Timeline for Users should be able to participate in deleting their own closed questions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Oct 28, 2011 at 23:24 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @Tim: personally, I don't think it's a big deal either way. Heck, I was fine with users being able to delete questions with answers. But if we're gonna make exceptions to that, I don't see any reason to limit it to voting or tie it to the 10K/20K privs - pick a threshold where the chronic question-pumps won't abuse it too much, and have at it. Short of that... It's really easier just to flag for mod attention, since you'll probably need it anyway. | |
| Oct 28, 2011 at 23:09 | comment | added | Tim Stone | Hmm, though after reconsidering I find myself agreeing with this, I do wonder how relevant a user's lack of impartiality is if they still have to get others to agree with them to make anything happen. I suppose it's possible that getting the remaining votes is a bit easier after someone's already gotten the ball rolling, but I'm not convinced how much this matters at the end of the day if the OP is that intent on drumming up support for their goal. | |
| Oct 28, 2011 at 22:40 | history | edited | Shog9Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Expanded reply to comments
|
| Oct 28, 2011 at 21:54 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Uh, why not? 10K doesn't exactly make you impartial WRT your own questions. If there was ever a time to not trust a user, it'd be when dealing with their own stuff: you might go years and never be tempted to delete a duplicate, or a terrible question with great answers, until suddenly you found yourself the one looking shabby with that Q on your profile page. Just look - you were motivated to ask this out of a desire to remove a duplicate question where the title is nothing like the original... If the rationale above is flawed, it's flawed for everyone - regardless of reputation. | |
| Oct 28, 2011 at 21:45 | comment | added | Pops | All good points, but immaterial. Heck, I'm usually the one driving the "closing isn't the final word" truck. The crux of my post is that author status is interfering with a rep-based privilege. 10k users have earned the privilege of voting to delete closed questions. They shouldn't have that ability taken away when they happen to have originally written one of the questions, um, in question. | |
| Oct 28, 2011 at 21:38 | history | answered | Shog9Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |