Delete own questions with upvoted answers is not allowed [duplicate]

Question

The comment

"The Code of Conduct change has been pushed through and the network-wide F.A.Q. has been announced. – Tonepoet Oct 10 at 16:39"

(as a few others) refers to deleted https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334900/official-faq-on-gender-pronouns-and-code-of-conduct-changes page. (The reason of deletion of the page is discussed on Why was the previous Code of Conduct FAQ (and all answers) removed?).

I've noticed that

“This question was voluntarily removed by its author.”

But according to How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean? What are the criteria for deletion?

You can't delete your own question if it has an answer with upvotes

I understand that Cesar M is relatively new, and may not know rule details, but I also read somewhere (unfortunately, could not find a quote) that shog9 consulted Cesar M and advises to delete the question.

Cesar M in his role of moderator can delete any post, but, according to the system, he deleted the question being in a role of author, which is not allowed.

As it was a genuine mistake, I suggest to Cesar to undelete the question ASAP.

There are multiple options of further steps, e.g.

1. Make the question locked, as suggested in many highly-upvoted answers here: Why was the previous Code of Conduct FAQ (and all answers) removed?
2. Ask some other moderator to delete the question, if they find, that there is no better way to do it.
3. Change the system to not allow the question with upvoted answers to be deleted by the author, even the author is a moderator. Also update rules to clarify that “You can't delete your own question (even you are a moderator)”
4. Change the system to show that the question was removed by moderator, if the author and moderator is the same person. Also update rules to clarify that “You can't delete your own question (unless you are a moderator)”
5. Automatically redirect links to new FAQ or Post for clarifications on the updated pronouns FAQ

I hope that Cesar will undelete the question to comply with existing rules. If not, will he potentially be suspended as not comply to the rules or suspension rules are applicable to elected moderators only?

I also have doubts, that “the question was voluntarily removed by its author.” Quite likely, that the decision about the deletion of the question was made by management, such as the Director of Public Q&A.

Answer 1

Cesar M in his role of moderator can delete any post, but, according to the system, he deleted the question being in a role of author, which is not allowed.

This makes the system message wrong, not Cesar's actions. The system indeed does not allow authors to delete questions with upvoted answers (try it, you can't delete yours now), so the only way Cesar could have deleted that post was in his role as a moderator.

If you want to argue about what's wrong here, you could argue that the message technically thus should read that 'this post was deleted for reasons of moderation'.

I hope that Cesar will undelete the question to comply with existing rules. If not, will he potentially be suspended as not comply to the rules or suspension rules are applicable to elected moderators only?

Cesar complied with existing rules: Moderators can delete questions with upvoted answers, including their own, if necessary. If Cesar had broken any rules the post would already have been undeleted.

Suspending moderators is useless, as is calling for them to be suspended in public.

Answer 2

I'll refer to Jeff's old post on a theory of moderation

Even with active community self-regulation, moderators occasionally need to intervene. Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt — if you don’t have human exception handling in place.

(Arguably, broader events have brought a lot of the normal business of meta to a screaming halt - but that's been discussed fairly intensively)

This sometimes means making exceptionally difficult decisions.

While I'm not privy to CM or staff internal decisions, except when they choose to share those things.

Sometimes if something clearly hasn't served its purpose it might be worth replacing it with something better. The old FAQ is clearly unloved. Maybe it's best to let the dead post rest in peace. With a new FAQ it certainly dosen't serve its purpose.

I also have doubts, that “the question was voluntarily removed by its author.” Quite likely, that the decision about the deletion of the question was made by management, such as the Director of Public Q&A.

On the other hand, considering the improved FAQ was based on community input — and heavily based off something a moderator on another site helped initiate. In a sense, considering even after being deleted, its clearly a distraction. It probably would be just as bad if it wasn't.

The new FAQ reflects the community better than the old one. It was discussed and seems an improvement. Do we even need the old one?

So practically, while it is a difficult decision - there's nothing particularly untoward. There's certainly no conspiracy going on where upper management is sneakily replacing a company produced FAQ with one the community did. The original post is clearly producing drama, even when most people can't even see it, so it might be worse if it was still there.

So essentially a lot of the limitations for a normal user is removed for a moderator. We're expected to use them sparingly and hopefully for the greater good. In many situations pre or post decision, even as a somewhat experienced moderator, I often want feedback

And while Cesar's newish to SE — he's worked professionally in the video gaming industry as a CM before. As a bit of an old hand to SE myself, it’s worth considering often that the effect is just as important as the mechanics. I've rarely deleted my own posts because I never needed to.

Stuff is a lot bigger, and more chaotic right now. There's a lot of outrage, often real, and hopefully less often manufactured, that often gets in the way of stuff that folks need to get done.

I also read somewhere(unfortunately, could not find a quote) that shog9 consulted Cesar M and advises to delete the question.

I'd often take Shog seriously — simply because he's one of the folks who kind of has been here the entire time. If he did, well, inexperience isn't a reason for that decision. It’s pretty hard to find a existing community manager with more experience.

If you reached this far in my ramble, also consider this. If management is pushing for stuff, I wouldn't blame the folks on the pointy end of things. I've pretty much found that the only complaint I'd have of the community team, through all this is they're somewhat overworked and have been a while.

On the other hand, the original post getting replaced is a sign that someone might be listening, even if the bigger concerns folks have have not been addressed yet.