@SmokeDetector This answer will soon be deleted (I am sure), but the question itself is not really all that great. I would suggest closure and deletion.
@XanderHenderson @amWhy @Did @quid: Again? Note that user1729 is wrong about the 'age' of the question. It was closed only a week after being posted, and deleted a week later. But 2 weeks after that MR and two others undeleted it. Again it was deleted, but once everything quietened down, again 2 weeks after that MR and two others undeleted it. This is now the third cycle of sneak undeletion.
@amWhy please stop suggesting that people have a bias whenever they disagree with you. None of those people are my colleagues, and I am quite impartial as moderator.
2
@amWhy who are you even talking about, anyway? does somebody in that thread work at UF?
Honestly, if the question requires moderator intervention (which I think it did in this case), then I can at least see the argument that it should be left undeleted but locked. Since a moderator deleting a question is essentially permanent, leaving it locked is moderating with a "lighter touch."
In the sense that it is a less drastic action and is also more transparent.
Honestly, I see no reason to question @AlexanderGruber's impartiality on this issue (is there an old grudge that I am missing?), and it is not clear that there is any great consensus on how the question should be handled (there is a small, vocal group in favor of deletion; and a small, vocal group in favor of keeping it around).
The vast majority of MSE simply doesn't care.
Personally, I would prefer to see the question permanently deleted, but I can see the argument in favor of a somewhat lighter touch.
A locked-and-deleted question is invisible to the majority of users; a locked-but-not-deleted question is visible. Leaving the question undeleted is more transparent.
Perhaps "transparency" is the more appropriate adjective than "lighter touch".
@Xander Henderson: I think a useful thing for moderators to do about these would be to develop consensus to gain some rules about repeated delete or undelete votes
It's just as drastic, and as much of a "slap in the face" to the equally significant number of users who voted to close, reclose, and delete, as would deleting it have been. Whether it's visible or not has nothing to do with the ultimate statement. "This is gone permanently" vs. "This is here to stay permanently, no matter what the community decides via votes."
The major issue here is that the question has been involved in a delete/undelete war. It required moderator intervention. There is no clear consensus on whether or not the question should be deleted (since most of MSE doesn't even care), hence a moderator had to choose to give some small, vocal group of users a "slap in the face." If the question is not deleted, however, it can still be easily discussed and debated until a real consensus does emerge.
And the now "moderator-sanctioned-with-a-stamp-ofapproval-problem-statement-question-that-is-now-locked-so-as-to-remain-open-forever" does a disservice to the community in terms of exemplifying a poor question supported by a moderator; more than supported by a mod, but literally protected forever from community action.
My view is this. The thing isn't deleted, but it now has both a closure and a lock message on it now saying it's a bad question. So I don't think there's any possibility that it could be mistaken for a good question, even by a new user.
@amWhy Alternatively, the lock text points out that the question is terrible, and so we can link to that question when telling a new user that their question needs improvemennt.
I reopened before locking because that seemed like a compromise. Also, there is a variety of answers on it, so it's possible it could be useful, particularly if revised later
Once again, though, as I said earlier, if community were able to develop consensus on the matter on meta, I'd be happy to be overturned
I don't enjoy stepping in and introducing artificial compromises any more than either side enjoys the results, I'm sure. But delete wars do have to end some time.
@CarlMummert i meant if the community decided to "retcon revive" it (edit it into a more useful question in order to salvage answers)
@AlexanderGruber Yes they do. But why in the favor of a user who wages such wars every single time a question he answers is closed? And hence reinforcing said user's tenacity to protest the closure/deletion of every single question he has answered?
@AlexanderGruber But the reinforcing of very recent such behavior ought to be on topic. You are essentially broadcasting: "If you answer a question that you earn upvotes on, even if it is a poor, poor question, which is then closed, even deleted... well, just keep waging reopen/close, delete/undelete wars and post on meta, and fight like mad until you wear out a moderator who decides in your favor."
3
The sad thing is, is that the above message works more often than not. (Note, I am observing the obvious truism: "Actions speak louder than words".)
@XanderHenderson Will you be okay if a mod unilaterrally decides to undelete the question and then lock it? After all, such an action would be "moderating" with a "lighter touch", and maintain transparency, no? There are, after all, a number of users who earned some rep answering the question. They might become vocal, and hence wear down a moderator to do their bidding.
@amWhy If that question were the object of a prolonged delete/undelete war, yes. I would also be okay if a mod unilaterally decided to delete such a question. I don't feel strongly in either direction, and was attempting to articulate the opposing point of view.
@amWhy Yes, I understand that. I said that I would be okay with it.
If the issue of undeleting the question is really the sticking point, a sneaky mod could wait for a day or two until the vocal undeleters got around to undeleting the question themselves.
So all anyone needs to do to avoid the deletion of a question is wage an undelete war? Because in such cases you're okay that mods always side on the undeleter's side, and so deletion of question may become, on paper, an option, but in reality, not worth it, because it turns out futile?
If he is personally really responsible for a pattern of delete / undelete wars, then I would expect the moderators to take action eventually. I don't know the full history well enough to assert that there is a pattern.
