13

Someone came to meta to try and get help reopening their question, and it got deleted as a result.

I voted to undelete it and flagged it as well since I don't think we should be deleting posts that are getting actively discussed on meta, and noticed it has been deleted a 2nd time, with the same user initiating the delete vote.

enter image description here

I can also vote to undelete a 2nd time.

Why are delete/undelete votes not limited to once per user per post the way close/reopen votes are?

|improve this question
  • 1
    @BoPersson I don't think its a duplicate to that 3-4 year old post, because I'm fairly sure I've seen a notice saying "You've already voted to delete/undelete this post in the past" or something of that nature, so I think that got implemented at some point. Also, I would call this "broke" :) – Rachel Apr 10 '13 at 19:06
  • 1
    @Rachel As they say in the other post, those votes age. In this case, once they've aged out, you can vote again. That's the theory, at least. – George Stocker Apr 10 '13 at 19:11
  • @GeorgeStocker I don't think delete votes expire... I know of at least one question that has had delete votes on it for months, and its been viewed over 100 times. – Rachel Apr 10 '13 at 19:17
  • 1
    That would only be the case if the ageing algorithm for delete/undelete votes was the same as with close/re-open votes @Rachel, and that doesn't make much sense (given how fewer delete voters there are). I'm not sure about the specifics of the ageing algorithm for delete/undelete votes though and I can't seem to be able to find a related Meta post. – yannis Apr 10 '13 at 19:20
  • 2
    This is either a thinly-veiled second appeal for the Meta and SO questions you've linked in your first sentence, or a clear and obvious dupe of the question Bo pointed out. Either way, there's established procedures for getting attention for old questions, and you haven't made any effort to distinguish this from the older question about repeated delete/undelete votes. – jscs Apr 10 '13 at 19:28
  • 2
    @JoshCaswell You'll note I didn't vote to reopen this question, as the other one just got a bounty put on it so I hope the problem gets addressed. I was trying to bring what I presumed to be a rather important bug to SE's attention, as the same 3-4 users could just keep deleting/undeleting a post indefinitely. I'm fairly sure I've tried to undelete stuff in the past and told I could not, so figured they had something in place at one point and its not working now. I don't appreciate you suggesting that I have some sneaky motive for posting a bug report. – Rachel Apr 10 '13 at 19:39
  • Well, around half of this post focuses on your objection to closure and deletion, and you've gone out of your way to link to two Meta questions, one about the SO question which was deleted, which are completely irrelevant to the bug report. I give you the benefit of the doubt/will take your word for it, however, and I did choose the earlier bug report as the target when voting. My main point was that either way this question is a duplicate. – jscs Apr 10 '13 at 19:53
  • @JoshCaswell Ahh I can see why you would think that now. I forgot I linked to the MSO post about not deleting stuff that's being actively discussed on meta too. The reason for the link was to explain the reasoning behind flagging without having to clutter the question with extra details. I'd remove it, but I'd rather just leave this closed as a duplicate and not bump it. I was thinking you were just referring to the closed/deleted SO question, which I included as an example since almost any MSO post like this gets comments asking for links. Thanks for explaining :) – Rachel Apr 10 '13 at 20:18
  • Sure, glad we sorted it out. – jscs Apr 11 '13 at 18:32
7

Wow. This is probably a bug.

For this particular question, I'm not anxious to see it continue yo-yo'ing, so I'll either lock or delete it as appropriate (with the previous meta discussion still in force in case anyone wants to raise objections).

Edit: I've deleted locked the question. That doesn't mean we can't continue to hash out its merits, just that it's getting a little ridiculous to have this much manpower and time spent on a single question.

|improve this answer
  • 5
    Thanks. Personally I think it should just stay unlocked and undeleted for a bit since it's only a few days old and the OP is trying to figure out how to reopen it (and it has 2 reopen votes on it). With a score of +30/-10 I don't think its suitable for fast deletion, and locking it will prevent any attempts to fix the reason it was closed in the first place. In a week or two if its still closed and you still feel it should be deleted, go for it. :) – Rachel Apr 10 '13 at 18:24
  • 2
    Those are excellent points. If it were a borderline question, then I would do just that. It fails on a few criteria, though: "Actual problem user faces", and even with your (really good) edits, it's still only answerable with a 'list of x'. – George Stocker Apr 10 '13 at 18:29
  • @GeorgeStocker As for the actual problem, I have one. Becoming a better functional programmer.Me too.I'm sure you know a lot of anti-patterns in OOP. We have both the experience to understand when to use a singleton or not, when to use a service locator or not, when to use a global variable or not and so on. Once I've also hacked into the garbage collector, via finalizer. I knew it was an "anti-pattern", but was useful and correct in that specific case. Now, my actual problem is learning what is generally wrong in FP, and why, because I've to face a new big project next month. – Giacomo Tesio Apr 10 '13 at 21:18
  • @GiacomoTesio That's too vague a reason. Everyone is here to learn -- by that criteria we should be undeleting and re-opening every single "Hidden feature" question that ever existed. – George Stocker Apr 11 '13 at 12:20

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