/dev/chat

Faheem Mitha

03:42

@Spiralwise If the answer fixes your problem, don't forget to upvote/accept.

Caleb

06:20

@Seth Especially when a high profile used self-deletes a lot of people can put 2+2 together and figure out where the votes went. They won't know what posts were voted on per say but they will lean that X person voted for them ~Y times. Basically it's a fundamental flaw in the deletion process that a lot of information that was previously private gets inadvertently made more public when they leave.

Of course a lot of people actually have 1.3 and 1.7 to work from and end up making 3 thinking it's 4, but that's their problem and we should be discouraging them from making assumptions about the data or reading things into it that aren't constructive.

My concern above is with the lower profile cases. The less rep involved the easier it is to guess at exactly what was connected to what. In the case above a user loosing 10 rep means they had exactly one post voted for, and a little mod sleuthing could figure out which one it is. If mods were to add to the public data their bits of knowledge, basically they could completely de-anonymize votes. Which is not cool.

Faheem Mitha

07:52

Is there an easy way to find out when I upvoted a question or an answer?

Braiam

13:36

@FaheemMitha profile > votes?

terdon

14:23

The only consensus is that something should be done, and since nobody decided what I will go for the safest one, retag all gnome terminator as gnome terminator. — Braiam 45 mins ago

@Braiam please don't.

Give me a minute and I'll rename the tag. In the future, I'll thank you to not assume that the absence of consensus means you can do whatever you feel like.

OK, done.

Braiam

@terdon no, the consensus is that something must be done, nobody proposed what nor were against any specific solution.

unless you have a counter proposal, your argument is on favor, since most of the uses of the tag are about gnome-terminator

as you pointed out

and Gilles seems to agree

I'm not doing "whatever you feel like", I did what I feel should be done

and I as community member am entitled to do it

terdon

@Braiam Which is exactly the same as what you like.

@Braiam No, that's the whole point of reaching a consensus.

Look, never mind, I really don't want to get into a fight here. Just next time, when something is being discussed on meta, do not take it upon yourself to decide for the community.

Braiam

@Chris - putting for the effort to help make the site better, content more relevant and reduce the noise is always a good thing. Even if there are some false positives, correcting a handful of your well intentioned mistakes is trival. Thanks for trying to help nobody is perfect 100% of the time! Don't get discouraged. — Jarrod Roberson May 3 '14 at 0:42

> When can I actually start with the burnination? When is it 'approved'?

This should be decided on a case-to-case basis. You should take into account the popularity of the tag, how long ago the Meta discussion was posted, the post score (preferably break this down into the number of upvotes and the number of downvotes, not just the resulting score) and comments or answers giving convincing reasons one way or the other, especially those by high-reputation users and moderators.

Popular tags should be given more time and/or a higher score before deciding to proceed with burnination.

> Comments by high-reputation users and moderators saying that they don't agree with the burnination (presumably with good reason) should increase the threshold on the score or time a bit. Comments in themselves shouldn't decide requests if the score isn't in line with them.

Very controversial requests (ones with many upvotes and downvotes) should preferably be given some time to settle down to a convincingly either high or low score.

This is not the case, the tag has only 22 something questions, it has been created recently, nobody downvoted the meta discussion, 1 high rep user agreed that there should be renamed, it was posted 7 days (or 1 week) ago

you need more than that?

or are you suggesting that I shouldn't do anything and keep my hands tied all the time?

I'm doing a service to this community, I discussed the topic, I gave ideas, if you don't agree, say so explicitly, and suggest options, but don't road block everyone just because you don't know what you want to be done, or even worse, you don't want me to do it (which is the interpretation I'm getting from this iteration).

if you got something against me, keep it to yourself or bring it to a meta discussion, but don't disagree with my attempts to make UL a better place just because I am the one pushing it. So, I'm still waiting for a good reason explaining why what I did was me "doing what I feel like". Otherwise, I'm asking you to retreat your statement and do a formal apologize, because I feel very wronged.

terdon

14:54

For heaven's sake Braiam! No, it has nothing to do with you. It is about any user who makes a statement like "There's no consensus, therefore I will do X_.

You could have posted an answer, or at least a comment, on the relevant meta discussion explaining that you are about to go and retag all those questions.

I guess my real problem was with 1) the fact that you left a comment declaring your intent on a random question instead of the place where this was being discussed and 2) that you simply decided that because there's no consensus you get to chose.

Braiam

@terdon where I said "There's no consensus"?

terdon

32 mins ago, by terdon

The only consensus is that something should be done, and since nobody decided what I will go for the safest one, retag all gnome terminator as gnome terminator. — Braiam 45 mins ago

since nobody decided what I will go...

Next time, just comment on the meta thread or something! That's what it's there for.

Braiam

@terdon are you factually aware how retagging are done?

terdon

Having a mod merge and rename the tag is much cleaner since it doesn't move all these old questions to the front page.

Braiam

ok, one clear example: meta.stackoverflow.com/q/287798/792066

are you noticing the timestamps of when the question was asked, when the answer was posted?

that was exactly what it would happened in this case, I would put an answer going for the obvious ones, and leave the ones I was not clear for further discussions, you didn't even allow that

terdon

15:00

@Braiam What? What did I "not allow"?

Braiam

@terdon you just went and merged everything

I would have retagged the obvious (which you were also clear about) and leave the others for further discussions

read my answer to the meta Q

terdon

@Braiam Well, next time post the answer first and the comment declaring your decision second!

I did the best I could expecting, as per your stated intentions, that you would go on a rampage and start retagging everything, creating two tags where only one was needed and God knows what else.

That's precisely my point. Next time, use meta for this kind of thing instead of posting such comments and we can avoid this unpleasantness.

Braiam

@terdon there is no really need to "post the answer first", they are plain obvious.

terdon

Huh?

Obviously not. Look where we are. All you had to do is be a little patient and use the tools provided.

Braiam

> I've created adobe-director, gave it a minimal wiki page and retagged posts that are clearly about the topic. Please do review the wiki text, I probably got something wrong.

he didn't posted the answer "first", he just did what was obvious and safe at the time

also, I only bumped 1 single question, not a hundred, or thousands, just one question

you are doing this bigger than it should be

terdon

15:05

Yes, but he presumably didn't also post a comment on a random question stating that since there's no consensus I'll just do what I feel is best.

@Braiam I had no way of knowing that. I happened to see that comment and rushed to merge before it got out of hand. If you'd taken the time to post on meta or at least leave a comment on my post letting me know, we could have avoided it.

Go away and relax Braiam. I'm done with this conversation.

Braiam

@terdon not until I got my apologize

I'm doing the best for the community

Gilles

@Braiam No. Stop.

This has gone on for long enough.

Anthon

@Braiam I haven't followed what is going on but using the f-word is never appropriate

Gilles

@Braiam The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We know you want to help, but sometimes you don't take the best road to do it.

RubberDuck

Maybe it's time to step away from the screen? What's going on?

Braiam

15:10

ok, then someone tell me: what would you have done?

Gilles

@Braiam In this chat conversation: walked away about 10 minutes ago

2

Anthon

@Braiam I don't know because I have not followed what the discussion was and I am certainly not going to review that to give a hurried opinion.

Braiam

@Gilles I need. my apologize

Gilles

Oh, and to all the chat moderators who are descending here because someone used “fuck” in a message: that is not the fucking issue.

RubberDuck

@Gilles Sounds like you need to walk away too @Gilles.

I see you're a moderator somewhere. It would be nice if you acted like it.

Don't forget why we're all here guys.

terdon

15:15

@RubberDuck Different chat rooms have different tolerance levels for profanity. We're not particularly bothered by bad words here. Not in and of themselves anyway. Context is everything.

Gilles

@Braiam for the retagging: going on to retag all the posts with a certain tag is not a good thing. Let a moderator rename the tag.

RubberDuck

Yes agreed, but cursing at people who came because of a flag isn't very professional @terdon.

terdon

@RubberDuck Oh, that's not what he did! At least not at all how I read it.

RubberDuck

I'll be going now, but I really suggest a long walk away from the screen for everyone. Good luck guys.

terdon

@RubberDuck I took that as a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out that the word itself is not the issue.

RubberDuck

15:17

4 mins ago, by Gilles

Oh, and to all the chat moderators who are descending here because someone used “fuck” in a message: that is not the fucking issue.

Gilles

Give me a minute to check the current state of the meta thread

terdon

@RubberDuck Precisely, that was in no way insulting to "the chat moderators". It was not directed at anyone.

Gilles

@RubberDuck Lesson in moderation: moderation is about people, not about words.

2

RubberDuck

@terdon Yeah. Maybe, but I was just responding to a flag and didn't deserve that. I expect a bit more out of the moderators.

terdon

@RubberDuck Fair enough, just pointing out that you did not receive it either.

RubberDuck

15:18

Like I said, I'll be going. Good luck (and hope I don't report the unprofessional behavior.)

Gilles

@RubberDuck Lesson in moderation in SE chat: SE chat moderation is kinda broken. This is a common situation: a message gets flagged and 10 people unfamiliar with the room descend on it. When you see a flagged message, look at the context first. If someone is familiar with the room, let them act first.

Gilles

15:31

@Braiam In such cases, please announce your intention in a meta answer first, and give a bit of time (a couple of days) for people to react

Also link your meta answer in chat, that draws attention to it and gives people a place to discuss it

Faheem Mitha

@Gilles hey. long time no see. How's it going?

Gilles

The jessies.org terminator seems to be little-known compared with the Gnome version, so it's likely that people asking about it would mention that it isn't the Gnome one

Faheem Mitha

Oh, I see I didn't pick the best time.

Gilles

@FaheemMitha I posted an answer 15 hours ago, that's hardly a long time

Faheem Mitha

@Gilles I meant in chat. I didn't mean activity in the site.

Braiam

15:43

@Gilles point a single case where that was done, please

@Gilles remember that the tag could be a mixed bag, moderators and SE staff seldom to do the automated way in such cases. They first asks for a clean up, cutting the rough edges (or the obvious ones) and once they are sure then they fire away. Or are you aware of a case that this wasn't done?

@Gilles btw, I gave solutions and what would be my stance on my meta Q since day 1 (rename the ones of gnome terminator to gnome terminator) since it was not just easy, but safe (I always take the safest path, since I'm very coward and don't like to take risks) and I actually have seen tons of thousands, even you, doing the same.

btw, I was reading before, during and after the conversation, so I don't know why people interpret I'm emotional

well, a little pissed because I had to switch tabs, but nothing grave

Gilles

@Braiam meta.unix.stackexchange.com/questions/3102/… meta.unix.stackexchange.com/questions/3125/…

You do have a point that we tend to let bad tagging situations stew (not just on U&L, I think most sites have the same problem): someone raises the issue on meta, nobody objects, and then… nothing happens.

When nobody objects and there was significant support (“many” upvotes on the meta question), it's fine to go ahead if it's a “small” case

large disambiguations need a concerted effort so as not to flood the front page

renaming or merging needs a moderator. When there's consensus, ping a moderator in chat.

Braiam

wasn't this a "small" case? with just 22 questions, I believe it was one

Gilles

@Braiam 22 is about half the front page, that's not small

Braiam

15:58

@Gilles well, I wasn't planning to do everything in one go anyways

as I said, I was reading, most likely after I ended I chapter I would edit 1 or 2

Gilles

Given that we knew from the onset that a majority of the questions were about Gnome, the right thing would have been to review questions, retag the ones about Jessies (if any) to jessies-terminator, and then rename terminator to gnome-terminator

Braiam

grr... why didn't you said so?

Gilles

@Braiam because you didn't ask?

and you've been doing tag maintenance on SE for long enough that I thought this would be clear to you

Transcript for