Recently I came across a user who is suspended:
Does this mean that the user is suspended until 2092? What type of offense might warrant such a long suspension, but not a permanent ban?
23
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
-
19$\begingroup$ What is a permanent ban, if not a suspension for 70 years? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Jul 29 at 18:09
-
3$\begingroup$ Related: Why not perma-ban instead of suspend an account for 75+ years? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 29 at 18:12
-
2$\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Ah thanks. It's interesting that it says " '92" instead of $2092$. I wonder if it's possible to make a ban until 2192, or 3092 for example. $\endgroup$ – Ovi Jul 29 at 18:13
-
13$\begingroup$ BTW judging from the comments in the linked thread, it is 2292 rather than 2092. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 29 at 19:26
-
5$\begingroup$ "I wonder if it's possible to make a ban until 2192, or 3092 for example." There's currently a ban of around 3200 years. $\endgroup$ – Joel Reyes Noche Jul 29 at 22:57
-
3$\begingroup$ Either you're never going to see that user again, or you're gonna have a vampire with a vendetta stalking your descendants. :) $\endgroup$ – Deepak Jul 30 at 16:14
-
18$\begingroup$ Perhaps an amnesty was scheduled to take place in 2092, to celebrate the 200th birthday of Stefan Banach, who was born on March 30, 1892. $\endgroup$ – user1551 Aug 2 at 8:58
-
$\begingroup$ @CountIblis ohh. Now everything makes sense (: $\endgroup$ – Isa Aug 3 at 1:10
-
1$\begingroup$ I don't really know this user, but judging from what I've seen about other suspensions, the usual reason for a long ban is because shorter bans have simply not been effective. The typical pattern seems to be, warning, 30 day ban, 365 day ban, effectively permanent ban. The user can stop this process by not trying to circumvent bans with sock-puppet accounts and stopping their bad behaviour, whatever it was. $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit Aug 4 at 3:06
-
2$\begingroup$ The user is actually suspended until 2292, FYI. $\endgroup$ – gparyani Aug 5 at 19:10
-
1$\begingroup$ The question is not for discussion about the specific user. The question wisely omits any reference to the specific user. It asks for the general phenomenon. All further discussion about the user and related will be deleted. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Aug 9 at 12:47
18
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
There is no option "permanent suspension" thus a very long suspension is used as a substitute for it.
The reason why there is no option "permanent suspension" is likely that it is too rare to be worth implementing and the workaround works well enough.
The maximal length of a standard ban is one year.
-
2$\begingroup$ Do you happen to know if there is a maximal length of any ban? $\endgroup$ – Ovi Jul 29 at 18:11
-
11$\begingroup$ The one threshold I mentioned is 365 days, which is the limit for bans by per site moderators. I think for SE there is basically no limit. Well, likely there is some limit induced by the maximal input size of the relevant data field, but that's more theoretical. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Jul 29 at 18:20
-
$\begingroup$ Afaik mods can issue at most 1 year, and only on their site. They have an input box, where they can type in a number of days. They can type in at most 365. CMs can type in at most 5 digit long numbers, and these suspensions will propagate to all accounts of the user, including his newly created accounts. This is the network-wide suspension. Mods have the option to revoke this suspension, but only for their sites, it is not unheard but very rare. $\endgroup$ – peterh Aug 3 at 21:20
-
$\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Aug 9 at 12:32
-
2$\begingroup$ As a reminder, we usually do not engage in discussion of reasons for suspension of specific users. If at all focus on the meta question asked, that is the type of behavior that can lead to this long a suspension, not the specific case. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Aug 9 at 12:33
9
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Ron Maimon has said:
I do not participate on this site any longer, except to respond to comments regarding my own text, if that text is unavailable in another form. I do not accept the political moderation atmosphere here, it is not compatible with open science. Unfortunately, this seems to be a recurring pattern on such sites--- they grow with promises of open participation, and then shut down in a phase transition of censorious moderatorship. Hopefully physicsoverflow.org will be the first exception to this rule, as the policies there were crafted specifically to avoid this phenomenon.
-
18$\begingroup$ Just to point out his notion of "political moderation", he was extremely rude to people who disagreed with him, on a constant basis. I think that moderation that requires people to not call others "f'ing morons" is not censorious, but effective. At least as far as my experience with him on this portion of SE. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Aug 2 at 6:29
-
10
-
1$\begingroup$ @David I wasn't around here at the time he left, but I do know from having interacted with him on Wikipedia a long time ago that he tends to rail very strongly against authoritative decisions he disagrees with. $\endgroup$ – Count Iblis Aug 2 at 19:13
-
$\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Aug 9 at 12:29
-
4$\begingroup$ As a reminder, we usually do not engage in discussion of reasons for suspension of specific users. Focus on the meta question asked, that is the type of behavior that can lead to this long a suspension. I only let that answer stand as by way of example it can illustrate the type of behavior. $\endgroup$ – quid♦ Aug 9 at 12:32
