@quid You reopened this meta post, which had been closed as duplicate, regarding that one can easily find many posts talking that subject by a simple search. Why do you and the other moderators not want to undelete and reopen this post, which clearly meets the standards of the community and is not duplicate? CC @XanderHenderson and other busy moderators.

By the way, if those users who are willing to close/delete my meta posts regardless of what they state as soon as possible are genuinely concerned about quality of posts on Meta, why are they not inclined to cast their close/delete votes on many meta posts, like this one, which are obviously violate the community standards?

@Later What community standards have been obviously violated in the meta post you linked?

If a moderator answer a contextless question and we ask him not to answer such question is it a right behavior that moderator deletes all those comments which ask him not to answer the question? Something happened here When some people including me asked the moderator not to answer contextless question all those comments were removed by moderator. Is the EoQS policy only for non-moderators?

@Later There is no problem in the linked question in this message for it to be closed. In fact it should be highly voted

@Later I don't know the real reason for deletion of your post but I can think of one reason. You know one should not post abusive question. If you think this in one way it is abusing the whole group of moderators which might have been the reason for deletion. But this is just a theory / reason

@TheSimpliFire I thought that its reason was clear enough. Firstly, that post is not a question at all. Secondly, In What types of questions should I avoid asking? it is explicitly stated that one should "avoid asking subjective questions where every answer is equally valid." Thirdly, ... . CC @JitendraSingh

@Later You are linking the wrong help page. That is for the main site. This is the correct page for understanding meta. In the context of your linked meta post, it is a discussion-based acknowledgment of both community effort and encouragement. This is valid on meta.

@TheSimpliFire That is for Meta as well. Otherwise, why is there an "opinion-based" closure reason on Meta? Please note that Meta is a subset of the Math.SE community, for which the Help Center guidelines have been written; even, this claim can be confirmed by the moderators.

That thread does not contradict my claim. Also see this comment.

@TheSimpliFire Please also do not forget that questions should be asked on Meta, not acknowledgements; the moderators can confirm this claim.

@Later What is means is that the threshold at which meta questions are closed as opinion-based is much lower than that for maths question on the main site.

@Later That is not always the case. For instance, there are plenty of congratulatory posts on meta.

@TheSimpliFire "That said, also for a meta questions there is a scale of "opinion based"; the cut-off should certainly be very different on meta than on main, but the notion to some degree still makes sense." The scale for that post is 100%.

@TheSimpliFire Even, in this Meta guideline it is clearly emphasized "asking questions".

@TheSimpliFire They are obviously off-topic as well, and must be closed and deleted.

I'm not sure how much can be gained by engaging with that character.

@KReiser Well given their last reply above, I'm certainly now going to stop.

I also should not have started the discussion with the people whose behavior I have already seen on Meta.

Hello, mods! I've been getting 4 serial down votes in the last three days, but my earlier flag when there were only two down votes is still pending. Now this user has really breached the line. Could mods take some actions? Thanks in advance. @AlexanderGruber@PedroTamaroff@quid@XanderHenderson

@Saad do you have clear idea who it might be? If so, could you mention it in a flag.

@Later I explained my action regarding the first post.

@quid I cannot pinpoint, but the pattern here is that all the down votes are on my answers, which suggests that this user has already probably downvoted all my questions before. In short, it should be a veteran user and probably frequent CURED.

@Saad we'll have a look, but I don't think that the speculation on the Q is right.

For one thing not all your Q even have a dv.

That's indeed only a guess, but users with low rep might care more about the -1 on their own sides.

Abuse of power

← 1 message moved from CURED

@lonestudent Not at all, because it is a blatant violation of the EOQS. CC @XanderHenderson @quid @AlexanderGruber

@quid I've made a new flag showing my guess.

@user21820 I disagree that it is a "blatant" violation of the community standards. The question is slightly more than a PSQ, as a source is given. I would imagine that others might consider there to be an attempt in there, as well (for the record, I disagree with those people).

That being said, the question is not up to snuff, and was very appropriately closed and deleted. There was no abuse of power there.

@XanderHenderson Ok thanks for stating your view!

@user21820 Just to be clear, I almost entirely agree with you. The only issue is that the EoQS was meant to deal with the worst of the worst of the worst, and the cited question is only among the worst. :\

@quid I already know your reason for the action. However, I wonder while you, as a moderator, reopened a post which had been correctly closed, you are indifferent to undeletion and reopening of this post which was wrongly closed and deleted. CC @XanderHenderson and other busy moderators.

@Later Which post was correctly closed?

