20
$\begingroup$

While browsing the 10K tools undeletion queue I just noticed that a handful of questions with two undeletion votes are now stuck in limbo, impossible to get the final undeletion vote, because they were deleted by users who later become mods in the recent election, and the deletion votes have been (effectively) retroactively granted moderator superpower. It is not clear that this is the intended behavior, esp. since many of the candidates wrote in campaign statements that do not desire to cast such superpower deletion votes. Does SE actually intend that such votes be retroactively redefined as moderator votes, or is this a bug?

$\endgroup$
41
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ Also on Meta.SE: Deletion votes from users who later became moderators shouldn't prevent community undeletion. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Dec 25, 2014 at 0:19
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @Pedro This is not about the specific questions or anyone's views on them. Rather, it is about the general issue mentioned in the OP. Notice that no specific questions are mentioned in the OP. I supplied some instances only because you requested such. I have since removed them to avoid the discussion from further veering off-topic. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 25, 2014 at 0:41
  • 16
    $\begingroup$ That certainly seems like an undesirable behavior of the site, since being a moderator should mean you've reached a point where we trust your judgment, not that you were always there. $\endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    Dec 25, 2014 at 0:57
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ So what? It cannot be changed here. Would you ask how we should deal with this behavior it would be a legitimate discussion. "Does SE actually intend that such votes be retroactively redefined as unilateral, or is this a bug?" Is not a subject for a discussion but support or bug. Do you want an answer to this question? I, or anybody given the link, can post it right away? Normally you should post it now that you know. If you want something else you might explain what it is. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Dec 25, 2014 at 1:31
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @quid It's a bug-report. That is one of the intended uses of meta. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 25, 2014 at 1:37
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque then I repeat my question: what specifically do you want to discuss? $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Dec 25, 2014 at 1:52
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ I would delete the "many of the candidates wrote in campaign statements that do not desire to cast unilateral deletion votes.", which is irrelevant since none of the new mods wrote something like that. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Greinecker
    Dec 25, 2014 at 7:51
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Finally it's a bit unclear to me why a bug report should contain a political statement. You might consider that who posts the bug report and the way it is laid out can influence voting behavior. Would you go to IT and report a bug like that? $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Dec 25, 2014 at 10:03
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ "Anyone is welcome to discuss whatever they may desire on this and related matters." speaks for it self. I will try to leave this non-constructive post now. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Dec 25, 2014 at 14:51
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ What? I said something about "bug reports containing political statement". Your bug report contains a political statement. I said something about posting two questions on one. Your question apparently contains at the same time a bug report and a call for discussion. Am I only allowed to talk about what other people have commented about? My remarks are on-topic, they're directly about your question. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Dec 25, 2014 at 14:53
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Okay, I can see having a reasonable discussion is not possible and that I've been wasting my time. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Dec 25, 2014 at 15:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque The "there" in your quote of Dan refers to the quue for delete votes. Jyrki also made his statement in context " My own sentiment is that correct ≠ useful. However, as a moderator I will not use my binding vote on such a question." There is a difference between being more careful with ones votes and campaigning for mod with a promis never to delete something, which would make little sense. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Greinecker
    Dec 25, 2014 at 15:39
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque What is probably true is that they did not intend for their deletion votes pre-mod becoming binding. What is not true is that they "do not desire to cast unilateral deletion votes", which is part of being a moderator. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Greinecker
    Dec 25, 2014 at 15:45
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ I'm not going to waste my time further. If you're just going to deny reality, I can do nothing. Just noting that calling differing opinions or criticism "off-topic" is also a diversion tactic. Your bug report is a duplicate, your call for discussion is useless considering you're inviting everyone to talk about everything and refuse to narrow it down. Let's leave it at that. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Dec 25, 2014 at 16:07
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ If this is truly just a bug report, then minimal is better, so the "esp. since..." clause doesn't belong, since it doesn't describe the bug, but instead tries to persuade that it is not a feature. I presume Bill expected disagreement over whether it's a bug, thus the call for discussion. In light of the responses, the comment should probably be removed; there doesn't seem to be need for persuasion, but there is disagreement over its veracity, and some feeling that Bill is exploiting the chance to emphasize something that aligns with the views he espouses on what proper moderation should be. $\endgroup$
    – user14972
    Dec 26, 2014 at 5:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
22
$\begingroup$

Robert Cartaino, Director of Community Development commented on this subject some time ago:

No, I don't (personally) believe all previous actions of a user should become "Moderator actions" (capitol 'M') once they gain that diamond ♦. [...]

In that same vein, any official actions taken by a moderator♦ should not suddenly become un-official, should they relinquish their position.

As for handling these cases, it may be an oversight… a bug… or just one of those pedantic, edge cases not worth devoting the resources to right now. That's a discussion for another party.

It appears that SE is aware of this issue and possibly considers it as a bug, yet fixing it not a priority. Since some time elapsed it might make sense to recall that this is an open problem.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Credit should be given to user Behaviour, who found said related Meta.SE question and posted the link as the second comment to the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Dec 25, 2014 at 1:45
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I would add a bounty there, but (a) I already have three active bounties there; and (b) Christmas Eve is not the best time in terms of getting SE employees' attention. I'll post a bounty later if nobody else does. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Dec 25, 2014 at 1:49
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque I credited Behaviour in a comment on main before posting this answer. I considered this as sufficient. I however made it CW now. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Dec 25, 2014 at 1:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In comparison to other site events, [user becomes moderator] is unbelievably infrequent. As long as nothing extreme is breaking during this process, my guess is that it's not going to be fixed soon. $\endgroup$
    – user66698
    Dec 27, 2014 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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