2
$\begingroup$

Relating to: Post locked - Why?

It seems like we should have a new question delete reason so that people know when a post was deleted due to a user evading a ban or suspension, rather than an issue with the question, itself.

Currently the posts are deleted, and locked, as spam and it can be confusing and cause unnecessary re-open flags, when the question looks valid and people do not understand the reason that it was deleted.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the posts are locked, so it is not possible to cast re-open votes. $\endgroup$
    – GentlePurpleRain Mod
    Apr 8 '16 at 19:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is there an advantage to closing these questions over just commenting on them that I'm missing? I ask, because this isn't really what closure is supposed to be used for - these questions aren't off-topic or intrinsically problematic, which is what closure is intended to signal. Maybe there's something I'm missing, though. $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Apr 8 '16 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ My first thought was to wonder if it would be possible to disconnect the user from the question, as the new account was suspended, but that would leave the question unable to be marked as answered. $\endgroup$
    – Khale_Kitha
    Apr 8 '16 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Emrakul I was using the incorrect term (closed) when I meant delete. Now I understand why you had asked about them being closed in the first place. I've adjusted the question to what I originally intended. $\endgroup$
    – Khale_Kitha
    Apr 9 '16 at 21:50
6
$\begingroup$

Just so that people can vote on the issue:

Yes.

It would be much more clear to other users if a mod/bot could unambiguously state that a post was closed for violating a suspension, rather than having to use inappropriate close reasons in such a situation.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure a close reason is the right tool for this(*). Questions are closed when the signal we're trying to send is that a question is off topic or doesn't meet some site quality standard, and either needs editing to become on-topic, or just straight-up isn't a question suitable for Puzzling.

That's not the case with these questions - they're on-topic (by and large), but due to extenuating circumstances, are removed.

I do see the need, though, for some explanation on posts that are deleted and locked for reasons of moderation. I'd propose that we instead leave comments on these posts when they're removed to hopefully clear up possible confusion.

(*) There would also be a quirky technical limitation involved, which is that either the close reason is available to everyone, or we use a custom close reason each time.

...but custom close reasons just leave a comment explaining why the question was closed. So, we're back to comments.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I would agree if the questions weren't being closed. However, having a question closed for "spam of offensive content" when this was not the case provides false information, regardless of any comments provided in addendum, imo. As you mentioned, the questions aren't at fault. They really shouldn't be closed, but they have to be, and so there should be a clear and valid reason for this occurring. $\endgroup$
    – Khale_Kitha
    Apr 9 '16 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Khale There's nothing on that page outright stating that it was deleted and locked as spam or offensive. That's the most common reason questions can end up deleted and locked, but it's definitely not the only way/reason that can happen. $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Apr 9 '16 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ But it does state: "This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown" when you view the deleted question. That's the part that's unclear. $\endgroup$
    – Khale_Kitha
    Apr 9 '16 at 21:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Khale_Kitha Oh, huh. I didn't even realize that was a new feature, since moderators don't see that. Yeah, I can see why that would be confusing.... but does closing the question really clear that up over commenting? $\endgroup$
    – user20
    Apr 9 '16 at 21:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're right - I think we're colliding on terminology, actually. What I am intending to suggest is a delete reason - not a close reason. I can change the text of this post if creating such a thing is even possible. Actually, I am going to edit the post to state as such, because a close reason is not what I ever intended to suggest. @GentlePurpleRain you may want to change your answer if my new question conflicts. $\endgroup$
    – Khale_Kitha
    Apr 9 '16 at 21:43
1
$\begingroup$

This is a comment that was too long to be one:

You have a valid point point. Very valid. But is it really that important to draw attention to these people after they've been pushed aside? Isn't the whole point of the ban to block them out of the community. Seems all they want is attention for all the wrong reasons. And is this not playing their game and making us look a bit negative? Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but wouldn't it be better to focus on the positive aspects of being a member of this community? Disclosure: I don't know anything about these people or what they've done or are doing. So I may very well be missing something quite important. As an outsider to all this ban stuff (not saying bans are the problem, just this extra stuff) it just seems a bit drastic and I wouldn't have been aware of this nonsense had it not been for this post.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .