Timeline for Abrupt change in moderation staff?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
46 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2015 at 3:36 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @Shog9 I'am new on SF & I remarked the closure of cpanel topic by n00b, but I had seen talk about how it's offtopic, so I didnt cared. Yes, for a newbie I even remarked those talk. The fact that talk about noob came public like that is just an error. At job, do you talk to an employee in a meeting for an error he did, or alone with him ? You cut the mod status and you wait for the answer if you are in a hurry. You critic the unilateral's action of noob, but you did the same thing with this situation. | |
| Apr 12, 2015 at 14:03 | comment | added | Rob Moir | While I appreciate this is ultimately SE's site to do with as it wishes, I am (yet again) unsurprised but disappointed to see SE banging on about community while ignoring the wishes of large sections of the community. I coach newbie sysadmins and helldesk types at work by emphasising the difference between doing something for the users and doing something to the users. This feels like SE doing something to the community, not for the community. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 0:04 | comment | added | Shog9 | Just to be clear, @Scott, I have/had three separate problems to deal with here: (1) an uncommunicative (but active) moderator, (2) an unknown quantity of bad data due to #1, and (3) a big pile of meta drama. One is already dealt with, albeit not in the way I'd hoped. The second I'm dealing with. The last one I probably won't be able to handle effectively until the first two are squared away. The bit everyone's getting hung up on is #2 - and that's where I'm getting irritated, because it's trivial to observe that it exists, but hard to determine the reason or extent. But, we'll get there. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 22:40 | comment | added | TheCleaner | ......The second seems like it was primarily personal with the "law" backing up that personal issue. But I still think he did nothing wrong and proving malicious intent seems difficult given the responses by him. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 22:39 | comment | added | TheCleaner | I think most would agree to that noob is a little bit brash. However the community elected him knowing this. It was talked about at length during the election. The issue here in my opinion whether @shog9 will agree or not is whether noob was simply doing a cleanup after having enough of dealing with the admin panel questions or if he did it more as a way of flaunting his powers in a dramatic fashion albeit "legal" just to have a giant slap across the admin panel questioners faces | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 22:31 | comment | added | Scott Pack | @Shog9 You're trying to find out what happened. That's good! That's what needs to happen. What made me uncomfortable is that most of your communication, thus far, has been unreasonably aggressive and inflammatory. It indicates an investigation to prove your correctness rather than to uncover truth. That's what I'm concerned about and what I'm trying to warn against. Not sanctity of data or chain of custody. As you implied, being held to those standards would be just silly. Removing all preconception and emotion is a necessary component to investigation, whether murder or who shrunk a sweater | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 21:55 | comment | added | Wesley |
@Shog9 The fundamental problem here was and continues to be a lack of communication Which there wasn't because this was talked about in meta, (and regardless, only things that crossed the line of our topicality were closed [with very rare collateral damage]) ...moderators are obliged to be candid as to what they're doing and why. Which @hopelessn00b was. Sweet! So we can move on, Hopeless can get back to making ServerFault better, and I can get back to looking at pictures of cats? High five!
