Timeline for answer to Site policy for very heavily-trolled topics by T.E.D.
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2020 at 0:08 | vote | accept | T.E.D.Mod | ||
| Feb 27, 2018 at 20:50 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | I get the feel that an early warning sign is/might be that a user doesn't sign up. In itself allowed and welcomed per SE policy… But is there a shortcut to see this without visiting the user-page? – I guess I'm missing/overlooking sth here. | |
| Feb 22, 2018 at 18:55 | history | edited | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2018 at 17:54 | history | edited | LаngLаngС | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
small typo
|
| Feb 22, 2018 at 16:57 | history | edited | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Feb 22, 2018 at 1:56 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | @justCal - No apologies needed. This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to see. | |
| Feb 22, 2018 at 1:46 | comment | added | justCal | I don't know that I could really clarify anything. I have faith in our group of mods, and have been in agreement on most of the moderator closures/actions I have seen. My comments here were basically to support the current level of responses instead of the other option you raised of automatically closing first. Having this question to link to will make it easier to explain some closures for those OPs (or readers) that actually question it. (and my apologies if it seemed I was criticizing any actions, definitely not my intent) | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 23:02 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | @justCal - FWIW: I made this post CW for a reason. If you think you can word a good clarification, go for it. Knowing the mood of our current mod corp, if any of the 4 of them(/us) see a post on these topics and think it might be problematic, its likely to be put on hold regardless of any other activity. Otherwise, critical comments and a close vote or two are your early warning signs, just like with any other post. But if you really think mods ought to try to wait for users to complain somehow first, this would be the place to codify that. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 22:51 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | @justCal - A very good point. I'm thinking the difference is mostly the possibility that a clearly well-formed question may not get closed immediately. Historically moderators have been letting users enforce this, and stepping in only in really obvious cases that shouldn't have to wait around for several votes. The last year or so that's been upped to "fairly obvious cases", and recently (thanks to the infusion of moderator manpower) I'd say its been stepped up further to "probable cases". | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 22:38 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | Especially newbies have be made aware of the 2step process: 1. on hold 2. closure. This wording is imho not clear enough anywhere on SE. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 22:30 | comment | added | justCal | I'm not sure what the difference between 'hair trigger' closure and auto closure is, but perhaps we can define this option a little more clearly. For instance this option could be triggered by the presence of (some number) down-votes or user flags? | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 21:28 | comment | added | MCW Mod | Excellent. Important to note that this is a case where closure offers an opportunity to modify the question and get it fully within scope. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 20:06 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by T.E.D.Mod | ||
| Feb 21, 2018 at 19:44 | history | edited | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2018 at 19:43 | comment | added | T.E.D. Mod | This is actually a bit more forceful than the initial formulation. I think this, along with making it official, may be sufficient going forward. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 19:35 | history | answered | T.E.D.Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |