Timeline for Should delete votes be limited like close votes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2018 at 3:12 | history | edited | TylerH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Adjusted to include the extra delete vote per day you get for every 1k rep up to 30k
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 18, 2015 at 20:37 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | @NormalHuman Jarrod fixed this on January 12, 2015. The post you found was deleted/undeleted on January 8. (The issue was that we didn't look at the top-scoring answer on deleted questions correctly.) | |
| Aug 13, 2015 at 3:24 | comment | added | user259867 | @JarrodDixon Did your investigation turn up anything? Here is a post that was deleted by 5 users and undeleted by 3 an hour later: math.stackexchange.com/posts/988505/revisions | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 18:20 | comment | added | Jarrod Dixon | @Fundamental that looks like a bug in the undelete code; investigating further. | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 6:09 | comment | added | user259867 | Your answer says that these rules apply also to undelete votes. But this question was undeleted by 6 votes, versus 10 it took to delete. So the formula for undeletion is different; what is it? | |
| May 30, 2014 at 18:03 | history | edited | Jarrod Dixon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Yeah, another look at the code revealed more rules.
|
| May 29, 2014 at 18:35 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @JarrodDixon cool, who's to blame though? ;) | |
| May 29, 2014 at 18:23 | comment | added | Jarrod Dixon | @ShadowWizard yeah, researching this answer made me revisit the code and realize all was not right in the world :) | |
| May 29, 2014 at 18:18 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | Well, better late than never! :) | |
| May 29, 2014 at 18:16 | history | edited | Jarrod Dixon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Wow, this changed two years ago.
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 27, 2010 at 17:37 | comment | added | Aarobot | I was just reminded of the "boat programming" question while going through the deletion audit. It turns out that under the new (sneakily-updated) rules, that question (208 combined net votes) would take 13 votes to delete. Just sayin'. | |
| May 27, 2010 at 11:16 | comment | added | Jon Seigel | @Jeff: Could you please update that FAQ entry? It's incomplete. I've been trying to figure out the conditions under which someone can delete their own question, but I haven't found the limits quite yet. It would be far easier if you could just lay down the conditions without us having to guess at them. | |
| May 27, 2010 at 9:36 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2010 at 16:57 | comment | added | Aarobot | If we absolutely must have a heavy-handed rule like this, it would be a lot more palatable if the 10-vote "immunity points" were applied to individual questions and answers, rather than the sum total of everything. A dozen answers each with 1-2 upvotes is meaningless. A single answer of 30 upvotes is far more interesting. A more reasonable implementation of this rule would be to require 1 extra delete vote for every 10 points on each post (including the question itself). I am almost positive that this would reasonably cover 99% of "famous" questions/answers. | |
| May 26, 2010 at 6:37 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @george see where it says "the sum of its score plus all its answers' scores" | |
| May 26, 2010 at 6:37 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @rosinante you need to petition the mods for deletion in those cases, using our old friend "flag for moderator attention" | |
| May 26, 2010 at 0:51 | comment | added | Rosinante | The inmates have now officially captured the management of the asylum. Infinite rep for infinite crappy questions, no limits, no controls. A discussion question with 100 votes is now a permanent 'broken window'. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 18:26 | comment | added | user102937 | What about spam flags? Have these been accounted for? Can users circumvent the new limits by bludgeoning a question with spam flags? | |
| May 25, 2010 at 14:10 | vote | accept | mmyers | ||
| May 25, 2010 at 14:10 | comment | added | mmyers | Hmm, now it seems like it could be swinging too far the other direction. I guess we'll see shortly. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 12:23 | comment | added | George Stocker | I think it should be 'net' votes and not just upvotes. Example: stackoverflow.com/questions/909674/why-is-vb-so-popular-closed Takes 6 votes to close, and it's at -1. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 8:58 | comment | added | Marc Gravell | @S.Mark - since it is locked it would take more than that... | |
| May 25, 2010 at 7:35 | comment | added | Greg Hewgill | @S.Mark: Moderator intervention can presumably override such limits. | |
| May 25, 2010 at 7:32 | comment | added | YOU | Now, The question that Greg pointed out, Why do people think functional programming will catch on? questions will need votes from 43 people to get it deleted! (it has 400 total votes at the moment) :-) | |
| May 25, 2010 at 6:07 | history | answered | Jarrod Dixon | CC BY-SA 2.5 |