Null

@AncientSwordRage Thanks, and it's Rand's, too.

@Randal'Thor 8 years already!? Happy mod birthday to you, too!

I think it's a sign I'm getting old.

It really does.

@Randal'Thor Same to you! (Has it really been that long?)

@Adamant Yes, I was just elected a few months ago.

I think it's just supposed to be "looking", but I'm not sure how even a lazy typist could make that mistake.

@Marvin One of these days I'm going to learn how to write an SEDE query so I can quickly find and downvote all these sloppy manga questions.

...Furthermore, the fact that the system disables the posting of new answers on closed questions is an unmistakable sign that such a question does not need a "formal (and formally accepted) answer". The only thing you did to the question after you re-opened it was to post an answer, which means the only reason you re-opened the question was to circumvent the system's rule against posting new answers to closed questions.

@LogicDictates We do not need to create an "established policy" to explicitly state something that is true by definition. The purpose of the reopen privilege is to reopen questions that should not be closed; common sense and logic dictate that the act of reopening a question that you know should be closed is contrary to the purpose of the reopen privilege (i.e. is an abuse of it). You clearly knew that question should be closed since you immediately re-closed it for the same reason as it was originally closed...

@LogicDictates It is an abuse of your reopen privilege to reopen a question you know should be closed (in this case, because it is a duplicate). You knew it should be closed since you almost immediately closed it again with the same duplicate target. This abuse is compounded by the fact that you could reopen that question unilaterally, and further compounded by the benefit you obtained by the abuse. Duplicate questions don't need "a formal (and formally accepted) answer" because they are duplicates -- that's why we close them and point them to the duplicate in the first place!

@LogicDictates Using your privilege to unilaterally reopen a question you know is a duplicate is an abuse of that privilege, whether you gain anything from that or not. You proved that you knew it was a duplicate by almost immediately re-closing it using the same duplicate target. The fact that you gained useless Internet points for it explains your motivation for doing it (you clearly care about such points since you are so concerned about the reputation leaderboard "competition"), and makes your action a more serious abuse of your privilege.

R1 and R2 cannot be combined because of C1. This would be fairly easy to solve using impedances -- are you familiar with the concept of impedance?

It's not the first time I've had to spend hours cleaning up plagiarism (I'm also a moderator on the Science Fiction and Fantasy SE site) so I'm not looking forward to it.

@mkeith Thank you, and I accept your apology, too. I try to hold myself to the highest standard but I am human and I can't always avoid mistakes. I admit I am also quite annoyed at the whole suspension situation because dealing with plagiarism -- especially from users with many posts -- is a lot of work, and that annoyance probably led to me posting a harsher statement than I otherwise would have.

I needed to shut down that question / discussion quickly, though, and I did not have time to craft a perfect comment explaining my action.

@mkeith For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize for coming across as condescending. That is not my intention. I do not think I am better than you -- indeed, I noticed that you have ~4x as much reputation on this site as I do. Nonetheless, I stand by my decision to delete the previous question. I hope this discussion has helped you understand why your previous question needed to be deleted, and I only wish I could have come up with a nice and succinct way to explain my action...

Thanks for pointing that out.

@mkeith Yes, I see them now. I agree his name should be removed from those posts. I'll start working on that (moderators can redact information so that it doesn't even appear in the post history, but for obvious reasons it requires two moderators).

@mkeith I know there are some plagiarized posts still up. It's going to be a big undertaking to check for plagiarized posts by that user, and the moderator team is also working with the CMs to handle the situation. If you'd like to share specific examples I can invite you to a private chat room for you to link to those posts.

Furthermore, while it is public knowledge that a user is currently suspended, his profile is restored as normal with no indication of a past suspension once his suspension has ended. In contrast, a meta question "Why is [user] constantly suspended?" will always be public knowledge well after the suspension ended -- unless it is deleted, as I did.

@mkeith If you really don't trust the moderators to treat users fairly then what use would that answer be? If you really didn't trust the moderators you'd take that as a smartass answer. You'd want proof, and we can't give that publicly.

@mkeith Even with your proposal to link to a plagiarized post in the suspension notice, that notice would disappear once the suspension ends. Posts and comments on meta linking to plagiarized posts would not disappear unless specifically deleted.

@mkeith We've told you how to look for it using your own tools and I even gave you a hint. If you'd like to change the suspension banner on the user profile you can bring it up on main meta as that'd be a network-wide change.

@mkeith Your deleted question was "Why is [user]'s account constantly suspended? Is it legit or is he somehow being targeted unfairly?" The only way to answer that is to provide not only a list of plagiarized posts but all the context about why that user has been suspended multiple times and why a relatively long suspension was issued. That information is private (it is "none of your business"), so that question is improper.

@mkeith Your previous question about the private details of a particular user's suspension is improper, which is why I had to delete it. If it had been merely off-topic I would have simply closed it. You are free to ask general questions about suspensions, which is why we've not only left this question open but multiple moderators have answered it.

@mkeith A link to what in the suspension reason on the user's profile? A list of plagiarized posts?

@mkeith We are not actually hiding the plagiarism. If you expended a little bit of effort on your own you'd find a rather obvious case of plagiarism by viewing some of the most recent posts of the user in question. Multiple users have mentioned how you can "verify" plagiarism on this site by yourself. We the moderators simply aren't going to (and can't) do the work for you by broadcasting that information to everyone on meta.

@mkeith Normally I don't say anything if I can't come up with a nice way to say it, but you left me no choice. You posted an off-topic meta question and I had to explain why it was off-topic (and needed to be deleted). Or would you have preferred I simply delete your previous meta question with no explanation?

I agree that moderators should be transparent as much as possible (and we try to be), but we can't be transparent about the private details of a suspension.

@mkeith It is the intentional design of the suspension system by the company, not my policy (though I agree with it). I didn't say you shouldn't be interested or curious or that you have defect in your character (curiosity is natural), but your inquiry about a particular user's suspension here on meta is improper since you are asking about private information. I'm sorry I can't come up with a nicer way to say that private details about a particular suspension are none of your business/concern but that is just the truth.

@mkeith Transparency of moderator action would also cause harm to the site in other ways. For example, the moderators' tools for detecting sockpuppet accounts is not publicized so that users won't know how best to try to circumvent those tools...yet complete transparency would require exposing those tools. Transparency is therefore nice to have when possible, but it is at best a secondary or tertiary consideration.

@mkeith Like I said, I can't come up with a nicer way to convey the truth that the exact details of a suspension of another user do not concern you. I thought perhaps "it is not your job/responsibility so you don't need to know" would be nicer, but that's not entirely accurate as all users are responsible for at least flagging plagiarized content. Transparency of moderator action is fine so long as it does not conflict with more important considerations such as the privacy of the suspended user, which the system was designed to prioritize.

@mkeith As for being "judgy" that cuts both ways: asking if a suspension is "legit or [if a user is] somehow being targeted unfairly" is rather judgy with regards to the moderators.

@mkeith I did re-read my comment from the previous question and I can't come up with a way to say "it is none of your business" or "it doesn't concern you" without being condescending...but it is the truth. It really does not concern you. Policy prohibits us from answering (and the system does not show non-mods any details about previous mod messages, previous or current suspensions, etc.) because it does not concern you. I deleted your question not to prevent you from replying to me but because we cannot answer and so it has no purpose.

@mkeith I deleted that previous question "why is a specific user constantly suspended?" because it's impossible for us to answer. We can't reveal private information like that. If it was intended to be public then it would be publicly available on his profile. I don't mean to come across as condescending but it really is the truth: why another user was suspended does not concern you. The only reason you might be concerned is if you thought a mod(s) were acting inappropriately, in which case the solution is not to ask on meta but to contact the company.

@mkeith Also, I don't intend to have a condescending tone toward you. Is there something in particular which seems condescending to you? If so I can edit it.

@mkeith The system is designed to give non-moderators very little visibility on suspension matters. That's not my design -- it's Stack Exchange the company -- but I think it makes sense because there is no need to broadcast bad behavior. I wouldn't say the process is "byzantine" (i.e. complex), but it is opaque by design. If you have any concern about how the moderators handled anything (even if your concern is that you have so little visibility about an action) then you should contact the company.

I've added a note to the modbus tag wiki, and I'll do the same to others as I get to them.

@Adamant Ideally, yes, but it's a massive undertaking that will take time.

A scan of the questions tagged "slave" suggests to me that the tag is not needed. The bigger problem, though, is expunging the use of the terminology across all protocols/contexts: there are >3k results in a search for the word "slave".

And there's not an equivalent "master" tag, either.

@Adamant Indeed, but some protocols probably still use it. I'm not sure a "slave" or similar tag is even really needed.

@Adamant The appropriate terminology is whatever is defined by the technical standard / organization / whatever controls it. For Modbus that means changing from master/slave, but I doubt that would always be the case.

EE.SE's tags are generally a mess, in large part due to SE's horrible tag design where spaces are tag delimiters.

I'll have to start a meta discussion to figure out how we want to handle that.

@Adamant That's a trickier proposition. Not all organizations have moved away from master/slave terminology, and those that do don't necessarily use the same terminology. I had to read the link from Modbus closely to figure out which word was replacing master and which was replacing slave.

@Adamant I agree. It will take some time to do that, though.

Yes, I just approved your suggested edits.

Q: Why didn't God save His Son from the cross? A: Suffering is redemptive. (c.f Colossians 1:24)