Yeah, yeah, yeah... low quality contributions.
I didn't think so, I quite liked JAHANVI KASHYAP contributions. They were "fresh", one or two were quite original and they all had a certain charm to them. Perhaps it could be argued her questions and her level of English were better suited to ELL, so was she ever invited to post there? I don't recall seeing any comments.
Lets see now,
eleven questions posted in two days.
There have been contributors who posted a greater number of trivial questions in a shorter space of time. Is that a valid reason for suspension?
Four questions received minus votes for a total of nine visible downvotes.
Five questions upvoted for a total of twenty-four visible upvotes
Two questions garnered over 1,000 views. An excellent result in just two days of activity.
- One duplicate (it happens to the best of us), with time and experience she would have learnt.
General tone of questions: polite, non confrontational, demonstrated a willingness to listen and heed to advice.
And, she's a very young woman. She's still a baby! (hmm.. maybe it's a cover, she might be a 65-year-old pervert hiding behind a pretty avatar) But I say the suspension was harsh, unless of course she had been warned that the community regarded her questions to be of low-quality. Was ELU flooded with complaints and flags about her posts? Is it possible to know the count?
It's the first time I've ever felt motivated to express my dissent on a user being suspended. Generally speaking, when users were suspended I've supported the action or not cared. This is different. I think this could have been handled much better. But admittedly, I don't know all the ins and outs of this case.
If one visits the user's profile there is a link which leads the reader to a page called
A Day in the Penalty Box formulated by Jeff Atwood in 04-06-09. I will quote the most relevant passages.
Our general strategy is to discourage specific problem behaviors, not individual users. But sometimes you just can’t seem to reach people, and it becomes necessary to place accounts in timed suspension.
When users exhibit a pattern of either …
No effort to learn and improve over time
- This user does not put reasonable effort into the questions they ask of the community.
- There is little or no evidence of this user learning over time, either in the topic itself or in the community norms on the site.
- This user intentionally spams the site with the same question or very similar questions, over and over.
- The user never gives anything back to the community, but only takes.
- Other users tend to react poorly to this user’s contributions, posting negative responses in kind and generally causing a commotion.
- There is a broad sense of community resentment over this user’s behavior, and they are frequently cited in discussion about the community.
- There is a dark storm cloud of moderator flags that seems to follow this user around wherever they go.
- The moderators get email complaints about this user’s behavior.
- This user makes overtly snide, rude, or hostile comments to their fellow users.
[...] The odds of moderators contacting you with a warning first will be in direct proportion to how much evidence you’ve given us that you are, in fact, a potentially valuable and contributing member of the community. [this part is highlighted]
Depending on the severity of the problem behavior — and at the complete discretion of the moderator — your account will be placed in timed suspension for anywhere from 1 to 365 days.
This user was suspended after TWO DAYS. I don't see any evidence of unruly, discourteous behaviour. Agreed that some of her questions were of the general reference kind, although it is interesting to note that one such question on hold has received a valid answer in the comment section.
And I have no idea why I am taking such a great interest in this case. Perhaps it's because I feel the suspension appears to be unmotivated.