7
  • This question is already asked on local meta.
  • I want answers based on experience of other sites.
  • I could've asked in moderators team, but I prefer public sites whenever possible.
  • Yes, I'm a moderator on the site I'm asking about.

A week ago a question on meta was asked.

Here is its original version

Сообщение об отставке модератора - теперь только 24 часа в блоке важных вопросов

На общей мете был задан вопрос: сколько могут/должны висеть в [meta-tag:важное] объявления об отставке модераторов.

Сегодня, был получен неутешительный официальный ответ: 24 часа.

На мой взгляд, это очень короткий срок, который сильно ударяет по возможности сообщества решать, что действительно важно для сообщества, а также – проявляет неуважение StackOverflow как компании к модераторам (бывшим и нынешним). А, главное, что сообщества сами не в праве контролировать блок важных вопросов, который локален для самого сообщества.

Важно заметить, что это не абстрактное правило. Оно уже активно применяется на StackOverflow по отношению к этой недавней отставке.

Будет ли это правило применяться на RU StackOverflow? Насколько в русском сегменте сообщество считает, что объявление об отставке модератора должны быть ограничены только 24-мя часами публичности?

and its translation to English:

Message about moderator leaving - now only 24 hours in the featured block

The question was asked on metaMeta: how long can/should posts about moderator leaving be places in block.

Today, the official disappointing answer was given: 24 hours.

In my opinion, it's a very short period that limits the ability of communities to decide what is really important for the community and also shows disrespect of StackOverflow as a company to moderators (former and current). And, most importantly, communities themselves are denied to control the featured block that is local to the community site.

Important to note, that it's not an abstract rule. It is already active and applies to this recent retirement.

Will this rule be also applied on RU StackOverflow? Does the Russian segment of the community think that notice about retirement should be limited by 24 hours?

The question was edited to:

Можно ли настроить время время пребывания сообщение об уходе модератора в блоке «важное на Мете» на Stack Overflow на русском?

На общей мете был задан вопрос: сколько могут/должны висеть в [meta-tag:важное] объявления об уходе модераторов.

Сегодня, был получен официальный ответ: 24 часа.

Будет ли это правило применяться на Stack Overflow на русском?

and translation:

Is it possible to configure the time of keeping post about moderator leaving in «featured on Meta» on Stack Overflow in Russian?

The question was asked on metaMeta: how long can/should posts about moderator leaving be places in block.

Today, the official answer was given: 24 hours.

Will this rule be applied on Stack Overflow in Russian?

After some more edits of different people now it looks in the following way:

Можно ли настроить ограничения нахождения сообщения об уходе модератора в блоке «важное на Мете» на Stack Overflow на русском?

На общей мете был задан вопрос: сколько могут/должны висеть в [meta-tag:важное] объявления об уходе модераторов.

Сегодня, был получен официальный ответ: 24 часа.

Будет ли «правило 24 часов» применяться на Stack Overflow на русском или его можно настроить?


Почему это важно:

  • 24 часа - это очень короткий срок для того чтобы охватить аудиторию.
  • Применение частных правил для разных новостей затрудняет их практическое исполнение.

Кроме того, на мой взгляд, подобное выборочное применение метки, отчасти, является проявляением невнимания к модераторам, которые решили сказать "до свидания" после долгих лет службы.

Применялось ли это уже?

Да, но не в русском сегменте. Недавно подобное произошло на StackOverflow на английском.

Its translation to English:

Is it possible to configure limitations about keeping post about moderator leaving in «featured on Meta» on Stack Overflow in Russian?

The question was asked on metaMeta: how long can/should posts about moderator leaving be places in block.

Today, the official answer was given: 24 hours.

Will «the rule of 24 hours» be applied on Stack Overflow in Russian or it's possible to configure it?


Why is it important:

  • 24 hours - is a very short time to reach the audience.
  • Usage of specific rules for different kinds of news makes practical usage harder.

Besides that ,I think that such selective usage of the tag is partially an act of inattention to moderators who decided to say "goodbye" after many years of duty.

Was it already used?

Yes, but not in the Russian segment. Recently such thing happened on StackOverflow in English.

There were authors attempt to change the title

Можно ли настроить ограничения не применять правило "24 часов" нахождения сообщения об уходе модератора в блоке «важное на Мете» на Stack Overflow на русском?

Is it possible to configure limitations not to use 24 hours limitation about keeping post about moderator leaving in «featured on Meta» on Stack Overflow in Russian?

But this change was reverted too. (Full revisions history.)

Together with edits post author received moderators private message (he published it in this post, so I can copy):

Антон, добрый день!

Спешу сообщить, что я внес изменения в ваш вопрос на Мете: Можно ли настроить время нахождения сообщения об уходе модератора в блоке «важное на Мете» на Stack Overflow на русском?

Я понимаю, что у вас есть много мыслей и чувств по поводу указанного вами решения. С другой стороны, на Stack Overflow существуют определенные правила о том как должен выглядеть вопрос. В двух словах: максимально минимально, но достаточно для ответа. Пожалуйста, постарайтесь в будущем не включать в вопрос то, что к нему не относится напрямую (например, личную оценку), ведь это никак не помогает разобраться в ситуации.

С уважением, команда модераторов сайта «Stack Overflow на русском»

and translation:

Anton, good afternoon!

I hasten to inform that I modified your question on Meta: Is it possible to configure limitations about keeping post about moderator leaving in «featured on Meta» on Stack Overflow in Russian?

I understand that you have many thoughts and feelings about the decision you pointed to. On the other side there are some rules on StackOverflow how the question should look like. In couple of words: as minimal as possible but enough to answer. Please, try in future not to include into the question things that are not related to it directly (for example personal assessment) as it doesn't help to understand the situation.

Regards, «Stack Overflow in Russian» moderators team.

I and a lot of other people (including some moderators) do not understand what was wrong with the question (+17 -1).

Currently, there is a flag on the post that its title is changed to opposite for the original version.

So my questions are:

  • What was wrong with the initial version of the question and why it was unacceptable?
  • Was the original edit correct? Is edit with current text correct? For me, it seems like a large rewriting with changing the original idea of the post.
  • Why attempt to change "to configure limitations" to original "not to use 24 hours limitation" by post author is unacceptable?
  • How such a situation should be handled paying attention to the fact that all these edits were made by Community Manager?
  • 3
    @Tom English-language questions about foreign-language sites can be asked here per policy set out by the employees, even though they are otherwise site-specific. The site metas only accept questions in their language. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jan 23 at 0:14
  • 1
    @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog This question is in English because it is asked here, not because OP can only ask this question in English and MSE is the only place they could go. So I'm not sure your remark applies to this case. – Tom Jan 23 at 9:04
  • 6
    @Tom The author wanted advice from other sites that are in the English language regarding a situation on the Russian site, for which they could not reach a conclusion. See the notes at the top. To me, this is a valid question here, even if it's not the traditional case of wanting to post here about non-English sites you mentioned. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jan 23 at 9:07
  • 2
    I think none of the edits were absolutely necessary, but every site does it just a little differently. – Mast Jan 23 at 19:08
  • 2
    In my experience these edits would be reverted to avoid changing original intent, and this seems to be an example of somewhat harmless, but nevertheless overreach against the commonly accepted practices on the rest of the sites (самоуправство but not as harsh as described in the article, it's just the closest term that comes to mind). Having read posts about previous incidents, I think Ru SO Meta might have a problem with figuring out how the process of making decisions should work on their meta, and what sorts of meta post edits are okay or not. – user1306322 Jan 24 at 11:59
3

What was wrong with initial version of question and why is was unacceptable?

Reading the original version of the question, it appears in all ways to be a bad faith post. It claims to be asking about whether this policy applies to Ru.SO, but as-written it shows no indication about misunderstanding the policy, and makes absolutely no arguments about why this should be considered inapplicable to the Russian site.

Rather, it expresses the policy, then expresses disagreement with the policy, explains in detail the reasons for the disagreement, and then asks others for their opinions. This sort of post, especially on Meta, are basically lightning rods for people to just pile on and express their disagreement with the policy, and for any attempts to support it — by official staff or other community members — to be downvoted into oblivion.

This is not a constructive question. All this is likely to do is fuel anger against the company and against the people whose job it is to enforce policies that they have no control over, whether they agree with them or not. It is not what meta should be used for.

Was the original edit correct? Is edit with current text correct? For me it seems like a large rewriting with changing original idea of the post.

The edit was correct in the sense that it stripped away extraneous information to focus on the core question, which in this case is ostensibly the "Does this policy apply to Ru.SO?". This is a perfectly reasonable use of editing. The fact that literally three quarters of the question was apparently extraneous just reinforces the idea that this was in fact a bad faith post, just as the fact that people seem to think that it's changing the "original idea of the post" suggests they would've been answering it for exactly the wrong reasons.

If the original questioner had actually intended to just poll community opinion about the policy, which was the second question asked, that should've been asked separately. And if the questioner had wanted an actual unbiassed answer to that, writing a leading question with an obvious "anti" bias would not be a constructive way to get that, for many of the reasons I described above.

Why attempt to change "to configure limitations" to original "not to use 24 hours limitation" by post author is unacceptable?

I can't comment on this. I worry that it depends on the nuance of the original Russian and too much would have been lost in the translation to render any useful judgement.

How such situation should be handled paying attention to the fact that all these edits were made by Community Manager?

Whether the post was written in bad faith or not, wording something to avoid it being taken as such is very dependent on the specific wording in the original language. As I mentioned above, there is far too much risk of important nuance being lost by someone who is not a native speaker, or in a translation. As such these sorts of issues really should be discussed on Ru.SO where everyone is expected to be fluent in the Russian language, not here.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 3
    1. I'm pretty sure original post was NOT bad faith post. 2. Before edit there were reasons why he thinks policy should not be applied. After an edit it's just a question "will it?" - the logical answer to any "will it?" without reasons is "why not?". 3. Question was posted on metaRuSO and got +18 -1 without answers except original author posted moderator message and some links to chat. There were questions about this topic in chat (there are some links) but I can't find actual answer there. – Qwertiy Jan 23 at 7:54
  • 1
    @goldPseudo, I appreciate your view a lot. Several comments: 1) many policies are not applicable to non-English sites; thus, the question. I did not think of including those reasonings (I should) to my original question, while I specifically thought of including the reasons why I am asking it. 2) several meta questions I am aware of are unanswered and/or closed because of a "pure hypothetical" situation being described. 3) While asking multiple questions is not the best practice, I considered asking about applicability and opinion in the same question justified. – Anton Menshov Jan 23 at 14:44
  • 1
    4) I am unaware of the requirement to ask meta-questions in a totally unbiased way. Usually, one gives some context. Though, I see your argument. – Anton Menshov Jan 23 at 14:46
  • 1
    This reflects our general feeling about this question - both specifically to this case and generally about how editing can be used. It's best practice on Meta to ask questions neutrally and let an answer do the work of expressing your PoV. Thanks for writing this up. – Catija Feb 24 at 18:34
1

The main problems with this edit:

  • It completely changed initial meaning.
  • Author of these edits and rollbacks violated rules (contradicts author's intent/vandalism).
  • Author of these edits removed lock (which was supposed to prevent edit wars) and started edit wars.

If we assume that employees may not follow their own rules, everything is ok...

And few words about the original post itself (from a Russian speaking member and a mod):

  • The post is tagged , not , it's intended for discussion.
  • There was exception for ruSO already when some rules weren't applied for us. For example, our CoC wasn't changed after the recent events; it doesn't include the rule about pronouns. Therefore, in general, raising the question about rule exceptions is fine.
|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    That wasn't really an exception. Stack Exchange does intend to implement something similar on the international sites, but due to various language nuances and other things, hasn't changed anything on those sites for the time being pending the resolution of said nuances and things. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jan 23 at 21:11
  • 2
    Also, reading the translation of the original post, the ending question that it asks is simply whether the policy is applied there; the opinion expressed there is not related to that ending question. I read the arguments in the other answer and it makes sense why the CM would remove that opinion text. Also, the fact that it's tagged discussion instead of support isn't really relevant: I've seen people on this site routinely use the discussion tag in cases where they should have used support and were really asking a support question. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Jan 23 at 21:14
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog, if somebody uses tags incorrectly I suppose it should be fixed. Anyway, it would be strange to suppose that moderator of other SE site will misuse discussion and support. – Qwertiy Jan 23 at 21:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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