Discussion between Shog9 and MadHatter

5:49 AM

@Shog9 Nice example! However, someone else's best practice doesn't consitute an argument, so I'll ask you to make it explicit before commenting: is it your contention that HN unilaterally and without discussion declared a class of questions (specifically, on web-panel admin systems) to be off-topic?

If so, is that contention the core of the problem here?

Shog9

6:01 AM

@MadHatter no. He did do that in some cases, and that wasn't great (y'all will probably need to have a separate discussion on webmin questions at some point here) but the core problem here is that he decided this and then didn't tell anyone.

Or to be more precise: didn't tell everyone.

The discussion was up on meta. Several folks were already suggesting different strategies for dealing with these questions. He could've said, "I'm going with this one" or "I don't like any of these, so I'm going with some other criteria instead", and that'd have been something. Something to point to, something to agree or disagree with. Something that at least said, "this isn't someone just doing what seems right to him, it's a matter that's been debated"

MadHatter

Let me be clear: you're saying that the decision to declare web-panel admin questions off-topic was HN's, unilateral, and uncommunicated?

And also: recent?

Shog9

@MadHatter to declare any question containing in its text the name of an admin panel which displays a website? Yes. I can find no mention of such criteria predating last week.

MadHatter

Let's start with meta.serverfault.com/questions/3425/…

Shog9

> A question that mentions cpanel is not de-facto off-topic.

Keep going...

MadHatter

26

Q: Is it time to kill problematic tags like cpanel, plesk, whm and webmin?

Given the recent uptick in new users with new questions, I've been noticing an even sharper-than-normal decline in quality on the site and a correlated increase in the number of questions about how to do $basic_task or simple troubleshooting in $crappy_webpanel_administration_tool. The three fou...

Shog9

6:11 AM

> If you are providing Panel systems to end users then conceivably you might have a panel related question about it's installation/configuration etc. which may be topical on SF.

MadHatter

Shog, we're going to come around in a tight loop again to "whose community is this". There is no doubt in my mind that web-panel admin questions are OT for SF. There is no doubt in many other high-rep users minds either, I see from many of the comments on many recent meta threads, see eg meta.serverfault.com/a/8068/55514 .

Shog9

@MadHatter no, we're not.

You thought you were going to prove me wrong with a couple of links. You can't.

MadHatter

If you think this was not well-understood by the community, you're simply wrong, and I don't know how to communicate this to you.

Shog9

I spend my entire working life reading meta. I spent my last weekend reading your meta. I know what is there.

Your community is bigger than a tiny clique in a chatroom. If something isn't documented publicly, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

MadHatter

I''ve pointed you to documentation, both of p[ublic discussion, and of individual mindsets. I don't quite understand what you

re hoping to see.

Shog9

6:15 AM

If that's what you're getting at - this notion that SE, Inc. requires public documentation regardless of what individual groups decide is appropriate... Then yes, that rule overrides all personal preferences in this context.

MadHatter

And I will pointedly remind you that our community is what **it says it is, not what you say it is*.

Where is *that * rule clearly and unambiguously documented?

Shog9

@MadHatter you pointed me at a post that backs up what I said, and another post about tags. I'm not sure what you were hoping to demonstrate.

MadHatter

You contended that WPA questions were not OT as the result of open public discussion. I pointed you to such. You objected, though I can't quite understand the nature of the objection...

I note that immediately following the quote you gave above, the author then notes "Having said that I can't recall seeing a question that falls into the latter category so yeah burninate them."

Shog9

@MadHatter The tags, yes.

Since that was the entire point of the discussion there

Noticeably absent was any suggestion of "let's search for 'cpanel' / 'directadmin' / 'webmin' and just close what we find"

MadHatter

I think we could argue here for weeks about whether or not the WPA-OT issue was clearly understood. I repeat my earlier question: if you contend that the documentation standard is very high, that somerthing must explicitly be agreed as OT in every detail before it can be policy, could you please point me to a pre-existing, publicly-documented discussion that unambiguously makes that clear?

Shog9

6:21 AM

@MadHatter Look around you. This is how it is done, how it has been done for nearly 6 years, for longer than Server Fault has even existed.

But if you want something more specific than that...

> [Closing should be something that has wide-spread support on a site. If folks disagree as to what is on- or off-topic, then that's something that needs to be resolved before going further. In particular, topics that are allowed with restrictions need to have those restrictions hashed out and documented, either on your meta or on your on-topic page.

So take your ideas for off-topic reasons, throw them into a meta post and let folks discuss them.](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184637/what-do-site-moderators-need-to-do-to-support-the-new-custom-question-close-reas/185097#185097)

MadHatter

So is the OT of WPA questions. We're all telling you this. It was very well understood. You cavil because it may or may not have been explicitly documented. I've asked you if this is the standard of proof required for action. You have said yes. I have asked you for a pointer to the discussion that endorses that policy... and you have the nerve to tell me that it is just well-understood?

