4

We can flag questions, answers, and even comments for moderator attention, but we cannot flag a specific edit that has taken place.

For example, take a look at this question's revision history(+ see disclaimer below):
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/revisions/4380/list

While viewing the history, it would be nice if there was the ability to flag for moderator attention. Specifically during edit wars or when any user feels that the edits are unnecessary. Seeing as how any concern will require "moderator attention" for further action, this seems like a needed piece of functionality.

We can then in turn use the data from flagged edits to potentially identify users who seem to get flagged more than others in proportion to their overall number of edits. This will help in identifying potential misuse, abuse, etc.

**(+)**I completely picked this one at random and do not know if any one edit deserves to be flagged or requires it...

**EDIT**
I'm fully aware that you can flag a question/answer/comment already and that some feel that is the route to go for flagging edits as well. But we cannot derive from that any sort of useful data to determine if specific user's have their edits flagged more than others. We cannot determine if people are not using the functionality as well as others.
Improve this question
12
  • meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5062
    – Timothy Carter
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 16:49
  • bangs head on keyboard multiple times
    – TheTXI
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:04
  • 2
    @Kyle: This is not a duplicate. I am also specifically looking for capturing metrics of this type of thing as well.
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:07
  • 3
    This isn't an exact duplicate, but I don't have the rep to re-open, hopefully somebody will address it someday.
    – Lance Roberts
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:11
  • 2
    I don't see how this is an exact duplicate either. Similar, maybe, but not an exact duplicate. More useful than the linked question.
    – Paul Sonier
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:11
  • @RSolberg: True, it's a feature request not a question, but I think that the answer in both cases is the same. Besides, moderators have stuff that regular users don't see that enables us to identify repeat offenders, and it's unlikely that these metrics would be available to anyone else.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:13
  • 2
    @Kyle- If the metrics exist, then I would agree that it is a duplicated question.
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:14
  • 1
    Rolled back to the community revision. Don't delete the dupe link, even if you don't agree. That is rude and disrespectful to the mods.
    – GEOCHET
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 18:05
  • Rich- I was purely removing my question as it was a duplicate. It is not rude, in fact I am promoting the other question.
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 18:07
  • @RSolberg: I'd say the best way to handle it is to leave the duplicate link at the top and then leave your original text, so that Google is better seeded for people searching for questions on this topic.
    – Hilarious Comedy Pesto
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 18:34
  • @Pesto: That makes good sense. I've corrected the edits to follow this pattern.
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 19:51
  • Possibly related (2009-03-04): The Great Edit Wars. There was once an associated (very long) comment thread with additional context, but it seems to have been lost to time. Or was it on Coding Horror somewhere?
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Jan 4 at 16:56

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
10

Click on the little "Flag" link under the question, select "Requires Moderator Attention", and type in an explanation such as "The edits by $PERSON are $PROBLEM," click "Flag Post." Done. We don't need another piece of functionality for this.

Improve this answer
17
  • 1
    You lose interesting metrics on who is getting flagged on edits though...
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:04
  • 2
    It may not be necessary, but I think it would be a useful addition. Just like having stackoverflow isn't strictly necessary, but it is useful and handy.
    – Paul Sonier
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:05
  • We need separate functions to flag posts, answers, revisions of posts, revisions of answers, users, and comments.
    – TheTXI
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:05
  • If there's a common theme, I'm fairly certain the moderators see it. In fact, I'd wager a good deal that they do and that they have discussions with such parties.
    – Hilarious Comedy Pesto
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:05
  • @RSolberg: There aren't that many flags as it is, and mods do see that the same names come up over and over.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:06
  • McWafflestix: I usually try and remain civil, but that was quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard today.
    – TheTXI
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:06
  • @KyleCronin: I disagree. I think it's a workaround, but just like a workaround isn't a bugfix, I think this is still a valid request. The question wasn't about "HOW do I do this", but about adding a functionality that makes it simpler to find problems.
    – Paul Sonier
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:07
  • @TheTXI: you're kidding, right? You try and remain civil? Is this a new thing?
    – Paul Sonier
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:07
  • 2
    @Kyle: If mods see the same names come up time and time again, has there been any action?
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:08
  • McWafflestix: Can you point me to a spot where I was not civil and was name-calling and abusive? Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them uncivil.
    – TheTXI
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:09
  • RSolberg: If I flag your stuff repeatedly, your name would come up multiple times, but I would imagine that you would argue that action should not be taken against you.
    – TheTXI
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:10
  • @McWafflestix: Well one could describe the moderator flag itself as a workaround to handle those cases where the existing mechanisms for handling abuse don't work. Besides, moderators have stuff that regular users don't see that enables us to identify repeat offenders.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:10
  • 3
    @RSolberg: Funny you should ask, this post has been flagged twice ;-) In all seriousness, you get flags from people that are upset with their question being edited. You get flags from the people that edited that are upset that it's been rolled back. In other words, you can't please everyone, but I at least try to find some middle ground where appropriate.
    – Kyle Cronin
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:18
  • 1
    @Kyle: That cracks me up! I have no idea why this post would have been flagged twice. I guess that even being civil about concerns may "offend" someone?
    – RSolberg
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:21
  • 1
    @RSolberg: as I learned, posting a question about flagging seems to be a great way to get that question flagged... :-)
    – Paul Sonier
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 17:25
1

This would go well with the request to have a text entry when flagging, so the reasons can be cited.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    You get text entry when you flag something for moderator attention. It pops open after you select the moderator attention radio button.
    – Bill the Lizard
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 16:57
  • 1
    Thanks for the info, I haven't flagged for mod attention yet, I'm glad it'll be there when I do.
    – Lance Roberts
    Commented Jul 14, 2009 at 16:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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