I don't understand why the question about how many user names have been changed to support Monica was closed.

The reason given was that the question did not appear to be about the technology used to support this site.

But, just how does this question differ in that regard from the majority of questions about The Mess?

Motivation for the question about user names (both the question in question, and this question):

We have reached a point where almost everything that can be said about The Mess has been said, and said several times. Also, Monica has retained legal counsel. Both reasons argue for something like a cease fire on our part, but one where we keep the issue visible and maintain pressure in a way that is not counterproductive. Modification of user name is one way -- not the only way -- to maintain visibility. Data on this this point would be helpful in deciding the most useful tactics. I emphasize that this is not meant to be divisive; strong supporters of Monica have shown their support without adopting this tactic.

I added this paragraph to the question in question, but having fewer than 3,000 rep points, it probably is not yet visible to anyone but me.

  • 5
    Just do a user search. – user102937 Nov 9 '19 at 15:46
  • 9
    The complete lack of traction we are currently experiencing towards the SE platform means we're doomed to repeat things over and over again. Some users are getting bored with that. I agree this is not a constructive situation to deal with in the first place. – Frédéric Hamidi Nov 9 '19 at 16:25
  • 1
    I'm one of the people who voted to close it. My actual vote was that it was too broad. Which it was. (No very small list of manually supplied users can convey anything meaningful.) That reason isn't what was displayed in the closure message. – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 16:48
  • 3
    @Jason Bassford I could be pacified by a tailored close reason, as I stated. Too Broad is a (forgive me) cop-out. – user540056 Nov 9 '19 at 17:01
  • 4
    @ab2ReinstateMonicaNow Without context, specifying anything about the question, it's no different than asking for a list of people who who take milk in their coffee. Why? Anything informally returned serves no functional use, even if there is an actionable goal behind getting useful data. (Which such a question won't.) Closing the question is far from a cop-out. At best, you could debate having a better close reason. And if you just think it shouldn't have been closed at all, that's simply a matter of opinion, but makes this question off topic. – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 17:11
  • 1
    @JasonBassfordSupportsMonica your name appears on the put on hold notice for a different but related Q "Is there a list of non-moderators who have stated they suspended activities due to recent events?" And in fact it states the reason for closure was "too broad". See ChrisW's answer below. – Mari-Lou A Nov 9 '19 at 17:13
  • @Mari-LouA Hmm. I could have sworn I voted to close the one in question here for the same reason. (I feel the same about both of them.) Maybe I just didn't get to it. – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 17:16
  • @JasonBassford yeah..., your name doesn't appear among the users who closed the question mentioned in ab2's post. – Mari-Lou A Nov 9 '19 at 17:20
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA Well, I agree with the closure. And had I actually voted to close it, it would have been as "too broad." (I frequently see my name associated with a close reason that isn't what I'd actually selected. I think I've seen a feature request somewhere to break down all of the actual votes.) – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 17:25
  • @ab2ReinstateMonicaNow You said that voting to close it as too broad was a cop-out. Which is exactly what I addressed. I think I also made it clear that I, at least, didn't see any context that would have made the question specific enough to not be too broad... – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 17:28
  • 2
    @JasonBassfordSupportsMonica What could have happened is, you might have voted to close it -- then a bunch of people voted to reopen it -- and then a different bunch of people voted to close it again -- so your name isn't in the current bunch. – ChrisW Nov 9 '19 at 17:32
  • 2
    @Jason Bassford I said "I could be pacified by a tailored close reason. Too Broad is a (forgive me) cop-out. Is this not clear that I called the reason a cop-out, not the closure itself? Does not saying I could be pacified by a tailored close reason mean that I could -- or might --accept closure if the reason was not boilerplate, but informative? Why are we arguing about a short, transparent comment? – user540056 Nov 9 '19 at 17:34
  • @ab2ReinstateMonicaNow Stepping back to the level of the forest, I don't really understand this question in the first place. Are you saying we need more granular close reasons? (It's the stated reason you don't like.) Or are you just objecting to the question being closed at all? – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 17:41
  • 2
    While the question may have an answer, the answer doesn't address the question; it's just divisive. It inherently suggests that only those whom have added dozens of suffixes and have a collage for an avatar are true believers - what does this user support? --- Don't say persons whom are: this tall, from here or there, have this belief and wear it on their chest are in one group and the rest are not. No need to say "that's not what you're saying" either. The question doesn't solve a problem, maybe it creates one. – Rob Nov 9 '19 at 17:44
  • 1
    Answer #4, and ~7 * 36 = 252 - so most people didn't change their name, it's no indication of support or lack thereof. --- The "answer" doesn't answer the question, so now we're lazy and cheap - divisive. – Rob Nov 9 '19 at 21:05

This question ...

How many usernames have been changed to support Monica?

... and another like it ...

Is there a list of non-moderators who have stated they suspended activities due to recent events?

... are questions which have no final answer -- someone could always add one more to the list.

Therefore the topic could be updated forever -- sit forever at the top of the list of Active questions.

Perhaps you'd see that (i.e. its being forever at the top of the Active list) as a feature not a bug -- even so, it's what I'd call a "polling" question.

I think that polling questions -- i.e. questions for which "me too!" is a valid and sufficient answer -- have always been considered off-topic and closed on SE (even including on Meta).

  • 2
    I agree. Questions like this are a combination of too broad and primarily opinion-based. They serve no objective purpose. Only an actual database query (and how to perform one) could be useful in gathering such information. – Jason Bassford Nov 9 '19 at 16:47
  • 1
    On the other hand, I asked a "similar non objective or purposeful" question long ago, and it was received pretty well. And I ended up with data base queries... meta.stackexchange.com/questions/299754/… – GhostCat Nov 9 '19 at 18:09
  • 2
    someone could always add one more to the list... You mean like this? – SecretAgentMan Nov 9 '19 at 18:30
  • @SecretAgentMan that's a completely different situation though. That's a list that was added to an answer that was not along for such a list. If the question was asking for it, there's a good chance it too would have been closed for the same reason. You can put lists in your answer if you want, even infinite lists, but questions that can only be answered by them are off topic usually. – Rubiksmoose Nov 9 '19 at 19:26
  • @Rubiksmoose, thank you for clarifying. I didn't mean for my comment to be snarky. That phrase honestly made me think of that. I can delete my comment if that helps. – SecretAgentMan Nov 9 '19 at 21:23

You must log in to answer this question.