"Assume good faith" is not one of those decisions where either option is fine as long as everyone agrees to stick to it. It's a basic rule of politeness, very similar to the golden rule - if you assume bad faith and act accordingly, people will readily see bad faith in your actions too.
For instance, if I write a post complaining that busing is bad for the ...
The second answer was deleted because it was almost the same as the previous answer which was deleted by 3 trusted users after receiving a large number of downvotes. The community self-moderation system exists for a reason. I don't think I need to explain why we do not allow people to circumvent it by simply reposting content after the community decided to ...
It think it's a poor answer worth downvoting and I agree with the comment that said
(+38) Downvoted. Literally everyone I've ever talked with on this subject complained about two reasons: 1. whales are endangered and 2. whales are incredibly intelligent mammals. These are objective facts, not some cultural relativism – Davor Jul 4 at 14:30
And also with
A desire for revenge is not tolerated on this site, @guest271314. Instead of focusing oneself on hurting other users who voted to close posts, one should see if these posts can be improved.
Other than this, Use the Force, Luke:
A simple Stack Exchange API query returns a list of Closed Questions originated by a certain User. Further playing with the ...
There are at least two more answers on that question that should be deleted or heavily edited, for the simple fact that they do not attempt to answer the question or spend far more time editorializing or debating your sources than in addressing your question. Frankly, you've not gotten a very good set of answers there yet, and if I was an active member of ...
If I handled a deletion flag on that answer, I would probably decline the flag. In fact, there was a VLQ flag on that answer which got declined by a different moderator. That answer was deleted because members of the community voted to delete it.
With that in mind, there are a couple of reasons I can think of why someone might want to delete that answer....
The key here is to be shrewd about what the author is trying to do. Let me illustrate this by using spam.
We allow users to post links to SO/SE. There are good and bad reasons to post links, but there's also a grey area. On other sites a question like this would be permitted
I have some code not working
Some code here
You can see it ...
I deleted the answer because it was not an answer to the question. The question is asking for reasons stated by politicians of the Democrats. The answer was giving reasons stated by John Oliver (a comedian) and Jorge Ramos (a journalist).
I blame the popularity of the answer on the hot network question effect. HNQs tend to attract users from all over the ...
I can understand why it's deleted. Even if an answer kinda sorta answers the question, if its main focus is to speak at length about some other issue that's tangentially related to the question, then I usually don't consider it to be an answer. It's more of a blog post (or as some people say, "rant") masquerading as an answer.
The question was asking why ...
This answer is more of a comment on Sam I Am's answer and their reasoning for deleting the answer, since I think it's safe to discount the idea that it's some sort of Monica-related retribution.
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I do think the answer raised an important and useful point; on the other hand I also think we need to be strict about shutting ...
I was one of the three that originally voted to delete the answer. The main reason I decided to delete was that it didn't answer the question being asked, and didn't seem to do anything (to me) other than attempt to muddy the waters of what the question was about.
No. A non-disclosure agreement is not, as far as am aware, "illegal" in and of itself.
The question asks for a term. The answer offers just that. It certainly isn't a great answer, probably not even a good one, but it is an answer nonetheless.
I see no reason to remove it. If you feel the answer is not helpful, downvote it and move on.
The "rude or abusive" flag links to the Code of Conduct.
Regarding this specific answer, this section is relevant:
We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t.
The answer in question alludes to the ...
The code of conduct is pretty explicit:
We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t."
Stack Exchange deciding that they will not be a forum for this sort of hate is not censorship. If someone wants to spread white ...
How to deal with Dog Whistles
Are you sure it's a "dog whistle?"
If there's not an easily understood charitable explanation, it's just bigotry and violates the code of conduct. If it's not a real dog whistle, don't call it a dog whistle.
Be nice, assume good intent on the part of the other person.
This is a bigoted dog whistle. I'm ...
That answer was flagged as rude/abusive by a user and I agreed, so I deleted it.
I agreed that it was rude/abusive because it reads like a conspiratorial rant which paints a vaguely-defined group of people as some sort of cartoonish villainous force.
That answer was flagged for undeletion twice, and 2 different moderators declined those flags.
I do ...
This seems to be a co-incidence of several events in a row:
There was a content dispute about one of the user's answers (see this Meta post)
Instead of editing their answers, as the community suggested, the user got furious and started vandalizing their own posts across the site — see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
For some posts, other users rolled back the recent edits
I didn't delete it, but let's see what was wrong in the answer:
First, look at your so-called "citations" (which, except for one, were links and not citations):
A SciAm opinion article, that suffers from theee flaws:
First, it's OPINION. Quoting an opinion article is not what people in science, usually consider "citation".
Second, while it tries as hard ...
The account which was used to post that answer was created by a person who was suspended for repeated misbehavior. The new account was created in order to avoid the suspension. The answer should not have been posted in the first place. I have deleted it again, because we must not enable suspension evasion. When you repeatedly violate the rules of this ...
Many people are used to eat beef
How do you use people to eat beef? You may think that this isn't total gibberish, but some of us disagree with you. In general when I see nonsense answers reject grammar correction edits that aren't marginal, I vote to delete.
There is also the reason why this answer was accepted. It was accepted because the ...
Thanks for editing the title.
Why was my posted answer deleted…?
As Philipp said in their comment, the post does not answer the question, "Why is Greece's debt considered a problem but not US debt […]?"
Instead, it answers the question like "Do the crooked imperialists take over Greece by forcing it borrow money instead of feeding itself?"
In some cases,...
Okay, I'm not really in a place to type a lot - in a phone with limited access. Rest assured, better answer coming.
It wasn't an answer (as Dj says)
It did suck the air out for other questions
I responded to a flag, and did not initiate.
User1873, your style of polemic is beginning to grate on me, to the detriment of the site. You post so much opinion ...
Clearly, Philipp should have said:
I'm sorry, but labeling all extremist conservatives who also hate government as racists is offensive.
Your post implies that the only reason why someone might hate government is that they are an extremist, either conservative or liberal. And since the question implicitly defines hatred of government rather broadly, ...
In this day and age, you can reasonably assume good faith on every Stack Exchange except this one. I agree with divibisan that "unintentional bigotry is just as hurtful as intentional bigotry". But I disagree with the idea that we should always seek to fix such posts, because doing so means that bad faith users may end up getting upvotes. If that happens ...
Your answer should have been deleted.
The general case for deleting an answer is when the "answer" is not an answer. That is, the post doesn't answer the question it purports to answer. This is where your post lives because:
It's full of editorializing ("Extremists of all sorts ... are vain')
Lacks any attempt to back-up its claims (such as, "Since federal ...
You can find all your closed questions here. Alternatively, you can search on the main site for closed:yes
Deleted posts (10K+ users only)
You can find all your deleted posts here. Alternatively, you can search on the main site for deleted:yes.
only content you own is returned when searching for deleted content