-1

I was going to fix a typo I came across in an answer and saw that I am temporarily banned form making edits.
I'd like to know why, and how come I was not notified that action(s) were taken against me. I find that to be pretty odd.
After 5+ years in the Stack Exchange community, I have yet to come across this, and I've edited plenty of things.
I do recall making a bunch of wiki tag edits recently, and a member messaging me in the most peculiar way - on a comment on a question - the message had nothing to do with the question - essentially they disliked my answers on the tags.
So why am I banned? How long will this last? And why wasn't I informed that I was being banned?

Edit: Here is the random comment I got prior to being banned.
How can I recover content from an open source project host that has shut down?

Conclusion Edit:
Appreciate your responses.
I'm going to redo the rejected tag wikis based off these comments, but I can't do that as long as I'm banned from editing. Any clue when that's up?

7
  • why was this downvoted? how is this a bad question?
    – albert
    Jul 25 '15 at 12:23
  • 1
    It's not a question, it's a request for support. In that sense, people downvote mostly because they believe that you haven't put effort into figuring out the details yourself. There's a lot of info on this, especially on Meta SE.
    – Zizouz212
    Jul 25 '15 at 12:28
  • actually, it is a question.
    – albert
    Jul 25 '15 at 12:29
  • also, i would have never thought to go to meta se for this. why would i not ask here, where the incident happened? you guys assume way too much
    – albert
    Jul 26 '15 at 12:01
  • 2
    No, I'm telling you that there is a lot of information that is available to use through Meta SE posts
    – Zizouz212
    Jul 26 '15 at 12:14
  • Please don't redo the tag wikis based off on anything. Take the ban as a lesson to write well-constructed tag wikis in the future (and all posts for that matters)
    – Zizouz212
    Jul 29 '15 at 20:53
  • "well-constructed tag wikis" like "For Questions Regarding X"
    – albert
    Jul 29 '15 at 21:29
10

Looking at your account stats, you have had 12 suggested edits approved, and 6 rejected. The high reject rate seems to me like the system automatically banned you from editing. This ban may last from a couple days, to a couple weeks.

I do want to note however, that I've noticed that a large chunk of your wiki edits were comprised of improperly attributed, 100% copied content. As such, the edits were not of utmost quality: you can click on some of the reviews to see who rejected or approved them. Furthermore, many reviewers are very active in chat: you can talk to us anytime.

Do note that as a suggester, you should be working on making the post as perfect as possible. Don't just fix typos, but grammar, spelling... Everything.

About the comment on the question, I can't comment because I haven't seen it. If you can link or quote it, I will likely be able to provide more details.

Update:

The comment by ArtOfCode was likely added because we need a mean of communication to you. Many high-rep reviewers (including myself) had a conversation in chat about this. Look at this review.

The entire content was a copy and paste from the Wikipedia article on the subject. I rejected it primarily for that purpose: We want wikis that tailor the community, not copy pastes from wikipedia.

Furthermore, you didn't properly use formatting to quote your content. This isn't that big of a deal normally, because generally we paraphrase and actually make the wiki our own. But in this case, you pasted the entire thing, and you didn't give a signal that it was copied -> Just a hidden "reference".

I think I can speak for most of the reviewers there. We weren't happy at all with any of your edits, after in-depth reflection.

7
  • "improperly attribute, 100% copied content" - show me some examples. i attribute everything. looking at the tags that were rejected, they are much superior answers as opposed to the easy, lazy way ala "this tag is for questions regarding tag-word" which provides not even the slightest information to the user. i notice all of those were accepted
    – albert
    Jul 25 '15 at 12:25
  • @albert I agree they were not well referenced. If you have a long piece of text with a list of references at the bottom you can't tell which part was derived from which source. It would be better to specifically reference each part of the text.
    – curiousdannii
    Jul 25 '15 at 23:25
  • funny how i've created numerous tags across five or six different stack exchange sites, using the same format, never had one voted down, let alone 6.
    – albert
    Jul 26 '15 at 12:01
  • 1
    It's not funny, you must've suited them differently. Different sites have different reviewers, and as such have different quality standards.
    – Zizouz212
    Jul 26 '15 at 12:07
  • 4
    @albert: Not funny at all. Different people judge differently and notice different things. If Zizouz hadn't pointed out in chat, that some of your wikis were copies from other sites, I wouldn't have noticed. Remember no appointed staff or something is reviewing this edits, but the community itself. So the results may vary depending on reviewer, tiredness, blood alcohol ...
    – Mnementh
    Jul 27 '15 at 15:41
  • no one has pointed out to me where the wikis were copies from other sites. i didn't suit them differently, as i already said, i followed the same format that i do on every se site that i'm active on. what is copied and not cited? i know its not funny....that was sarcasm. clearly you missed the point of that. again, i'd like to see examples of this copied, non-attributed work.
    – albert
    Jul 28 '15 at 5:41
  • 3
    You didn't format the citation. That's an issue. You copied the entire intro to the Wikipedia article. That's an issue. You copied from Wikipedia. Potentially an issue. You just said "reference" when citing the article, you didn't write it: you just copied it. Major issue right there. There's a lot of issues with this. We're not moderators, we are community members, and we are trying to give this site top-level quality standards. Your wikis and excerpts didn't meet that. Open Source is not "other" sites, we're open source. I'll get you examples of other "failed" reviews.
    – Zizouz212
    Jul 28 '15 at 10:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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