I am not sure what exactly you mean by "in case it'd be voted back in". Probably it is worth pointing out that a post deleted by a mod can only be undeleted by a mod. See also: Which actions by moderators cannot be reversed by community?

@MartinSleziak when I clicked on it, it said something about needing 20 positive votes to be reinstated as an answer. Since it is not that important, after all, I didn't dug into it. Maybe I just misunderstood.

I do think the answer being converted to a comment is a better move. I'm not sure of Math.SE standards 10+ years ago but according to contemporary standards, such 'answers' would definitely be better as comments instead. Having said that, I do think editing your comment to change the entire story is an utterly nonsensical move.

@Gokuカカロット A better move than what?

@AlexM. Great comment, forcing people is compelled speech. Regards

@AlexM. Agreed. No one, moderators included, should make changes to your words and change the content of your comment. Saying that the change is very slight or minor is irrelevant and misses the point, as the degree of change is arbitrary and not the focus here.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of the rules under which we operate are that moderators, and users with sufficiently many points, are permitted, even encouraged, to edit posts made by other users (under certain circumstances – append legal boilerplate here). Your personality and your view of the world notwithstanding, if you object to this policy as a matter of general principle, you're on the wrong website. (If you object to specific instances of application of this policy, that's another matter – you may well be within your rights to do so.)

Could someone with the appropriate knowledge link in an explanation of how StackExchange is allowed to use the text people post here? I don't know the details, but it seems to me that there is some pretty severe misunderstanding going on. (I know it's gone through some changes over the years. I think it's enough to just show the current version.)

I hope I am allowed to share my opinion about gender on Meta, but I can see why some people would find the answer slightly offensive since the dark sides of the Internet tend to treat females harsher than males. Since mathematics is mostly comprised of men, it's our responsibility to consider women's feelings if there is something they feel is off-putting, and I'm someone who always advocates for equal rights. I'm not personally offended by it though and I understand the answer wasn't serious.

This reminds me of the What is so bad about "Nancy"? incident on Meta SE/Meta SO a couple of years ago.

@TheAmplitwist Definitely related. The main difference of this post with that post is that "Nancy" was a fictional character, while here the OP argues that what he is talking about is factual (although it is rather more anecdotical, perhaps putting it closer to the situation in that post).

Making edits to improve posts, add additional context and details, and more, has very little to do with this instance. The former is helpful, and encouraged. This specific instance, however, is an attempt at changing what a answer/comment means, almost entirely. It is not the same as making a helpful edit to an answer to add further context, and equating the two, in my opinion, is disingenuous

So, legally, I don't think there's a distinction. However, we definitely strive to do better than merely not breaking the law here, so yes, it is worth treating them differently. That said, I truly must be missing something, if the story is entirely changed if it goes from being about a guy trying to pick up a girl at a bar with linear algebra to being about one person trying to pick up another person at a bar with linear algebra. Can someone explain what I am missing?

To my eyes "general statements" vs. "actual facts" doesn't capture the line here. The prompt was for real life applications: general statements, not specific facts. And the response explicitly brought up gender in a takeaway, not just in facts: "I'm not sure [...] picking up girls at a bar may be listed [...] but, if it works, sure offers an important motivation." I'm curious how Andrea would feel about changing "girls" to "people" there but leaving the rest of the comment intact. (E.g. is that an edit to an account of "actual facts"? Does it send a different message than intended?)

@AlexM. I want to make something clear, we're not going to use "over-sensitive" or any such term to describe people who raise problems like this. That's not cool. Being inclusive requires being notified when things you're doing alienate other people, even when it's inadvertent (as it clearly was in this case). The rest of your point is heard.

@AshMalyshev, I was planning to comment more widely in a couple of days on everything that has been said here, but I think that your question deserves an immediate answer. As a matter of fact my editing back the answer regarded only the gender of the people I had witnessed, but not the general remark--which was meant to be a pun--that you quote: I left it as corrected by the moderator. Again: the only "message" I wanted to send is how the question was too broad and vague and I chose to do it in a sort of paradoxical way, fishing back from memory that old thing. That's all there is.

Why the comment of @AlexM. has been deleted?

@AlexanderGruber: I feel offended and alienated that my comment, which got plenty of upvotes, was deleted by a moderator. I am asking you to undelete it, as I believe that it was on-topic and politely formulated. I consider this an act of censorship, and the failure of the moderator team to undelete my comment will force me to escalate this issue, against my will, and ask for the support of the community manager. If the community manager sides with me, I doubt that the moderator responsible of this act of censorship will be able to remain in the moderating team. Let us not go that far, please!

@AlexM. What about being inclusive? It is easy to say I 'include' you if you think like me. Indeed it was said during regimes: I am in favor of free speech as long as you don't contest me. If you want to be inclusive, Alexander Gruber, to be coherent with your argumentation, you should accept and include the opinion of Alex M, that was exposed in a very polite and rational way. Censoring or eliminating the comment is something that suppresses Alex's opinion and surely is not 'including' him. With this including rethoric, we are not going anywhere, as it is impossible to please all people.

@SineoftheTime - The explanation for the removal was that the removed comment characterized people who point out non-inclusive language as "over sensitive". There's actually a pretty high bar for keeping ones language calm around here (which I also sometimes have to work to stay within), and if you want your thoughts to be part of the discussion, you sometimes have to remove emotional elements.

@AlexM. Your comment was deleted because it contained phrasing that disparaged other users. That's not negotiable. I'd edit that part out for you, but that would be rather against the spirit of the comment.

@AlexanderGruber: Is it true, as JonathanZ suggests, that the incriminating word was "over-sensitive"? For me, "over-sensitive (to an issue)" means "more sensitive to an issue than most other people". It is a perfectly neutral, bland, benign, polite word. Please confirm whether this was the word considered "disparaging", because if so then I believe that such an abusive interpretation would put the moderator who did it at odds with the majority of the MO users (and of the English speakers). I plan to use your answer to go beyond the moderating team, so please make it official. Thank you.

@AlexM. - To me, "over" implies exceeding some threshold, not just "more than the average". Would you describe yourself as "highly sensitive to having your posts modified", or "over sensitive to having your posts modified"?

@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC: I am not a native English speaker, so I can barely tell the difference between your two versions. To me they are so close, that I would consider them synonymous for all practical purposes.

@AlexM. - Wow, your English is really good. I had assumed you were a native speaker. I am a native speaker (although only a sample of one), and I'd say "over" really does carry the connotation that someone had exceeded a limit, implies that they should cut back, and is not "bland and neutral". Y'know, if you feel that the other parts of your comment are still important to the discussion, I'd assume you can repost a version of it without disparaging phrasing?

@AlexM. Typically calling someone "oversensitive" means that they are more sensitive than they should be, that they are too sensitive. It will be intepreted similar to "whiny." It is dismissive of the concerns of the flag raiser and any future women raising flags about similar things, which is precisely what we want to avoid.

@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC So let's suppose the rule is: you can't offend anyone. Let's say I am speacking with one person, so I can't offend you. What about speaking with 10 person? 100 person? 1000 person? Do you think this it is realistic? Indeed, when you are speaking about something important, you'll offend someone, and maybe the person you are talking to. It is normal to be offended, as we all have different points of view. But deleting and entire 6-line comment only because a bounch of people felt uncomfortable with two words, doesn't seem to me a good idea.

@AlexanderGruber - Just to show that we are all still learning, women, men, and people identifying as any any other gender can all raise flags when they see language that's not as inclusive as we wish, no matter who it seems to be excluding. And i say this as a man who, despite my efforts, still finds himself slipping into gender -biased assumptions. It's the way lots of us were raised to speak, and to think, and i think lots of us are finding it more deeply ingrained than we expected.

@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC That's a good point.

@SineoftheTime - They are free to repost the content of their comment without the offensive parts. Comments here are by design ephemeral, and as they quickly become un -editable, deletion followed by a fixed repost is the only solution. If you are arguing for a more general "right to speak offensively", my reply is "not here".

@MichaelMoreno You may consider it insignificant, but it's significant to them. Often women are driven away not by singular sweeping sexist statements, but by an accumulation of small exclusionary things that a community says and does, none of which rise to the level of overt sexism. We need to make an effort as a community to address these smaller issues. We have virtually zero female users here, in a field where >40% of undergrad majors are female. I won't let comments stand that trivialize their complaints and express the intention to say whatever, regardless of how anyone feels.

@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC I think it's mildly inappropriate to say "you are arguing for a more general right to speak offensively", as it's something I've never said. I am only being realistic. Having different points of view is natural, and there is an etiquette also when arguing, and I personally think kindness is the way. Said that, it is not realistic to say 'I include all', as you'll always offend someone, and surely determine categorically and arbitrarily what is inclusive and what's not is clearly a contradiction...

@JonathanZsupportsMonicaC But you make an effort: A for effort. I'm mainly troubled by those who could care less. Anyway, I just wanted to express appreciate for your comments on meta.

7 messages deleted

@AlexanderGruber I did not say that I consider it insignificant, I asked how one might express the view that it is insignificant if they did hold it. Surely that view is fair game in the market place of ideas, if expressed respectfully, just as the opposite should be. What it sounds like you're admitting, is that you think these ideologically partial presuppositions about language and representation must be a priori conceded to, because you are personally sympathetic to them.

I even think your concerns over women feeling comfortable in the space is reasonable, I just don't believe enforcing that view is part of your role as moderator. I think you should hold yourself to a higher degree of ideological humility and impartiality. It's what you would want other mods to do if the ideological favoritism were flipped.

If all this chat is about is pinging and not pinging, it might as well be frozen.

If one of the Math mods arrives, they can open it up again.

9 messages deleted

FYI, I will not be unfreezing this room. It seems that the actual debate has run its course, and that things have devolved into acrimony and name calling. Enough.