4

Possible Duplicate:
What to do when a user deletes all their questions and answers?

On SU, a user recently edited away all his answers (replaced them with "........................................." like this).

(He probably also deleted all the posts that he could, as there are now just 3 (accepted) answers left – and those do not account for his reputation score (edit: 524 before any recalc kicking in).)

So, just wondering: Is a user "entitled" to do that? Are other users entitled to revert such edits? (The posted content, after all, is not exclusive property of the OP, but published under cc-wiki.) Edit: someone already reverted those 3 remaining answers.

6
  • 4
    weird, he has over 60k rep on SO
    – juan
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 13:17
  • Probably wants to disassociate himself from the rest of the people who use SU.
    – random
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 13:29
  • From his SO profile: "Pax has left the building."
    – random
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 13:31
  • Ah, yes, this is pretty much covered in meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7635/…
    – Jonik
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 13:39
  • 1
    Rep chart shows 170 after recalc superuser.com/users/4428?tab=reputationhistory#tab-top . Can't delete accepted answers. So rollback seems not out of place.
    – random
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 14:17
  • 1
    Looks like he did the same thing on SF; serverfault.com/users/12022 shows 225 rep and only one answer (and "Disciplined" awarded yesterday).
    – mmyers
    Commented Feb 1, 2010 at 18:41

2 Answers 2

3

I went ahead and undeleted the content (1 question, lots of answers) and removed PaxDiablo as a user, since that was what he seemed to want.

6
  • 1
    I'm sure you'll be hearing from him if he's another 'Ernie'.
    – Rosinante
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 16:42
  • 2
    If undeleting all things is more work then just deleting the user (and hence un-associating any posts?), then maybe we can add "How can I delete all my posts" to the FAQs? (And then the answer is: "Ask team@ to delete your account instead"?)
    – Arjan
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 18:06
  • 6
    Perhaps you could alter his name to something else? It seems he really wanted to distance himself from the trilogy, but a search on his username will lead back here.
    – Nifle
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 18:10
  • Did you ask him before undeleting the content?
    – Tobu
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 22:12
  • 1
    @Tobu, no need... it's not his (the content)
    – juan
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 23:34
  • @Jeff; do it on SF too? (See mmyers' comment on the q.)
    – Jonik
    Commented Feb 3, 2010 at 19:54
6

Last time this happened, the defacement was all reverted and then some negotiation between the management and the user ensued. The site makes it clear that people who type stuff in here are granting a license, and so defacing your own stuff is no better than defacing anyone else's.

5
  • 4
    Although I tend to agree, I'm not sure if the site makes it clear to everyone. Licensing is not mentioned anywhere e.g. at stackoverflow.com/questions/ask, except in small text at the bottom of the page. Perhaps it could be more visible when posting content.
    – Jonik
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 14:40
  • 3
    @jonik - licensing is mentioned on every page. It's the cc-wiki icon at the bottom, along with a text blurb. Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 15:02
  • 3
    One could argue that that's not clear enough to everyone. Some sort of "I agree that any content I publish here is licensed under...." checkbox when creating an account would help make it clearer.
    – Pekka
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 15:26
  • 1
    @Joel. Yes – small grey text at bottom & logo without explanation as to what it relates to. I was simply wondering whether it was visible in a way that makes it clear (as bmargulies put it) for a typical user. Not really. But whatever, I'm not saying it's a big problem.
    – Jonik
    Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 15:27
  • 2
    Whether or not a license can be non-revocable seems to be a muddy issue people often over look simply because the intention of the copy-left licenses is so clear. I think in most areas of law non-revocation clauses are not upheld, especially without substantial or continuing consideration. This does create a problem for OSS with the trend being to ignore the legal ramifications of such an attempt Commented Jan 31, 2010 at 16:57

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