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 21:39 | comment | added | EEAA | @Shog9 Please clearly enumerate precisely how HopelessN00b is not being candid. We all want to know. From what has been posted on meta.SF the last 24 hours, he's been perfectly candid. Let it rest. Let's move on. The bones you have to pick have been thoroughly picked at this point. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | Shog9 | I'm trying to find out what was actually being done, @Scott. Either there was an honest mistake, made repeatedly in a short period of time with no attempt at correction... Or something else. My operating assumption is that this was just carelessness, but - and this is important - I'm not a forensics examiner and this isn't a crime scene. The fundamental problem here was and continues to be a lack of communication, which is the only reason I have to be involved here in the first place - unlike criminal suspects, moderators are obliged to be candid as to what they're doing and why. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:58 | comment | added | Scott Pack | @Shog9 I've been watching this bonfire to see what happens but this comment of yours concerns me, "I'm not at all convinced this is true...." (context snipped). It seems very much like you're investigating to prove malice which is a very bad sign. Speaking as a professional forensics examiner and incident responder if you make any assumptions as to outcome you MUST be relieved. It sounds like you're trying to prove malicious intent instead of determining intent. One is admirable, the other is abhorrent and completely unprofessional. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:51 | comment | added | Wesley |
@ShaneMadden "You really think an old, easy grep question should be closed as "no control panels"? Yes. Next! (Or edited to remove all mention of a control panel in any way, shape, or form. However when we're dealing with so many questions that have some taint of a control panel, some collateral damage will happen. I'm fine with that collateral damage since the ultiamte affect is to make the site better, which is exactly what @hopelessn00b's actions were doing. =D )
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:47 | comment | added | ewwhite | @ShaneMadden Yeah, that wasn't clear. The entire blowup looks bad from the outside. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:47 | comment | added | mfinni | The "I'm done trying to protect you" sounds like a big old threat from Shog to n00b. Along with the accusation of lying. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:41 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | @ShaneMadden I know, but his update to his answer above seems to imply that this is now permanent, do you see something different? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:40 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @BigHomie I think Shog's original intent was a temporary diamond removal to stop the closings from continuing to happen so he could get a chance to understand what was going on. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:39 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | @Shog9 so the ban is permanent, even before any evidence contrary to what he said has been discovered? What do you believe he was doing? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:37 | comment | added | Shog9 | You're assuming he was actually doing what he said he was doing, @joeqwerty. I'm not at all convinced this is true, and he's been pretty cagey about it. Regardless, the rest of the mod team is reviewing the closed posts and I'm reviewing access logs; one way or another, we'll know the truth eventually. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:36 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | @ShaneMadden I can see that, but why the permanent ban of (arguably) the most active moderator? The reason I ask is because he's the main user I see clearing the front page of low quality q/a so the rest of us don't have to. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:34 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @BigHomie Right - so all I'm saying is that they shouldn't have been swept up in this specific cleanup and gotten that specific close comment - and I feel like if we had talked about how to target this cleanup on meta before pulling the trigger on it, we'd have been able to find and catch ones like those that shouldn't have been caught. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:32 | comment | added | joeqwerty | @Shog9: no one gave you a mandate to sweep the site clean of questions that you personally felt were tainted... - The community gave N00b the mandate to act in good faith as moderator and to in fact clean these questions up. It would appear that you're the only one who seems to think this was personal on his part. The very fact that we elected him moderator, in part to perform this function, should tell you that this type of action is the desire of the community. To say otherwise is to betray your own mission statement. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:31 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | @ShaneMadden I don't, I updated my comment shortly before your reply. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:30 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @BigHomie You really think an old, easy grep question should be closed as "no control panels"? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:29 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | @ShaneMadden Hyppy's comment that was u/v'd seems to reflect the community's stance on those questions. Not just b/c they're old, but b/c of the quality of most of the 5 questions as well. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:26 | comment | added | joeqwerty | @BigHomie: Right. And the rush to judgment and the stripping of his Mod privileges needn't be so swift over a few legitimate questions that got caught up in the purge. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:26 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @AndrewB Jon dug some up, see meta.serverfault.com/questions/8055/… - the reaction I recall seeing (though unsure where, maybe slack?) is that they don't matter because they're old. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:25 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | @ShaneMadden That's reasonable and it's possible that a few questions weren't "Admin panel-y" enough for that to be the best close reason, but there really seem to be very very few that weren't worth closing. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:25 | comment | added | MDMoore313 |
I agree, if there were questions that were wrongfully closed, we should know the quantity, and of course, links or it didn't happen.
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:24 | comment | added | joeqwerty | @ShaneMadden: I think his other concern is that some questions got swept up that aren't actually about control panels, but just happened to mention them - If that did in fact happen, then we're punishing N00b because of the 1 thing he got wrong instead of supporting the 99 he got right? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:21 | comment | added | Andrew B | @Shane To which HopelessN00b's stance is that this did not occur, so it's kind of circular at the moment. For that to be held in evidence, we need demonstrated cases where that occurred. Pick 3-5 instances where this has allegedly occurred and get his thoughts on them. Some may disagree with me, but I'm inclined to believe that he will own the mistake if you catch him in it. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:16 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @Ward Well, I think his other concern is that some questions got swept up that aren't actually about control panels, but just happened to mention them (or have them in a filename, etc), so the close reason comment wasn't appropriate for them. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:11 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod |
@ShaneMadden is "there should probably be a discussion on meta before blanket-closing hundreds of questions" really such an imposition? No, not at all, but Shog seems to think there's something more nefarious going on than a mod closing a ton of questions without posting specifically about it on meta. It's pretty clear the community wants them closed, so the only thing Noob did wrong was not specifically say he was going to go on a closing tear.
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:11 | comment | added | Wesley | We need to make meta discussions about closing things that are explicitly off topic and documented as being such? Or is there some threshold of closure activity that can be crossed? Even if we did need to warn before closing demonstrably off-topic questions, we discussed it publicly in meta and the links to those discussions have already been posted, but apparently not digested well enough. None of this took anyone who was paying attention to meta by surprise. The only people complaining are the ones who had their off-topic questions closed. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:05 | comment | added | mfinni | Sure, perhaps. Does Shog come off here sounding like an unpleasant person who's not willing to work with "our people"? Yes. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 20:00 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | @Hyppy I think we're talking past each other. I understand that it's controversial now, but it doesn't need to have been - this all could have been avoided by having a discussion within the community about how to proceed; then Shog would have been able to tell what was going on when he ran across the closures. That's all I'm saying - can we not agree that this would have turned out a lot better if that had happened? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:56 | comment | added | Hyppy | @shanemadden It is this controversial, and frankly the actions taken here today by the Stack Exchange team have been abhorrent. If the wishes of the community are to be treated this way, then so be it. It's your site, but I for one want no part of it. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:52 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | I feel like this really doesn't need to be this controversial - I get that many people here are upset at decisions being made from outside the SF community, but is "there should probably be a discussion on meta before blanket-closing hundreds of questions" really such an imposition? (and yes, there was discussion of tag cleanup, which was completed months ago and does not cover the kinds of specifics that are needed for question cleanup - saying it was already agreed to is disingenuous) | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:51 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | I read the whole thing @Shog9, I know you have your reasons for doing what you did, and am not trying to flame, but I'm trying to understand your side, I'm just curious: Are you saying that he was wrong for closing the questions, or he was wrong for not explicitly creating a meta question about it? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:49 | comment | added | Shog9 | Partial quote, @BigHomie? Go on, read the rest. Acting as you believe the community wishes you to? Great! Acting as you wish and misrepresenting what you're actually doing to make it look like you're just enforcing the rules? Not great. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:48 | comment | added | MDMoore313 |
@Shog9 ..yet to answer: why were you closing questions en masse with a canned comment that doesn't explain the closure. The response was ..I got tired of being notified by by people asking me to explain how their administration panel question was in one of those categories, so I made up a custom close reason. At first, just that first sentence, but people complained or wanted an explanation in notifications to me..
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:48 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @Shog9: "No one gave you mandate...". Plain wrong. He got elected as a mod by the community, which I consider as just that mandate. I didn't end up doing something like this as I honestly don't see all that much value in such a campaign to justify the amount of clickwork involved. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:45 | comment | added | MDMoore313 |
no one gave you a mandate to sweep the site clean of questions that you personally felt were tainted... I thought the community elected him moderator to do that though, among other things. 5 normal votes to close a question, or 1 mod vote @Shog9.
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:44 | comment | added | Shog9 | meta.serverfault.com/contact @mfinni - or just post here on meta, of course. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:42 | comment | added | mfinni | @Shog9 - who do we complain to about your actions? | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:42 | comment | added | Shog9 | I asked you a simple question, which you have yet to answer: why were you closing questions en masse with a canned comment that doesn't explain the closure. Getting on your high horse about the problems with web-admin questions is nice rhetoric, but that isn't the problem here: no one gave you a mandate to sweep the site clean of questions that you personally felt were tainted, notify the askers with a canned comment, and then ignore replies. You were trusted with powerful tools to serve the community, and expected to be open and honest about how you use them. | |
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:27 | comment | added | Wesley |
No new meta discussion. We've been talking about this topic, with actual resolutions to actually take action and close questions of this nature for years. I don't understand how anyone could be blindsided by this. This was not a cabal decision. This was not unilateral. This should have taken no one by surprise. Whatever is being smoked, ship it up to Colorado because there's some cancer patients that need the good stuff.
|
|
| Apr 10, 2015 at 19:14 | history | answered | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |