5

I was going to answer a question when I noticed that a heavily downvoted answer already included part of my answer. So as to not duplicate the efforts and reposting the same information, I too contributed in improving it further (minor grammar and formatting). The edit changes were accepted by the original author. I also suggested in a comment that an additional information could be included, and the author of the answer obliged by adding. (In effect, it was a minor collaborative effort in tune with the spirit of SE.) As the answer had improved in quality, it started gaining upvotes.

But the answer has since been deleted by the other community members (none of whom have shared any explanation in the comments on why it needs be deleted).

In such a case, can I write an answer as originally planned with similar content as the now deleted answer? (I'd only be using the first two sources that I had discovered too, while the author of the deleted answer had mentioned 3 references - in other words, I won't be completely copying and pasting from the deleted answer but 2/3rd of it would still be the same).

(If anyone is wondering, I do not see an "Undelete" option to start the process of restoring the answer).

1
  • 1
    One needs at least 4000 reputation for "Voting to undelete answers except those deleted by a moderator".
    – Rick Smith
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 2:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

TL;DR: What you are trying to do is salvaging a content that the community has already voted out.
Letting you doing so would not only violate the SE rules and practices,
but also sets a precedent that will trigger a race of politically committed agents reposting each other (not completely, only 2/3rd) and the community struggling to clear the same content over and over.

Please do not involve us into that race.

Sockpuppetry: I believe that community voting, like delete- and down-votes that your post has reaped a rich harvest of, exists for a purpose. Posting a duplicate for a single purpose of evading the community vote, as one of the forms of sockpuppetry, should be considered a severe violation of the very founding principles of Stack Exchange.

Your content was delete-voted: We do not know how many delete-votes have been casted on the post after your edits, but at least the final one must be on the post that contained all your contributions. It simply cannot be otherwise.

Tried already: The OP has already attempted to salvage their heavily-downvoted post by deleting it and re-posting it again. It was subsequently deleted by the diamond Mod with the following comment:

Hi convert, please don't delete your original answer just to repost an answer which is substantially the same. Instead, please edit your old answer. I'm going to delete this version, but please feel free to undelete your other answer if you wish. – CDJB ♦

So your question reduces to what is to be considered "substantially the same".
I think Mods would review such cases individually.
Speaking for myself, I will flag such attempts at once.

in other words, I won't be completely copying and pasting from the deleted answer but 2/3rd of it would still be the same

Slippery slope: If the community allows you that, what would prevent another propagandist from attempting to salvage another 1/3 of the content on the same premise?

Below seems to be a separate problem, but let me address it as well.

(none of whom have shared any explanation in the comments on why it needs be deleted).

I'm not a delete-voter, but here's one easy-to-find reason.

Selective quoting: Your edit included a quote. You put an ellipsis ("...") after the words "enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages."
Here's what you have conveniently concealed under the ellipsis in the original article:

The test was a success, Kovalchuk said, but the step remained a last resort. He held off.

This selective quoting is very typical for propaganda, hence the down- and delete-votes.

9
  • 1
    1. What you are trying to do is salvaging a content that the community has already voted out. No. The downvotes for the answer were accrued because the first few versions were grammatically poor and did not cite any sources. After the post was improved with proper citations, the answer was again getting upvoted. (In fact there is a comment under the question by another user pointing this very fact too and asking to reinstate the answer again - Can we resurrect one of convert's deleted answers? The latest is pretty solid and whatever was wrong with its first iteration ...)
    – sfxedit
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 13:36
  • 3. If the community allows you that, what would prevent another propagandist from attempting to salvage another 1/3 of the content on the same premise? - The community can delete it because deletion is supposed to be done on the merit of the content.
    – sfxedit
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 13:56
  • 4. Selective quoting: ... Here's what you have conveniently concealed Not concealed but omitted as adding that last line that you think is "very important" doesn't at all change what is claimed, which is, and I quote: The Washington Post, in an article on December 29, 2022 describes how the Ukranian had considered, practised and simulated blowing up the dam in 2022: - the claim is that the UA had already created a military strategy that included blowing up the dam, if necessary, in the future, and had conducted a small military exercise to confirm if they could do it.
    – sfxedit
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 14:04
  • 5. As for your allegations of "typical propaganda tactics", perhaps you need to be reminded of your own user name here? I see it as you expressing political solidarity with Ukraine, which is completely fine. But if I were to change my name here to "Be Brave Like Russians", would I be considered as someone who is expressing solidarity with Russia or as an agent of the KGB who is here to spread propaganda? The point I am trying to get at is that sometimes the way an answer is written doesn't automatically mean it is a "propaganda tactic" simply because it seems to speak in favour of the Russians
    – sfxedit
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 14:19
  • 2
    @sfxedit I'm not sure what you mean by point 2. I don't think it's true that users can vote multiple times on the same post regardless of how many times it's been edited. It can be that edits attract attention which in turn causes other users to see it causing them to add a downvote as well. It's also true that users who voted before the edit may undo that vote after the edit.
    – JJJ Mod
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 14:38
  • @JJJ You are right, and I am confused now because I remember a few months back I could upvote or downvote any edited post again (see my comment below this answer - politics.stackexchange.com/a/78330/45056 - where I first complained about it). Perhaps it has been fixed? Anyway, I will delete the comment here and repost it with better clarification.
    – sfxedit
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 15:17
  • 2. The OP has already attempted to salvage their heavily-downvoted post by deleting it and re-posting it again. - I agree that was against the rules. While you attribute malice to that, I see it as an impatient attempt to showcase the improved answer that was still getting downvotes without any explanation (which can be frustrating for any user).
    – sfxedit
    Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 15:24
  • 2
    Meh, the first version was completely silly, and short. The fact that it did not provide sources didn't change anything substantial, it sucked. It got DVd and flagged for deletion. Later on the poster actually did a good job on a serious answer (I don't agree with the politics, but the answer's fine). Trouble is, they were stuck with the initial tsunami of downvotes and delete votes. That answer was by no means substantially the same. Then it got really confusing with a delete and a repost. Very confusing, but not really the case where someone repeat posts the same answer to spam.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Jun 9, 2023 at 5:46
  • People interact with social media in various ways. And voting on the Stack Exchange sites often favor speed over quality. I think that is a more likely explanation for what's going on here.
    – Gaslight Deceive Subvert
    Commented Jan 5 at 14:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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