Timeline for Moderator deleted my comment on his answer and wrongfully accused me of insult
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2016 at 16:17 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @PatrickHofman He already answer another user about the short answer before the erased comment, and in a friendly manner. It wasn't enough ? | |
| May 31, 2016 at 14:06 | comment | added | Clive | Ok @Sven, that's fair - those phrases aren't constructive, I agree. But "outsiders" are in a position to have a valid opinion about whether that comment was insulting or not in the first place, and whether the mod acted appropriately. I feel you should let them voice that opinion without calling them out for not being regular members, as if that would make a difference to their ability to form that opinion (e.g. your comment to PatrickHofman, who used no evocative language as far as I can see). Just my two cents | |
| May 31, 2016 at 13:55 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @Clive: "Outsiders" are not in a position to decide if someone acts "holier than thou" or is "fit for this position" effectively based on a single comment. You need to have the complete picture and to get this picture, you need to know the community and be a relevant part of it. Well, at least that's the way I see it. Also, if you join any group in real life, you wouldn't expect that telling established members how they have to feel or how bad they behave at the first meeting would go over smoothly, and I don't see this is any different on an internet site. | |
| May 31, 2016 at 13:34 | comment | added | Clive | @Sven People who know the Stack Exchange network are concerned about the way this has gone, that's why they're weighing in. You don't need to have spent many hours here to have an opinion on whether a single comment is insulting or not; no specific knowledge of SF is required for that really. If SE had intended that "outsiders" not be able to comment on this, then they wouldn't be able to. So it all seems pretty fair game for involvement to me. Mods should expect to have to explain their actions (I am one elsewhere so I feel qualified to say that), and they should be happy to do so to anybody! | |
| May 31, 2016 at 13:14 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @KatherineVillyard: Yeah, I guessed at much. Still don't understand why they think they are in any position to weigh in here and throw around accusations and insults of their own (in cde's case). But this whole affair is already blown out of any proportion anyway... | |
| May 31, 2016 at 12:58 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | @Sven and anyone else: cde and Patrick Hofman followed naktinis here from his meta.se post. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/279791/… | |
| May 30, 2016 at 22:20 | comment | added | cde | @sven it's interesting that moderator attacks on users is not limited to just server fault, and had it not happened it wouldn't have spread to meta.se and got everyone's attention. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 22:14 | comment | added | Sven Mod | With @PatrickHofman being the first... | |
| May 30, 2016 at 22:13 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @cde: It's interesting that you are already the second person without any contribution on Server Fault feels the need to chip in to this discussion. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 22:07 | comment | added | cde | A short comment requesting that a "one line, basically link only answer, which is also phrased as a question or request for clarification from the question asker", is standard. On most of the stacks I'm on, a mod would have flagged it with a message and converted it to a comment. But since you're a mod you escaped the usual actions. If you feel insulted, that's from thin skin. There was nothing patently insulting from his message. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:43 | comment | added | naktinis | @MichaelHampton discussing the particulars of the answer in question is off-topic in this thread. Back to the topic, are you saying your definition of "insulting" is "when someone has already made that statement and had it answered"? | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:39 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | @PatrickHofman It is when someone has already made that statement and had it answered. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:36 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | How was that insulting? You can argue about if it is useful to put in extra information from the link (I think it does), but still that doesn't make it an insult. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:33 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | @PatrickHofman The comment itself was the insult. It was completely unnecessary and inappropriate. And I think you have who owes whom an apology exactly reversed. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:32 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | @naktinis And what exactly would you suggest be added? If there was something useful that could be added, you could have just done so yourself. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:27 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Sorry Michael but in my opinion you screw up big time. There is not a single word that remotely sounds insulting to me. In my opinion you own that guy an apology. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:13 | comment | added | naktinis | In what way is that insulting? I just pointed to serverfault answer guidelines and asked you to add one or two sentences to your answer. | |
| May 30, 2016 at 20:07 | history | edited | Michael HamptonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 328 characters in body
|
| May 30, 2016 at 19:54 | history | answered | Michael HamptonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |