34

I have been a moderator on this site for quite a while and am pretty active on the site myself. So I think I have quite a lot of experience with how the community reacts to certain questions. Let me tell you what would have happened if I had left that question open. Phase 1: The big Trump roast The mostly Anti-Trump audience of the community would have ...


26

I agree the display name was in very poor taste and obviously intended to troll and/or offend people on the site. I reverted it to the user's previous one.


25

I agree with SamIAm that your question is too meta, and because of that seems to promote a specific cause, which is off-topic (I would disagree with Philipp, that a potentially on-topic question can/should be closed because it could cause additional off-topic commentary). I would remove all that irrelevant meta commentary (which would basically leave you ...


22

"Be nice" policy is a cornerstone of the entire Stack Exchange community. Once you see a post that clearly violates the policy, flag it for Moderator's attention. If a certain behavior becomes a pattern, and the user does not stop, accompany your flag with a comment pointing to a post where you remember the past user's aggressive posts have occurred. Even ...


22

Apologies. I declined your flag by mistake. I must have clicked the wrong button. I removed the comment now. Unfortunately, I cannot change the status of your flag.


18

I know a thing or two about Christianty.SE. I can assure you we do not have homogeneity. We have very liberal and very conservative members. We have Baptists and Catholics. We have Mormons and Pentecostals. We have Atheists and Muslims. We even have arguments over whether "liberal and conservative" have meaning. But we've built a pretty solid basis of fact-...


17

It's obviously inappropriate, and the user in question should be forced to remove the reference at minimum. Aside from being obviously offensive given the implication that the user is awaiting her death with glee, it's likely designed simply to troll democrats on the site.


14

A seven day suspension is far too lenient for racist and anti-semitic abuse. Someone who calls another user a "filthy shabbos goy" or talks about how Jews are "...talented at deception by omission" should have received a dramatically longer suspension. It baffles me that someone who said all of the things listed above (and more, evidently) ...


13

So here's how we're gonna do this: I've deleted all of the comments on that answer save for the one that directs folks to the chat room. Since you and others - and especially you - couldn't keep your commentary civil and focused on the answer, further comments may be unceremoniously deleted. If you have anything relevant to say, bring it to chat. Otherwise,...


11

It is important to close questions quickly, because otherwise they attract the kind of answers we don't want to have on this website. Why it was the right decision to to close this question quickly can be seen in the duplicate of the question the author created a while later. It quickly received two answers which were merely short, personal opinions not ...


10

55 people have commented on that question, and it became a side-discussion. As some of you are aware, I delete what looks like side discussins. The first handful of comments seemed to be asking for clarification on that answer, or were responding to comments asking for clarification, so I left them be. Also, in case you're curious about how to handle ...


10

Moderators cannot invalidate votes. This can happen either by an automated process or by a Stack Exchange employee. You may find more details in the help centre. In this instance, I noticed that you had received an inordinate amount of upvotes from a new-ish account. Investigating further, I found two more accounts that seemed to exist primarily to upvote ...


10

I'm going to go ahead and post some of my thoughts on the question in question, specifically, where it might have problems. The majority of your question is a meta-commentary about other questions. This meta-commentary is mostly dead weight, and should be drastically reduced if not outright removed from your question. Your question cited a Professor and ...


10

The purpose of the bounty message is to explain the expectations from the bounty winner. It is not a substitute for comments. It is a lot more visible than regular comments, and cannot be flagged, upvoted or replied to. Using it as a comment is an abuse of the feature, intentional or not. I removed the bounty. If the user is interested in investing their ...


9

To elaborate on why we start with 7 days: From my perspective, the purpose of the 7 day suspension is not really about revenge. It's about getting them to stop the toxic behavior. If your purpose is to send a message, A 7 day suspension will do that. It gives us room to escalate(30 days), and reinforce the message a second time, before we resort to the ...


9

While this was protected by a moderator (more privileges than a mere user), it's worth noting that normally you can't just run around protecting questions. Typically they need some low quality answers by new users to meet that threshold (and if enough of those are deleted via review, Community will step in and do the deed itself) That having been said, I ...


9

No. Partial answers can stand. They are useful.


8

I agree with Carpetsmoker. There is not a strong case that the username is to invoke Nazi-ism, and it is equally or more likely that it is not intended to invoke Nazi-ism at all. The user's post doesn't even seem to be anti-Israel let alone anti-semetic. Judging from his Wikipedia page, Von Braun appears to be more notable as a scientist than as a ...


8

(source: stackexchange.com) Notes: This nominee would be a good choice due to a consistent demonstration of level headed and balanced approach to controversial concepts, while offering dedicated editorial guidance to questions. Edit by Philipp: I accept the nomination. Although I have almost 200k reputation around various stackexchange sites I never ...


8

There is a process. Quoting Jeff Atwood on a related Meta question: The general process: stage 1 email warning and moderator message about specifics of unacceptable behavior1 stage 2 1-7 days suspension2 stage 3 30 days suspension stage 4 120+ days suspension or account now eligible for deletion2 You advance from stage to stage by continuing to engage in ...


8

Very rarely, when absolutely necessary to prevent harm to the site or the community. I cannot in good faith vote up Jeff Lambert's answer, because I do not want to handcuff the moderators if something outrageous and unusual happens. But, looking through the main-site questions linked in this meta question, I do not see a problem with the way HNQ is ...


8

No, they are not. The "politics" of Stack Exchange as a whole is off-topic on both Politics Stack Exchange and Politics Meta Stack Exchange. If you have questions about the Stack Exchange network which are not specific to politics stack exchange, please post them on https://meta.stackexchange.com. If you have a question about a specific stack exchange ...


8

1) I would tend to agree with you that the question was fine, but so were Philipps actions. The community obviously disagreed about the question being fine, 5 members closed the question and it was heavily downvoted. Philipp tried to help by improving the question and using his mod-powers to reopen the edited question. You didn't want that help and ...


8

Perhaps the rejection reason isn't 100% accurate, but it looks like you're trying to post a new answer. You can't, since the question is closed, but that is no reason to edit an existing answer and trying to put your words in the author's mouth. When you edit a post, there's this widget which says "clarify meaning without changing it". It is also ...


7

I have two concerns with this proposal: Firstly, for answers where liberals and conservatives are likely to give different answers, I would argue that there is value in seeing both sides' points of view. Having separate sites could end up with both sides engaging in navel-gazing rather than heated debate, which I feel would be detrimental to all who come ...


7

There's no reason not to VTC if you think it is VTC worthy, BUT: If there's no activity on the post, there's less chances 4 other people would notice it and join VTC (depending on how active Close queue reviewers are, I guess); so your chances of success are low(er) If it still isn't closed, there's a chance you're not necessarily correct in assuming it ...


7

I've unprotected the question. Having it protected while it was featured in the HNQ list (and was attracting poor answers) was reasonable. Now that it dropped off the list, however, there's little reason to keep it protected. I also took this opportunity to unprotect a handful of other old questions. That said, I am not optimistic that the question will ...


7

It looks to me like your were using your "question" as a soapbox to declare to the world that the Women's March is Anti-Semitic. The fact that you technically formatted it in the form of a question looks like little more than a formality. Questions like that are totally fair game to be closed as "Unclear what you're asking", which is the close reason ...


6

Is Stack Exchange's policies on topic here? No. The correct venue is meta.stackexchange.com. They say the statistical information on me is secret. If you live in the EU, you can send them a GDPR related information request -- they'll get a huge fine if they don't comply. When you get suspended the next suspension you get will be longer even if ...


6

"comment sections are not a place for debates" That is correct. If you want to debate, go to reddit or a forum. The StackExchange sites (of which this is one) are descended from StackOverflow and share that site's goal to be a repository of specific and objective (as much as possible) questions and answers, not a place to discuss, debate, or hang out (the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible