I fully appreciate most users want fast, efficient content curation without repeated work. But the question is this; in the rare case multiple users express the counter-wish to reinstate or keep content, should there be any presumption which side should give way?

It rarely happens but from time to time there's content which gets repeatedly removed and reinstated:

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/29174/334732

Are the current mechanisms for resolving this satisfactory?

I'll nail my colours to the mast. In my opinion, if a "quorum" (whatever that may mean) of users want some content to remain enough to undelete and reopen it, the presumption should be in favour of it remaining. IMO "doing our stuff" should be more of a concern than "stopping others doing their stuff", especially in borderline cases.

Questions are from time to time, closed, then deleted fairly rapidly in a co-ordinated fashion that then puts undeletion and re-opening beyond all but the highest-rep users (since viewing deleted posts requires a fair degree of rep.).

Content is rarely undeleted mostly because its removal is fairly uncontroversial but also because there are quite significant barriers to it happening - most of all it being invisible to the majority of users. Moreover, there is no organised team of "reopen / undeleters".

  • 3
    The first downvote was in less than 10 seconds. This is insufficient time to read the question. – user334732 Dec 4 at 10:02
  • 7
    I had cast the first downvote. And I did not need to read through the colorful analogues that you paint on your mast. This idea will lead to the classical question, who watches the watchers. What happens when the quorum is split? What happens when enough people wish to veto the quorum's decision? How about a second quorum? But then who can veto them, etc. etc. – Asaf Karagila Dec 4 at 10:08
  • @AsafKaragila kudos to you for owning up. As it turns out the full body of the question answers all those queries - it proposes a presumption in favour of disputed content remaining rather than being removed. – user334732 Dec 4 at 10:13
  • 6
    Where does it discuss this on the post? Because I read it twice, and I can't find it. Maybe it's just morning and I haven't woken up yet. All I can see is someone suggesting a group with "veto powers" because there is a group that coordinates closure and deletions. – Asaf Karagila Dec 4 at 10:18
  • 2
    To repond to the last sentence, 10k tools include a list of posts which has attracted (un)deleted/close/reopen vote(s) over the last (30/14/7/1 day(s)). That's already well organised. I was able to find several self-deleted questions with others' answers due to the undelete vote of the affected answerer. – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Dec 4 at 10:18
  • @AsafKaragila I don't propose some named group, a quorum is just some sufficient threshold or number of people or votes (say undelete, reopen) that is "sufficient". So if that is reached, we avoid the ping-pong of reopen, redelete, reopen etc. that sometimes happens. – user334732 Dec 4 at 10:21
  • 2
    If three people vote to undelete a post, it gets undeleted. If five people vote to reopen a closed question, it gets reopened. I don't understand where this quorum comes into play. – Asaf Karagila Dec 4 at 10:22
  • 2
    @AsafKaragila I'm talking about when that has happened and then the question is clsoed and /or deleted again for a 2nd time against the wishes of the reopeners. Maybe there ought to be some threshold of people who want the content to remain, that takes precedence over repeated closing/deletion. Because the main purpose of coming here should be to do ones stuff, rather than to stop others doing theirs. – user334732 Dec 4 at 10:26
  • 2
    When there are cycles like this the moderators look at the question and the history and reasons for these things, and we make a call whether or not the content should stay or be gone. How's that for a vetoing quorum? – Asaf Karagila Dec 4 at 10:31
  • @AsafKaragila that would perform the function, especially if you can be relied upon to do so, and it only happens infrequently enough that you don't mind so doing. Although that's a (democratically elected) higher authority rather than a quorum of users, and that might also beg the question whether some moderators have a predilection for retention over removal and other moderators vice versa. – user334732 Dec 4 at 11:37
  • 6
    When I see a question that has gone through several close-open or delete-undelete cycles, I generally flag it for moderator attention. A moderator sometimes takes action on my flag, but at least once a moderator thought it was better to let the question go through the cycle a couple more times to see whether it would settle down. A look at the "Request for reopen etc" thread here on meta will reveal some instances of lengthy cycles. I think on the whole I'm happy to notify moderators and leave it to them. – Gerry Myerson Dec 4 at 12:33
  • 3
    @Gerry: Yes, sometimes it is better to see if things settle down. I will note that when looking at these situations, I (and presumably the other moderators) take into account also people who voted several times (especially in deletion votes, since those are not time limited), or if people who voted to close also voted to reopen, etc. and this factors into the way I would assess the situation. – Asaf Karagila Dec 4 at 14:24
  • 1
    "I'm talking about when that has happened and then the question is clsoed and /or deleted again for a 2nd time against the wishes of the reopeners," who undeleted and reopened against the wishes of the original deleters and closers. Why should undeleters and reopeners have privilege over closers and deleters, @RobertFrost? – amWhy Dec 4 at 21:56
  • 2
    Not if "doing our stuff" undermines the quality of the site. Then, in such cases, "stopping others doing their stuff that undermines the quality of the site" should take higher priority. – amWhy Dec 5 at 0:44
  • 1
    @amWhy the quality of the site is first and foremost determined by how well it answers the questions of the people who come to it, to get their maths questions answered. I wonder if some users put "assembling a canonical library of questions and answers" before "answering questions", but in fact the former is only an end insofar as it's a means to the latter – user334732 Dec 5 at 4:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .