9

As a moderator I can see deleted posts in a profile, but -- without visiting each one -- I can't see when they were deleted.

This came up because I came across a user with a small number of posts, all deleted, and I wanted to know if I was looking at a rage-quit. If deletions caused entries in the "activity" tab on a profile this would be easy to check; instead I had to visit each post to see what was going on. But even beyond suspected rage-quits, it seems like this would be a helpful addition to understanding a user's activity -- for example, in detecting a pattern of deleting questions as soon as an answer comes in.

Since deletions that produce reputation changes have to be tracked on the "reputation" tab, it seems like deletions already produce some per-user record-keeping. Is it feasible to add information about self-deletions to the record of the user doing the deletion?

marked as duplicate by Monica Cellio, mhlester, Martijn Pieters, ChrisF, Bart May 8 '14 at 18:46

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

  • Might this be better as an edit to meta.stackexchange.com/questions/195752/… or meta.stackexchange.com/questions/192417/… ? – bmike May 8 '14 at 17:42
  • I had a hard time determining if your suggested change in presentation merited a fresh look or if it would be a suggested answer to one of the linked ones. I support the idea as I've had challenges moderating rage quit warning users - especially on mobile devices like iPad where opening a bunch of related links is more manual than with a mouse and several right clicks... – bmike May 8 '14 at 17:47
  • I commented there linking back to here. One difference is that my case didn't arise via a flag, so something that ties into flags doesn't solve my problem. But I think that post is asking for the same basic outcome (show delete and undelete events). – Monica Cellio May 8 '14 at 17:56
-3

I have to strongly disagree with this Facebook Timeline ideology and anything that smells of totalitarianism, big brother, or anything that takes us an inch closer to nineteen eighty-four. I have to say this feels wrong, this trend is nothing new (see Facebook), but I want to think we are better than that.

By seeking to monitor and thereby gain more control over a user's ability to delete posts that he himself made, and control whether a user can rage-quit, or not allow for a person's opinions and ideologies to change drastically over time, we become more like an oppressive high school system than a meeting of the minds.

Will there be a day when Stack Exchange is owned by Microsoft or Facebook? Maybe, but that's also the day I delete my posts and leave; if we're still allowed to.

  • 1
    I can see this is going to be a controversial answer. It's more strongly (and frankly, a little more paranoidly) worded than my opinion would be, and I'm not against the idea in the OP (hence my +1 to both), but there is an issue of balance here, and I appreciate seeing someone taking this side. (Granted, that might've been a foregone conclusion given the sensitivity of privacy issues on the interwebs.) – Nick Stauner May 8 '14 at 18:36
  • 5
    I think you seem to be confusing moderating a private website with governing a people. You also don't seem to be aware of the license that is agreed to when people post. A CC-Wiki license. – Andrew Barber May 8 '14 at 18:38
  • 2
    ^^ search the TOS for "perpetually" and "irrevocably" as well. – Bart May 8 '14 at 18:43
  • @Bart I am perpetually and irrevocably searching the TOS. And I'm not sure what the last one even means in that context! – Andrew Barber May 8 '14 at 18:47
  • 1
    I haven't an irrevocable clue @Andrew'saUnitato – Bart May 8 '14 at 18:49

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