@Later The cited meta question is a long-winded, rambling rant about how much time moderators should be required to spend on the site, full of baseless assumptions about how we spend that time (for the record, this conversation with you, right now, is part of my moderating duty). It is unclear what the actual question is, and it is unclear what you want from the discussion. It doesn't seem to add much value to the site.

On the other hand, the question about PSQs was appropriately closed as a duplicate. However @quid decided that the issue of PSQs was/is important enough that we should have a dedicated FAQ question about them. Hence quid reopened the question and marked it as a FAQ.

I am in full agreement with @quid's actions there.

@JitendraSingh no, but it is not exactly clear what you expect as reaction?

Oh, NO!, whenever @quid and @Xander meet, trouble ensues! ;P ;D

@XanderHenderson My question was clear; it was stated in the title. My goal of the discussion in that post was that moderators should spend much more time on the moderation of this community (For the record, When I calculated the moderation time of the current moderators, I considered such conversations in chat rooms).

@amWhy but you like trouble, don't you? ;D

@quid ;P

I take that as a "yes"

@Later I am currently engaging in the moderation of this community, by responding to comments in chat. This is what I have been doing for the last hour.

@quid No, I am a mediator! (Sometimes.) :-)

I need coffee. :\

@XanderHenderson The Cafe will have some ready for you!

@amWhy :-)

@Xander:

@Later Perhaps consider the input that you have received in the past.

You have posted a significant number of long-winded, poorly received messages on meta. Clearly, this style isn't working.

If there are specific issues you wish to address, try to narrow things down.

For example, it seems that you are under the impressions that (1) moderating should only take 15 minutes per day and (2) the current moderators are not doing their jobs. You draw some correlation between these, and then ramble about it for several paragraphs.

It seems to me that there are at least two meta questions here: (1) how much time does it take to moderate the site (hint: it is more than 15 minutes per day for a lot of us) and (2) are they moderators doing their jobs and, if not, why? what can be done to fix the problem?

Keep it narrow and focused, avoid speculation, and avoid editorializing.

@Later A good strategy for going forward, If you have a concern you want to address, acknowledge there might have been or there might be reasons for what you question. Refrain from writing as if you are a zealot, out to convert us all. Discussion means discussion, and recognize that although you may make some good points, you need to welcome a consensus, or compromise. Please do not behave or write in a manner that assumes no one else has ever previously posted about an issue.

@quid I expect that this is totally unfair. If normal users are getting banned for answering contextless question shouldn't the same be applied to moderator? It should in my opinion. And why were the comments expressing reality depends?

@XanderHenderson "If you encounter a user who consistently answers low-quality (or duplicate) questions over a significant period of time, and polite references to this post do not seem to be helping, please raise a flag on one of their answers." So are we allowed to flag a mod answer too if it is answering a contextless question continuously?

@JitendraSingh No normal user is getting suspended (not banned; suspended) for answering a contextless question. We have sent messages to users who have answered a lot of contextless questions, and have given short suspensions to a subset of those users who have not adjusted their behaviour after first being contacted.

@XanderHenderson sorry I meant suspended only

My general threshold for issuing a suspension is something like "more than 1/3 of a user's answers are in reply to low-quality questions."

Also, I addressed this issue earlier this morning: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/58769883#58769883 .

@XanderHenderson So if I see repeated answering of contextless question by a mod then am I allowed to flag it for mod advice right Xander?

@JitendraSingh I cannot parse that phrase.

Anyway I'll let @XanderHenderson respond who is more active in EoQS than I.

See y'all!

@JitendraSingh You are allowed to flag anything you like. If you believe that a moderator is violating community standards, you should say something about it---lord knows I've had a good number of accusations lobbed my way over the last year.

Flags are a reasonable way of raising a concern. A meta post would also be reasonable. However, I would suggest that you try to avoid making accusations (whether or not a moderator is involved).

Okay thanks @XanderHenderson as well as to you @quid

@quid See you, until later! :-)

cya

That being said, you should also understand that, while you can flag anything, flags can also be declined.

For everyone here, I would suggest that EoQS flags should have relatively neutral language, e.g. "I believe that this answer to a low-quality question falls under the EoQS."

(note: the string "EoQS" is helpful, as we have a userscript which filters flags containing that string)

EoQS EoQS EoQS.... EoQS.... Does EOQS count too? (Just a light-hearted question, that's all, @Xander.)

@amWhy EOQS counts, as does eoqs, EoQs, eOQs, and eoqS. None of the other possible capitalizations works.

Okay, I need to go finish packing.

@XanderHenderson Okay; another cup of coffee is awaiting you in the Cafe, if you need another coffee. See you!

cya