No, Sir, this will not suffice. If it is us who frame thre community, then you're simply wrong. If it you who frames the community, that is of course your prerogative, but you cannot in honestly claim that the site is run by the community (also, I note that last quote of yours is without context, I can see no date information thereon).

(I withdraw that last, I 've worked out what I need to click on now. Sorry.)

Shog9

@MadHatter It was not well-understood. It is still not well-understood. Have you ignored the discussions launched by MichaelH these past few days? Opinions run the gamut from "close end-user questions" to "close anything that mentions web-based admin tools", with perhaps some consensus around "website admin tools are off-topic but questions where they are incidental should be edited".

If this was well-understood, these discussions should have been trivial. Heck, these questions should have already been closed and deleted long ago. But of course, they were not, nor have the discussions been easy.

MadHatter

After what happened, you will understand that the community wants to dot its is and cross its ts on this issue as soon as possible. I don't think you can use the recent upsurge in discussion on the subject as if it had happened in isolation.

Shog9

@MadHatter Sure I can. You got some folks saying "this was all expected and understood" and others expressing bewilderment, unaware that any of this was even happening. Yes, I stirred up the pot - so, now we see what rises.

I don't care what y'all decide is off-topic or on-topic; that's your collective decision. But it must be a decision, made and enforced, not a tacit understanding that is enforced by one person in secret.

MadHatter

And if what rises is the consensus you seemed to feel was missing before, and I for one did not, how will you get us our community moderator back?

Shog9

6:35 AM

@MadHatter there will likely need to be another election at this point.

Lest you forget, you lost two moderators last week.

MadHatter

You don't come across as disinterested when you describe this as a decision made by one person in secret. It may be that it wasn't as clearly documented as you say it must be, but the range of comments should make it very clear to you that this wasn't one person's sole opinion.

I understand how we get a new moderator, though thank you for that. I asked how we'd get our old one back if the consensus you say we didn't have turns out to be there after all, thus invalidating the entire process.

Shog9

@MadHatter the range of comments tells me that lots of people thought they knew what had been decided. And all had different ideas as to what that was.

@MadHatter if he wants to be a moderator again, then he can run again.

MadHatter

I doubt he wants to put his head on the block again. Given your speed with the axe, I can't say I blame him.

Enthusiasm is hard to make, and easy to destroy. I'm not trying to score points when I beg you to remember that.

Shog9

@MadHatter Speed? He had four months. Two since I last talked to him, privately, about carelessly destroying a large amount of data, and urged him to ask for help the next time he found himself needing to do such a thing. I should have been much faster to see this, a deficiency I'm working on addressing.

@MadHatter I know it all too well. I appreciated the enthusiasm too much here though; it made me blind to things I should've seen. Again, a hard lesson for me.

MadHatter

I don't believe I've seen any other reference to this not being the first time the matter arose. I agree that that would put a different complexion on the matter.

I don't know that I stand to gain more from this discussion,. It's been in some places enlightening, but I think we disagree about what a sysadmin community can and should be. If I may, I'll make one closing request (a sort of while I've got the ear of the Powers That Be post), but it'll be carefully thought-out, and short. If you're minded to respond in kind, I'd value what you have to say...

Shog9

6:50 AM

@MadHatter The first time was the tag merges. There are still 800+ untagged questions on the site as a result of that. Which he continued doing after I advised him that there was a clean way of doing it and offered to help, without mentioning it to me in the process (or mentioning it on meta).

MadHatter

... I find from this discussion that you have a bit of an axe to grind about SF, but I do go away believing that you have the best interests of these communities, as a whole, at heart. Thanks for the clarification on the earlier issue.

Shog9

That's one of the more powerful tools mods have access to, and... we may have to put some guards on it. Folks have been de-modded for nothing more than that before, simply because recovering from it is so rough. We discussed this privately; you've no reason to believe be, but I was as gentle as I could be. And again, offered to help.

@MadHatter I have... some frustrations with some of the folks here that probably influence my tone at times. I do apologize if that comes off as a grudge where it shouldn't. I don't have any particular motivations for my actions here apart from assisting y'all where I can though.

Believe me, there's too much work to be done to spend time here otherwise.

In any case, I'm always in chat and easy to find. If you ever have questions or concerns, don't hesitate to find me.

MadHatter

You're only human, too, so I can understand getting frustrated. I do feel, though, that if you're going to exercise force majeure you need to be in a place where it doesn't come out. Using phrases like clique - which I don't think exists; we, too, are only people, and all very much individuals - doesn't improve the appearance of impartiality in your actions.

Transcript for

Discussion between Shog9 and MadHatter