12

These days there appear to be various moderators resigning, getting fired or suspending activities, as mentioned in "Firing mods and forced relicensing: is Stack Exchange still interested in cooperating with the community?" and/or some of its Linked posts. And there appears to exist some private and/or confidential information, available only to moderators, which appears to somehow be related to the reasons why moderators are resigning, suspending activities, etc.

But, on any SE-site's /review page, there is also a block (upper right) which states (note the moderated in it!):

[Site name] is moderated by you.
Help improve it by evaluating new posts,
voting to close or reopen questions, or
reviewing suggested edits.

So for anybody who is not a moderator (like me right now), who performs Reviews (like me), and who has no idea what that private and/or confidential information is about: Is it OK to continue Reviewing, i.e. is there anything I don't know (yet) that would put myself or my accounts at risk by doing so? Or, as a precaution, should I better suspend all Review activities until we are sure it's OK to do so?

PS: Simply updating the first line in that block to something like "[Site name] is kept in good shape by you" might be all that's needed to address my concern ...

Note: I AM NOT asking for an opinion, nor is my question about not performing reviews anymore as a form of protest/boycot. My question originates from that Moderated on the review pages combined with "something" that Moderators seem to know and we don't ...

  • 3
    I have been reviewing and flagging as any other day. I'm still not suspended so I say "Go for it!" – rene Oct 2 at 18:57
  • 23
    People are not reviewing as a form of boycott/protest, whether you personally want to continue reviewing or not is up to you. – Reinstate Monica Oct 2 at 18:57
  • 1
    Purely technically, if a site stores any of your personal data, it's at risk. There's not really a higher risk now, but if any PII for some reason is released, GDPR or other privacy regulations can come hammering in – Zoe Oct 2 at 18:57
  • 2
    Reviewing has nothing to do with whether or not your info gets leaked or anything else malicious. – user400654 Oct 2 at 18:58
  • 3
    Like @CharlieBrumbaugh has said, many have opted to stop reviewing because of their opinions on the current events. I'm voting to close this post as Primarily Opinion Based as I feel the only meaningful answers you'll get here are opinions. No one can decide what to do for you except you. – scohe001 Oct 2 at 18:58
  • 6
    Why would you think reviewing is outlawed now? – Mast Oct 2 at 19:00
  • 19
    It's kinda scary that you were concerned about this. I guess that if you see moderators getting fired and resigning and don't know what's going on, it's a totally legitimate question. – Simon Forsberg Oct 2 at 19:24
  • @scohe001 Well, the question is valid, Pierre can be wary of what could happen. I don't think it's an opinion to say people have stopped for their own reasons but there's no more risk than before at reviewing/flagging/closing questions – Tensibai Oct 3 at 16:18
  • @Tensibai But that depends on how you define "risk," doesn't it? Which depends, entirely, on your opinion. – scohe001 Oct 3 at 16:20
  • @scohe001 Well, let's say I disagree. Nothing has changed, there's been call to stop, but nowhere has something been said against people who continue to janitor their sites. So no that's not dependent on how I define risk, anyway I may define it, it's factually the same as 2 weeks ago. – Tensibai Oct 3 at 16:24
  • @Tensibai I think my issue may be with the way the question is phrased. "Should I keep reviewing?" to me, seems extremely opinion based. But maybe something like "Have the meaning of my reviews changed in some significant way?" or "Does the reasoning behind why mods are stepping down affect what my reviews mean?" would be a lot more objectively easy to answer. – scohe001 Oct 3 at 16:29
  • 1
    @scohe001 Well, Q: "Is it OK to continue reviewing?" => A: "Yes.", Q: "Is my account at risk?" A: "No more than before (failed audit at worse)". That sounds pretty straightforward. FTR Pierre never asked if he should continue, he asked if it's ok, he's not asking for advice to take a decision which would be opinion based indeed. – Tensibai Oct 3 at 16:36
  • 1
    @Tensibai Fair enough. I do think "as a precaution, should I better suspend all Review activities [...]?" is opinion based though. I guess editing that out would make this closer to on-topic. – scohe001 Oct 3 at 17:06
  • 1
    @scohe001 if you want, please edit my post to take out that phrase as you suggested in your last comment. I'll approve if needed. To TB: merci, I think you really understood what my real question is. .., I do have my own opinion about all this, already from before posting this question (for that I do not need SE) ... Je pense, donc je suis ... – Pierre.Vriens Oct 3 at 17:19
21

And there appears to exist some private and/or confidential information, available only to moderators

There is no private or confidential information that I've seen (moderator on SO) which would indicate it's unsafe to continue reviewing. There is, in my opinion, no danger to yourself or your accounts in doing so.

2

The phrase you quoted from the review page simply means that as users with enough rep to have the privilege to review, we help to moderate the site by reviewing items in our review queue.

It is not meant to imply that we are moderators, as in the sense of elected or pro tem moderators.

  • It's worth noting that elected/pro tem mods are often informally differentiated in communication by calling them "diamond mods", per the diamond that appears next to a mod's username by their activity and in their profile on the site they moderate. – V2Blast Oct 4 at 8:02
1

The kerfuffle appears to be about moderators questioning a new CoC that they had been shown.

It would be entirely unreasonable for ordinary users to be suspended for violating a new CoC that they have not been shown.

Obviously, don't be a jerk, but that's a sensible recommendation all the time :-)

  • 11
    I wouldn't consider myself an expert in this matter; I'm more of a puzzled observer. But I think it might be more accurate to say that the kerfuffle is about one moderator being fired after questioning a forthcoming CoC. (Several other mods subsequently stepped down in protest.) – J.R. means 'Just Reinstate' Oct 2 at 20:29
  • 2
    @J.R. Sure. You're mostly right by my understanding, though I think caleb's response was directly to the CoC. But that doesn't alter the point being made. – Flyto Oct 2 at 22:22
  • It's also a bit unreasonable for mods to be fired based on new CoCs that haven't been published, also. – Ask About Monica Oct 3 at 15:37
  • It is my understanding that a widely respected mod was fired for asking questions about a new CoC, not questioning it. This is just based on what I've read. – Thomas Reinstate Monica Myron Oct 4 at 22:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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