3
$\begingroup$

I have been extremely supportive of nearly all questions here. I've never downvoted a single post on this site, yet I've voted on 5000+ posts. I encourage users not to downvote, and to avoid voting to close questions unless the asker has been given ample opportunities to improve their question on their own. I have also been supportive of keeping questions (even closed ones) that other sites (like StackOverflow or Physics.SE or Chem.SE) would delete immediately. I am opposed to the "Roomba" which is a bot that automatically deletes questions which meet certain (unfair) criteria.

However, I do think that the "delete" button is appropriate to use in some cases, even when the question is not spam or violating the CoC (I've always supported the deletion of spam and CoC-violating posts by the way).

Recently I've seen a case in which a user that asked a question, ignored multiple users' requests for edits, and then repeatedly pinged certain users asking them to make menial edits that the asker should have been able to make themselves. In this particular case, I was able to predict that this was going to happen, so I flagged the post for deletion, but the post was not deleted despite the flag likely having been seen, then my prediction soon became a reality.

I propose that in the future, we delete questions if the user seems likely (judged by diamond moderators handling the flags) enough to abuse other users. An example of abusing other users, would be repeatedly pinging them with demands to make menial edits to their low-effort question. An example of a menial edit, would be going through a paper and typing equations from it into the question (usually after users request this in order to keep the question open, or to reopen the question). If a user does not know TeX, they can be directed to this Meta post: Formatting Math and Chemical Expressions. In some cases, we can volunteer to do the MathJax (or whatever) edits ourselves, but in some cases it's clear that the asker is abusing our kindness and expecting that we do it for them (e.g. in the above-described case, the user had posted three questions within a short time frame, and repeatedly refused to improve the quality of their questions, which wasted the time of many users who naively tried to help, due to not knowing about all of the user's interactions in across the three questions and in chat).

$\endgroup$

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .