82

Some time ago I was suspended for two days for having performed too many incorrect reviews. Two days passed but unfortunately I made a review mistake again and failed an audit (failed only one, it's important) and got review suspended for seven days. So, now I have a question:

What will happen if I fail review audit again in seven days? How much audits I have to fail to get third ban? Will this ban be for month/year/forever?

  • 14
    30 days, and no further progression from there. – Martijn Pieters May 26 '14 at 17:24
  • 3
  • 6
    If you're repeatedly getting banned for failing audits, you should just stay out of there. The audits are trivial to spot and pass. If you're failing them, it makes me very worried for the kind of edits you generally consider acceptable. – meagar May 26 '14 at 17:40
  • 8
    @meagar Suggested edits audit is the easiest to detect and pass, the only I have seen is a vandalism. First posts/late answers/low quality is not that easy because it includes much more subjectiveness. Although, I do submit getting ban for a reason this time, that's why the answer is not "why I got banned", but rather "what will happen next". – Alexey Malev May 26 '14 at 17:43
  • @MartijnPieters Is this still true? After waiting out my ban, I just failed a questionable audit and it's ~2 months. – jhpratt Jan 24 '18 at 0:27
  • 10
    The review ban system is a joke, one failed review and stack overflow could be kicking an "as good as free employee" for months! not to mention that regular experienced reviewers are more likely to review more frequently and the amount of reviews they undertake should be a major consideration. I mean if I review 200 posts and fail 1 audit, should I be banned for 1 failure? – danday74 Oct 30 '18 at 8:45
  • @meager I agree 95% of audits are easy to pass and if you fail it shows lack of care, but there are a few that are more borderline – danday74 Oct 30 '18 at 8:50
  • 1
    Right now it's not 7 days, I got 4 days when failed an audit after unban.. – flppv Mar 26 '19 at 4:18
72

The duration for automatic review bans takes into account how often you have been banned in the past 30 days. If you had a 2-day review ban, and failed another audit with 30 days, you were given a 7-day review ban.

If you fail another review ban within 30 days (starting from your previous review failure), you'll be banned from reviewing for 30 days.

Because the review ban window is 30 days, and if you've been banned for 30 days from reviewing, a new ban would start at 2 days again as you cannot have failed any reviews in the past 30 days by the time you come out of that ban.

See The time of automatic review bans should be increased with every new ban.

However, if you continue to walk into review bans even after a 30 day ban, don't be surprised if a moderator comes looking. If after your 2, 7 and 30 day bans you still haven't learned, then you'll be on the receiving end of manual bans if needed. A large number of failed audits will also increase your chances of being audited in the future.

  • 10
    Basically, the 2 and 7 day bans are not "fresh starts" - they're wake up calls to tell you "hey, pay more attention or you'll get into even more trouble." – animuson May 26 '14 at 17:31
  • 9
    @MartijnPieters, Thanks, that covers almost all the topics. The last thing unclear to me is why a single audit fail triggers next ban :( – Alexey Malev May 26 '14 at 17:33
  • 1
    @AlexeyMalev: the specific rules for when a ban is applied are not public; I believe review speed (how long you take to review) and percentage (how many reviews have you failed in the past x days compared to your total reviews) are taken into account, as well as the fact that you just came out of a ban. See Why did I get a review ban once again? as well. – Martijn Pieters May 26 '14 at 18:03
  • 1
    @AlexeyMalev: and Number of failed audits per number of reviews for further reference on the 'details are not public' part. – Martijn Pieters May 26 '14 at 18:05
  • 4
    Just a public service announcement, the 30-day review window was replaced about 5 months ago, so the details are out of date... meta.stackexchange.com/questions/275736/… – psubsee2003 Mar 5 '17 at 19:40
40

Under the previous implementation (before Nov 2016), Martijn's answer is exactly right. Review bans were based on a 2 day→7 day→30 day progressive ban, but after the 30 day ban, the progressive ban was reset, and subsequent bans were subject to the same 2→7→30 progression. Because bans kept resetting to 2 days, habitually poor reviewers kept getting their review privileges back.

But starting in Nov 2016, a new system was implemented that uses the previous ban duration and the time since that last ban to set your new automatic review ban.

  • If it has been less than 30 days since your previous review ban ended, subsequent bans are double of the previous ban (if you had a 30 day ban that ended 16 days ago and triggered a new ban, the next ban would be 60 days)
  • If it has been more than 30 days since your previous review ban ended, subsequent bans are half of the previous ban (if you had a 30 day ban that ended 2 months ago and triggered a new ban, the next ban would be 15 days)

The minimum ban is 2 days so even though your previous ban (more than 30 days ago) was only 2 days, any subsequent ban would still be 2 days.

In addition, ♦ moderators have the ability to levy manual bans of any length up to 1 year regardless of the previous ban. Prior ♦ moderator-imposed bans are still used when calculating the duration of new automatic bans (if a mod bans you for a year, then your next automatic ban is either 6 months or 2 years depending on when it occurred).

Source: Review bans should escalate beyond 30 days

  • A useful clarification on this from @taryn on the main thread is that this gets cut in half every 30 days of good behavior: “If it's been more than 30 days since your last ban, and your last ban was 30 days, then the next ban is 15 days. And it continues the same way. If you don't get banned again for 30+ days, then your next ban would be cut in half. So eventually you could work back down to 2 days.” – Jeremy Caney Apr 5 '20 at 8:44
  • @JeremyCaney Does that really need clarified? I think the line you quoted from ym 2nd bullet explains that. – psubsee2003 Apr 6 '20 at 11:29
  • To me it did. And, apparently for others on the main thread as well, thus leading to that clarification. At minimum, I think it’s ambiguous enough that it doesn’t hurt to cross-reference that followup here. – Jeremy Caney Apr 6 '20 at 19:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/256231/review-suspension-progressive-system/344967
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
151600
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:S2P4DT6AIES52IS44QR7M6MZO5HY3CN2
<urn:uuid:752641d1-c948-4145-984e-3ac3e4e964df>
2021-01-25T08:33:42Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:KXPO7JKX3L2ZPV7NECV3MTISDECTHR6B
<urn:uuid:208e17bc-ef58-4927-98c0-1cad566c7e50>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/256231/review-suspension-progressive-system/344967
response
<urn:uuid:01dde96e-da34-4496-bfa9-d57c078aa204>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-98.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/