CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Suspensions on X

overview about the suspension of accounts on Twitter and a list of notable ones

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 22, 2026
Entity authorityQ48838743
Source-derived summary

X, formerly Twitter, may suspend accounts, temporarily or permanently, from their social networking service. Suspensions of high-profile accounts often attract media attention, and X's use of suspensions has been controversial.

Policy

Users who are suspended from the platform, based on alleged violations of X's terms of service, are usually not informed which of their posts were the cause. They are told only that their accounts will not be restored. In addition to community guideline policy decisions, the platform's DMCA-detection system and spam-detection system are sometimes manipulated or abused by groups of users attempting to force a user's suspension.

Some commentators, such as technology entrepreneur Declan McCullagh and law professor Glenn Reynolds, have criticized Twitter's suspension and ban policies as overreaches of power.

History

Between 2014 and 2016, Twitter suspensions were frequently linked to ISIL-related accounts. A "Twitter suspension campaign" began in earnest in 2015, and on one day, 4 April 2015, 10,000 accounts were suspended. Twitter repeatedly shut down accounts that spread ISIL material, but new ones popped up quickly and were advertised with their old Twitter handle; Twitter in return blocked those in what was called an ongoing game of Whac-A-Mole. By August 2014, Twitter had suspended a dozen official ISIL accounts, and between September and December 2014 it suspended at least 1000 accounts promoting ISIL. Twitter said that between mid-2015 and February 2016 it had suspended 125,000 accounts associated with ISIL and related organizations, and by August 2016 had suspended some 360,000 accounts for being associated with terrorism (not all these were ISIL-related).

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Suspensions on X” as overview about the suspension of accounts on Twitter and a list of notable ones. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2014, 2016, 2015, 1000—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Suspensions, overview and suspension can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as overview about the suspension of accounts on Twitter and a list of notable ones. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q48838743. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2014, 2016, 2015 and 1000.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Suspensions on X”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Suspensions on X primary sources, Suspensions on X archive and Suspensions research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Suspensions on X”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Suspensions on X” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.