<p>The moderators won't discuss individual cases. Although the person in question has not been identified, everyone in the thread knows who it is, which leads to an uncomfortable mix of discussion of general principles (which is surely fine) with particular comments that grow out of knowing about, or even participating in, that person's recent threads.</p>
<p>I don't think we should get closer to identifying that person, or be more precise about what they did (which I suspect is the major issue) or didn't do (which is germane also). So <strong>we should respect the moderators' restraint and indeed silence</strong>.</p>
<p>A while back there was general discussion arising from one particular user. <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1665/is-it-reasonable-to-downvote-a-fair-fraction-of-one-users-posts-for-lack-of-res">Is it reasonable to downvote a fair fraction of one user&#39;s posts for lack of research?</a> In that case, there was similarly some awareness in the Meta thread of who was implied. (I checked and they are no longer very active here. I don't think they were ever suspended, but from some rummaging around I think it's fair to say that they have various problems in understanding how SE best works, despite thousands of posts over many years!)</p>
<p>I want to make a further few generic comments.</p>
<p>First off, <strong>reputation is, unsurprisingly I hope, an imperfect measure of contribution to CV</strong>. I can't and won't offer alternative measures or criteria. But I imagine that long-term members like me privately think sometimes that a person has more reputation than they deserve -- and sometimes less. Other people can have such private thoughts about anyone's profile. On one level, no one should care one bit, but the point is still germane.</p>
<p>For example, some people here make comments that are often worth as much or more as accepted, upvoted answers. To the point, anyone active with many questions and/or answers can often acquire moderate reputation because their posts look interesting or entertaining to upvoters. This can occur despite, not because of, a string of poorly researched or duplicate or near duplicate questions, whereby a member is using CV as a helpline or their version of Google; or despite, not because of, a string of idiosyncratic or intriguing answers that seem deserving of upvote, despite being often irrelevant or even incorrect. (I won't downvote an answer as being poor, and we are not expected to.)</p>
<p>So reputation is not even an especially good measure of contribution. What's more, <strong>reputation is not a guarantor of good behaviour</strong>. Some of the longest suspensions that I have witnessed have been of users with 4- or 5-figure reputations. Manifestly, I have not been and am not a moderator, and I am breaking no confidence in discussing some history in abstraction. My impression from a close or moderate distance -- either engaging directly in threads with such people or just observing from what remains of answers and comments (and noting comments posted in anger but later removed) -- is that long suspensions typically involve one or more of</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Just not regustering repeated advice intended to be in everyone's best interests. Repeating closed questions and ignoring previous comments is one such behaviour.</p>
</li>
<li><p>A pattern of disrespect for community norms, including the principles behind moderation, voting, editing and commenting.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Personally directed abuse of various kinds.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It's also my strong impression, based mainly on moderators' own statements here, that <strong>decisions in difficult or challenging cases always involve discussions between moderators</strong>, to the extent that drastic action always requires a consensus. A moderator won't act alone unless a particular action seems obvious, e.g. deletion of spam or filth. Also, moderators need to be patient, but not infinitely patient, and they need not accept abuse.</p>
