Terrible review record

One of our moderators (Community ♦) has been approving terrible edits all over the place; for example, this edit, in which random words were code formatted. Clearly as a moderator this isn't what we expected from Community, and we should re-evaluate the faith we've put in them!

People believe it's a real moderator

Obviously I know that Community ♦ isn't a real moderator and is a bot that (amongst other things) approves edits when another user edits a suggested edit and marks the original suggested edit as helpful. However, it gives the impression in the edit history that a moderator approved the edit. For example here a user honestly believed Community ♦ was a moderator and so didn't undo some terrible edits, thinking they were "sacrosanct because Community diamond OK'd them".


To avoid this confusion I suggest that the suggested edit screen shows the approval as being by the person who actually approved it (by editing). Making clear that it's a different kind of approve by calling it "Approve by edit".

So change

Approved 20 hours ago (GregS reviewed this 20 hours ago: Edit; Community ♦ reviewed this 20 hours ago: Approve)


Approved 20 hours ago (GregS reviewed this 20 hours ago: Approve by edit)

  • 37
    I say SNATCH away the Diamond symbol from this Community bot. It is spoiling the name of our dear (Diamond) moderators :P
    – Rahul
    Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:38
  • 11
    MAybe give him a different suit? Say, a spade? Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:39
  • 1
    No, hearts work best! ♥ Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:41
  • 1
    @Qantas94Heavy - And then it'll use that heart to give us such Heart-Attacks! ;)
    – Rahul
    Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:43
  • 36
    I'm voting for ☠ (Skull and Crossbones, U+2620). Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:44
  • Glad to see this. If diamond is a bot, a moderator, and someone who works for the Organisation, it is can be confusing (well, 'tis to me). How about making the "helpful" flag more prominent and a "must do something to" or at least reconsider the default. Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:46
  • 6
    You've got a very valid point in there. I have seen lots of approved suggestions by the Community bot which were invalid accepts.
    – user221081
    Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 9:46
  • 9
    IMO using Community in that place is the main issue. It should display something from which you can infer that it was approved by editing. Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 10:02
  • 2
    @slugster related certainly, but not a dupe per sey (unless you take my request for a review ban seriously). I'm not totally sure what that question is asking. Also, it is marked "status-bydesign" whereas this is a feature request Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 10:13
  • 1
    Related: Community ♦ is a review monkey too?
    – slugster
    Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 10:42
  • 1
    Is it an Approval? Can Approval sometimes be just one approver and still be an Approval? Other times requires three? To me it is what made it look like Community diamond had the magic. Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 11:14
  • 2
    @BillWoodger The 3 reviewers is a defence against robo reviewers who review too quickly, the theory is that if someone takes the time to edit a post then they'll take their time to review properly. Usually it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You're right though, as it stands the whole thing is quite confused Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 11:16
  • 5
    I want to see what happens if community really were banned. Best not though I guess :)
    – Flexo
    Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 17:15
  • 4
    @FrédéricHamidi: ...or maybe even U+1F4A9. Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 17:24
  • 1
    @IlmariKaronen, nah, that's outside the Basic Multilingual Plane. I'm actually surprised to have a font on this machine able to render it :) Commented Nov 29, 2013 at 20:48

1 Answer 1


To have edits "approved" or "denied" by community according to one of several criteria (only one approval and a timeout has expired) for instance seems like a bit of a hack, and it seems like in the majority of these cases a special case could be implemented in the view which explains what actually happened in the event of a community bot action.

There was also a feature request to add even more clarity by removing community's diamond as many comments on the question say ought to be done, back in 2013, which met with crushing defeat:

Take the diamond away from Community ♦

However, I am totally in favour of it.

Symbolizing network employees is another matter entirely, and if it's important to anyone to differentiate, perhaps it should be addressed elsewhere.

Community (and system daemons in general in the event that there are others) should perhaps have a hollow lozenge ◊ U+25CA. It is indeed rather misleading at first blush and the purpose of these symbols is presumably to increase clarity.


You must log in to answer this question.

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