't really understand the purpose of your last comment other than its being cast as an aspersion. Jul 18, 2016 at 14:32
• You: "Also, you keep posting comments and deleting them." What's wrong with that? Since comments can only be edited for 5 minutes, as far as I can tell, once the comment's been posted, a shift in a train of thought often warrants the deletion of the original comment and the posting of its replacement. I'm sure you noticed the similarities between the deleted comment and its replacement, and since there are no sanctions required - or imposed - for deleting and posting replacement comments, it strikes me as odd that you'd take a pejorative stance against a practice designed to allay confusion. Jul 18, 2016 at 16:09
• @EMFields - I don't know what someone could say that would make it acceptable for you to tell someone they should not post drunk. It is not W5VO's job to go through and highlight every misstep you have made. He does not have time, he has to deal with people being abusive and such. Jul 18, 2016 at 16:12
• @EMFields - He posted the deleted comment to highlight something many can't see. You did repost a comment 2 minutes after he edited it in that mostly included in, but there is no way to know you were going to repost it 2 minutes into the future. It is very common for abusive comments to be posted and self-deleted to try to avoid moderator complaints. Jul 18, 2016 at 16:18
• BTW, your last comment didn't make it into my inbox, since you didn't tag it. Intentional, accidental, or a system glitch? Who knows? In any case, it's @EM FIELDS if you want to write back and save me the drudgery of tracking you down. Jul 18, 2016 at 16:22
• @Kortuk: OK then, reductio ad absurdum, if we all posted drunk would that be a good thing? If not, why would any of us posting drunk be a good thing? Jul 18, 2016 at 16:37
• @Kortuk: Got it. Thanks. Jul 18, 2016 at 17:32
• @EMFields - I don't know why it did not make it in your inbox. I start typing your name and then it autocompletes to your name. Sorry, it did not notify you. I am guessing a bug. If it is not clear to you that calling someone drunk is not acceptable, then I am unsure how to make it clear. If you find yourself personally criticizing someone instead of referring to a technical subject, don't do it. Jul 18, 2016 at 18:23
• @EMFields The second response by the same user in the same thread gets swallowed by the inbox up top. It may show 2 unread, but will only display 1 actual message. If you click the inbox at top, and scroll all the way down to See all Inbox Items it will take you to a page that will show you every response. Jul 18, 2016 at 20:20
• @Kortuk: Your comments all came through fine; I was actually posting to W5VO and I didn't tag the comment since he was the author of the answer. BTW, you're right about criticism. My weakness is that when I see what - to me - looks like meanness or cruelty, I want to lash out and give the meanie a dose of his own medicine. Thanks for the insight. Jul 18, 2016 at 22:39
• @passerby: Thanks for that. Jul 18, 2016 at 22:41