-17

Carpetsmoker is causing raucous by removing tags that authors put on their questions and substituting his opinions for the intents of the authors.

So far he's managed to

  1. convince a moderator to remove "liberals" tag from a question about history of behavior of liberals in the US.
  2. start a flame war about whether "israel" tag should be attached to a question which discussed Poland's new law, but which Israel's government has made direct objections to.
  3. He is now trying to change my question about Mueller's special council investigation by substituting "special-council-investigation" tag for "Mueller" tag. My question is not about special councils in general. It is about a recent development in a specific special council investigation by Mueller. I didn't ask any procedural questions about special council. I asked a factual question about this particular political investigation.

He is defacing questions and he keeps changing tags even after questions' authors point out to him that this is contrary to what they are asking about. Is there no way to put him on ice for a while?

EDIT: please, note that certain comments here have been erased so the discussion, as it is seen here, is not the true reflection of what has actually transpired.

  • 8
    I think the question we should actually address is which tags we should use for which questions. Making this a complaint about a specific user isn't useful. Just remember that the author does not have sole authority over their question and its tags. – Philipp Feb 20 '18 at 14:36
  • 1
    @grovkin Handling allegations of misbehavior is what the flagging-system is for. We don't do that in public for a reason. – Philipp Feb 20 '18 at 15:49
13

Okay, I'll bite, because I'm sick today and have nothing better to do.

He is now trying to change my question about Mueller's special council investigation by substituting "special-council-investigation" tag for "Mueller" tag. My question is not about special councils in general. It is about a recent development in a specific special council investigation by Mueller. I didn't ask any procedural questions about special council. I asked a factual question about this particular political investigation.

Your question is clearly about the special council investigation. This is a useful tag that could be applied to a whole bunch of already existing questions (the reason I haven't applied it to more questions yet is just laziness).

Contrary to what you may think, I am not randomly defacing questions out of sheer malice or to make some political point. What does "Mueller" even mean? Wikipedia lists 28 people with that name, including political scientist John Mueller and Gene Mueller, both of whom could be on-topic here.

I choose "special council investigation" because that's what Wikipedia uses and because as far as I could find, this is the only investigation that is referred to as "Special Counsel investigation". Perhaps I could be wrong there, and there is a better tag name, I'm not sure. I am sure that "Mueller" is an extraordinary bad tag name though. (I considered but the investigation is still on-going and for all we know Mueller could be replaced or become indisposed for other reasons tomorrow and we'd have to choose a new tag name).

convince a moderator to remove "liberals" tag from a question about history of behavior of liberals in the US.

I didn't "convince" anyone, what makes you think that I am somehow discussing this with moderators? I'm not.

The tag came up in the new tags list. The tagged question is a bad-faith question from a bad-faith actor, and that it hasn't been promptly closed and deleted proves that the "liberal bias" on this site isn't quite as bad as some make it out to be (if it even exists in the first place).

At any rate, as I mentioned in the edit description, we don't really have demonyms as tag names, we have , but is this question really about the political philosophy of liberalism? No. In that sense, the tag is also inappropriate, but at least that's an established tag with more than one question.

In addition, demonyms can come off as snarl words, especially when paired with incendiary questions such as this one. "Liberals" in particular is often used as a snarl word by conservative speakers and authors. This is also why I retagged all questions with last year, as asking about "the Jew" or "the Jews" can quickly give the wrong impression (even if the question itself is okay). There is little special about here.

start a flame about whether "israel" tag should be attached to a question which discussed Poland's new law, but which Israel's government has made direct objections to.

Nonsense. I removed the tag initially (once). I could see how it was tangibly related but it didn't seem all that appropriate to me. A position the community in general seems to agree with. When it was re-added I simply shrugged and didn't do anything. Other people then proceeded to add it back.


I'm all for reasonable discussion about which tag to add or not add, and in general I don't actually care all that much. But when you just revert edits without reasons then that's not especially constructive, especially if it's about a tag that's clearly not a good one (like ). Adding a slew of personal attacks – something I've seen you do frequently since the moment you joined – doesn't exactly increase my willingness to engage in discussion either.

  • 1
    Cleaned up comments, as the discussion was going nowhere, fast. Carpetsmoker has explained their edits. Everyone is free to disagree and discuss the issue further, but please keep in mind that our "be nice" policy is neither optional nor negotiable. – yannis Feb 21 '18 at 9:18
8

Stack Exchange is a collaborative website. Users are encouraged to edit each other's content. When you post something on Stack Exchange, you do not have final say about it.

This especially applies to tags. Tags are meta-information which is supposed to help to organize the website and help people to find questions they are interested in. They are not a means to make political statements. Tagging and re-tagging questions is a thankless but important maintenance task on Stack Exchange sites. We should be grateful for any users who take care of it.

The question we should actually address is which tags should be applied to which questions. We already did that for the Israel tag on your question about that Polish law. We could also have the discussion about the other two cases you listed. You are free to post meta-questions for them, but please do that without ad hominem attacks.

  • @grovkin We are just talking about tags here, not the content of questions. – Philipp Feb 20 '18 at 15:46
  • Cleaned up some comments. There were some useful bits and pieces of information in the discussion, but not enough to justify the very unproductive way they were presented. Be nice, everyone. – yannis Feb 21 '18 at 9:26
  • When you post a question on these sites, you do have a "final say" about one thing: only you can then choose to accept an answer to get that big green check mark! – Jesse W. Collins Mar 11 '18 at 17:55
  • 1
    @JesseW.Collins You have a final say about several other things. In example, the right to dissasociate your name with the text you've posted here. – Jose Antonio Reinstate Monica Jul 10 '18 at 17:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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