Why was the Weekly Day of Silence post deleted? It was an answer to the question Monica's situation continues unresolved, is SE hoping the problem just goes away?. The system didn't allow me to vote to undelete -- there was a message saying it had been deleted by a moderator.

Why was no explanation given?

Response to closure:

This question is different from the proposed duplicate and should not be closed. The proposed duplicate was itself closed as a duplicate of Question Y. I'm going to invoke the Transitive Law of Duplicates and explain how my question is different from Question Y.

First, my question is about the deletion of an answer, and Question Y is about the deletion of a question.

Second, when Question Y was deleted, an explanatory comment was provided. In this case, no explanation was given, and the second part of my questions asks specifically about this.

Third, the target audience for Question Y was volunteer moderators, whereas mine was aimed at any participant feeling frustrated and impotent to make their voice heard.

Lastly, Question Y urged an extended, continuous work stoppage. I suggested taking off one day per week, to show, through silence, the belief that the conflict can be resolved through transparency and dialogue.

Note, I have not found any clause in the Code of Conduct or the terms of service stating or implying that subscribers agree to visit the site and participate actively with any particular frequency.

I would think that a side benefit to the company of my proposal would be the reduction of traffic one day a week, which could contribute to an easing of tensions, by lightening the workload of the (paid) Community Managers, who have been stretched to the limit, coping with both increased volume on Meta.SE, and reduced volunteer work product.

I do understand that the company needs to be able to turn a profit, so as to be able to continue to host the sites in the network, and maintain and update the software.

There was no intent on my part to damage the company's image or profitability; and I don't believe there was any suggestion of such an intent in my post.

Below is a screenshot of the first half of the post in question.

screenshot of first half of deleted post

(If any member of SE staff feels that this is somehow disrespectful or hurtful to the company -- I would just ask, please don't purge the question from the site. Instead, please simply remove the image, if you feel that is necessary.)

Second response to second closure (after the questions was reopened and then closed again):

In the proposed duplicate's answer, Tim wrote

Once you get to the "I'm done talking!" stage, it's probably more forcing than persuading, and that we just can't host.

My question was all about persuading. It called for transparency and dialogue. It had nothing to do with forcing.

Another update:

I've gotten kind of lost in the ups and downs of this question's roller coaster history. But here is a comment.

Tim didn't say they would quash all protest. In practice SE has not quashed all protest. You can call my proposal protest if you like. I think it's more productive to look at what sort of action is being proposed, and how it's being proposed. The line was drawn in an arbitrary way, even though Tim specifically said they would have to look at where to draw the line on a case by case basis.

I don't see that anything is to be gained by the movement for transparency and dialogue censoring itself. If management wants to shut down my proposal, let them shut it down. We do not need to make that decision for management. Let the question stand, and let the proposal stand. Let us prepare the ground for management to respond in a meaningful way.

I invite someone to vote to reopen, so that this will show up in the review queue. (I'm not allowed to re-vote to reopen.)

  • 47
    I would assume because the company is under no obligation to offer a platform for organized protests against itself.
    – Bart
    Oct 27, 2019 at 21:06
  • 18
    High Treason in dictatorships is defined by the whim of the dictator.
    – user540056
    Oct 27, 2019 at 21:15
  • 3
    The issue could be rephrased as why didn't whoever deleted it send an explanatory mail to the OP ? I guess we'll have to protest on Reddit, Twitter and may Forbes (so the CEO actually sees it rather that gets glowing reports of perfection from managers). ? It's pure madness to drive the members most passionate about the site out to protest on competing websites. Peculiar business strategy, if you ask me. Oct 27, 2019 at 21:19
  • 7
    The reason why I decided to dupe hammer this is because of the accepted answer on the duplicate. The employee there is also the employee who deleted the answer. I would hazard a guess the underlying reasons for deletion are similar and in line with my earlier comment. Whatever you may think of the company in light of recent events, they allow a lot of discussion to take place, but they by no means have to support active dissent. Vote to reopen if you think that's required. Further, keep in mind that JJJ is just guessing at downvote reasons. They did not guess correctly for me.
    – Bart
    Oct 27, 2019 at 22:48
  • 1
    @anongoodnurse In the earlier comment, I was answering the OP's observation "The system didn't allow me to vote to undelete", neither the OP nor members of the community can cast a vote to undelete a post that was deleted by a mod. Oct 28, 2019 at 10:20
  • 1
    Do note it was deleted after few days, and after people had a chance to "be silent". If this was indeed "treason", it would have been deleted right away. To me it feels like an honest and fair attempt to remove possibly inflammable content that is no longer very relevant. Oct 28, 2019 at 10:55
  • 22
    As pissed as I am with SE at the moment, @Bart is right - there is no reason to expect the company to permit you to organise a protest against their platform, right there on their platform. People should stop thinking of SE as a government they're forced to live with (e.g. deploying terms like "dictatorship"); that's not at all what this is. Oct 28, 2019 at 11:20
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Me is all for nitpicking semantics. SC "is not a dictatorship"? What is it? Why does it behave like one dictatorship while typically claiming to be different, ie 'democratic', at least in a centralistic interpretation [("It's built and run by you")]?(meta.stackexchange.com/tour). As a community/company: We see all the defining features, central planning, no functional feedback, censorship, lack of due process, arbitrary punishment (reinstate Monica!), ideology trumping pramatics, etc … So why not use the word that's fitting best? Oct 28, 2019 at 11:37
  • 1
    @aparente001 the full and complete explaination is probably that you won't ever find out because CMs are so snowed under right now that statistically nobody will read or respond your post from staff.
    – Magisch
    Oct 28, 2019 at 11:42
  • @Shadow - I'd appreciate it if you would cast a reopen vote so that others will see it in the review queue. I can't do it because I already voted to reopen the first time. // Lightness: regarding your comment (The dupe answers the question) -- I have addressed that in the second update. Oct 28, 2019 at 11:55
  • 14
    @aparente001 The dupe explains that SE will not allow protest organisation on their platform. Your question asks why your attempt at organising a protest on their platform was removed. Seriously? It answers the question. Folks, you all need to quit being so obtuse. VTC again. Oct 28, 2019 at 12:06
  • It persists on at least one Meta site.
    – user540056
    Nov 8, 2019 at 2:14
  • @LightnessRaceswithMonica - Would you like to respond to the four-point reasoning plus note that I included in the update to the question? Nov 8, 2019 at 2:40
  • 2
    No. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. Nov 8, 2019 at 11:23


Browse other questions tagged .