I know this user was argumentative and seemed to be not-so-subtly trolling the site in many ways but his profile says he was suspended for "voting irregularities". What does that mean? Does that mean he created sock puppet accounts and upvoted himself? Or perhaps it means that he serially downvoted particularly uses. Or both? Kind of curious what's going on here and how one can avoid a similar fate. Thanks!
As a rule, suspensions are a private matter between the user that is suspended, the moderators, and the SE team. We don't give out information to other users, other than the brief canned message shown on the profile page of the suspended user. (And I wouldn't bother reading too much into that canned message; there are only a few and not all suspensions fit neatly into one of them.)
In general, one avoids "voting irregularities" by voting for posts, not targeting specific people. That means:
- Don't take any action to specifically vote in favor of yourself or any other user. (For example, the following behavior is not allowed: Paula is friends with Katherine. They don't vote much on SE but they make sure to vote up one another's posts when they see them and like them, to help out a friend.)
- Don't take any action to specifically vote against any user. (For example, the following behavior is not allowed: Joe is convinced that Alex downvoted his post. Joe visits Alex's profile page, looks through it until he finds a post he doesn't like, and downvotes it.)
- Don't take any steps to give yourself more than one vote per post, or other votes that you wouldn't normally be entitled to. (For example, the following behavior is not allowed: Pat creates a second account to post an embarrassing question that she doesn't want to have linked to her main account. Pat then visits the question from her main account and votes it up, even though normally you can't vote on your own post.)
The list above is not exhaustive. If you're not sure about a particular behavior, please start a new meta post to ask about it.
The question should be posed differently:
Why did the mods kill Leon Meier or on the importance of being revengeful.
When you take a look at Leon Meier's last comments in the days preceding his death, you find that, on the one hand, his comments were criticizing. On the other hand, some folks also bullied the user, saying one of his posts could be a rant. I guess, it was easy to provoke the user into critical comments against anyone's content - and then the mods probably did their utmost best to allow the others to take revenge on him. (Of course, this is my guess: in reality, I don't know.) Leon's comments I see may be up to the point or not, but they are not bad: it'd say they are business as usual. We see way lower levels on the other SE sites and from other users.