# Deleted posts now visible



## mkellogg

I have changed a setting to allow all users to see deleted posts.  Well, not the post, just a message and the moderator's comments.

Why?  Well, we are hoping that people who posted the message will pay attention to the reason given for deletion, and learn from it. 

Mike


----------



## Philippa

mkellogg said:
			
		

> I have changed a setting to allow all users to see deleted posts.  Well, not the post, just a message and the moderator's comments.
> Why?  Well, we are hoping that people who posted the message will pay attention to the reason given for deletion, and learn from it.
> Mike


Hi!!
Does it later disappear completely like seemed to happen here? Or will it stay forever? Will the mod-deleted ones stay, but not the self-deleted ones?
Hoping this isn't too stupid a question and I won't want to delete it....
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## Outsider

Can I express a contrary opinion?

Sometimes, people delete a reply because they realise they'd written something wrong, or misinterpreted the conversation, or let their emotions get the best of them in a heated debate. These kinds of deleted posts are usually an embarassment for the poster, who would rather they were forgotten. I say this as one who has deleted posts for each of these motives.

Besides, speaking for myself, I often delete a post without writing any reason for the deletion in the little window.


----------



## Agnès E.

It's not a problem, Outsider! 

You, as a member, are not forced to give a reason to delete one of your own posts. This new feature will just indicate that you have posted a message and changed your mind afterwards. That's all!


----------



## mkellogg

Philippa, I don't think any deleted posts should disappear like you said, but I may be wrong.

Outsider, I understand what you are saying.  Let me see if I can find a way to let the system show you posts deleted by moderators, and not self-deleted posts.


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:
			
		

> Can I express a contrary opinion?
> 
> Sometimes, people delete a reply because they realise they'd written something wrong, or misinterpreted the conversation, or let their emotions get the best of them in a heated debate. These kinds of deleted posts are usually an embarassment for the poster, who would rather they were forgotten. I say this as one who has deleted posts for each of these motives.
> 
> Besides, speaking for myself, I often delete a post without writing any reason for the deletion in the little window.



I second the motion.


----------



## lauranazario

Outsider said:
			
		

> Sometimes, people delete a reply because they realise they'd written something wrong, or misinterpreted the conversation, or let their emotions get the best of them in a heated debate. These kinds of deleted posts are usually an embarassment for the poster, who would rather they were forgotten. I say this as one who has deleted posts for each of these motives.


A suggestion... you can always write "*I changed my mind*".
That is a 'blanket' statement that will not force you (or anyone else) to go into any of the details you mentioned above. 


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Besides, speaking for myself, I often delete a post without writing any reason for the deletion in the little window.


If you forget to write a comment, at least everyone will see that you deleted your post out of your own volition.


----------



## Outsider

mkellogg said:
			
		

> Outsider, I understand what you are saying.  Let me see if I can find a way to let the system show you posts deleted by moderators, and not self-deleted posts.


Is the point of showing the headers of deleted posts that they can serve as an example to other posters?


----------



## Jana337

Outsider said:
			
		

> Can I express a contrary opinion?
> 
> Sometimes, people delete a reply because they realise they'd written something wrong, or misinterpreted the conversation, or let their emotions get the best of them in a heated debate. These kinds of deleted posts are usually an embarassment for the poster, who would rather they were forgotten.


I am not getting it: People won't be able to read the posts you have deleted - so why is that embarassing? 

Jana


----------



## Outsider

Well, it's nothing to lose sleep over, of course, but I would prefer others not to see how often, and where, I post replies that I later delete.


----------



## Fernando

The point, Jana is, when deleting a post, you usually would like to erase it from the Mankind history. You would like to dig it in the center of the Earth after being nuked. It does not make me feel happy to see a pyramid stating "Fernando was a dumb here"

Anyway, I will not do a casus belli from this. It is only my (Outsider's?) opinion.


----------



## Jana337

Fernando said:
			
		

> The point, Jana is, when deleting a post, you usually would like to erase it from the Mankind history. You would like to dig it in the center of the Earth after being nuked. It does not make me feel happy to see a pyramid stating "Fernando was a dumb here" weighs each word because he cares about the quality of his posts.


If others read something else into it, it is their problem, not yours.

Errare humanum est.

Jana


----------



## Alundra

I'm agree with Outsider and Fernando.

Alundra.


----------



## Vanda

> I'm agree with Outsider and Fernando.
> Alundra.


 
Me, too.


----------



## Elisa68

mkellogg said:
			
		

> Outsider, I understand what you are saying. Let me see if I can find a way to let the system show you posts deleted by moderators, and not self-deleted posts.


IMO this would be the best solution!


----------



## fenixpollo

I was going to agree with Outsider and Fernando, but then I realized that the contents of the deleted message aren't visible... so it's a moot point.


----------



## Fernando

Elisa68 said:
			
		

> IMO this would be the best solution!



I agree. Anyway I would not like to be seen as a  "tocapelotas". If the necessary work is big, just pay no attention.


----------



## elroy

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here.

The purpose of this feature is for everybody to see when *moderators* have deleted a post.  We *always* provide a reason for deletion (we have been doing so even before they were visible); this feature will simply save us a step in that we will not always have to personally contact the poster whose post has been deleted to inform him of the reason.  As an added benefit, everybody else will be able to see the reason and possibly learn about why different types of posts are deleted.  

As Fenixpollo (and I think some others) mentioned, in neither case is the actual *post* visible.  For self-deleted post, the poster may choose whether to provide a reason; if he does, I highly doubt that many other members would take the time and exert the effort necessary to imagine all the possible scenarios that could have motivated the deletion.  And even if they did, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  Furthermore, we all know that deleting a post does not mean that you made a mistake.  I've deleted posts that I realized after submitting them were not all too contributory, relevant, clear, etc.  As for posts deleted by moderators, the reason will always be provided, in the interest of transparency and open communication.


----------



## fenixpollo

elroy said:
			
		

> this feature will simply save us a step in that we will not always have to personally contact the poster whose post has been deleted to inform him of the reason.


 I have never ever heard of a mod contacting anyone (ie. _me_) after deleting a post.  This would be a good, considerate and ethical thing to do... although I suspect it would be time-consuming. 


			
				elroy said:
			
		

> As an added benefit, everybody else will be able to see the reason and possibly learn about why different types of posts are deleted.


 I'm really liking the new feature for this very reason.-- one thing that this forum has lacked is transparency, and seeing the deleted posts gives it a modicum of that. 

Now, if we could only train people to type a reason for deleting a post!


----------



## Jana337

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I have never ever heard of a mod contacting anyone (ie. _me_) after deleting a post. This would be a good, considerate and ethical thing to do... although I suspect it would be time-consuming.


I cannot speak for everyone but I often did contact people whose posts I deleted. One notable (luckily not very frequent) exception: Chatting senior members. Reason: They knew they shouldn't have, anyway.





> Now, if we could only train people to type a reason for deleting a post!


 Moderators always do. If other members delete their own posts, they are free not to give a reason. 

Jana


----------



## elroy

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I have never ever heard of a mod contacting anyone (ie. _me_) after deleting a post. This would be a good, considerate and ethical thing to do... although I suspect it would be time-consuming.
> I'm really liking the new feature for this very reason.-- one thing that this forum has lacked is transparency, and seeing the deleted posts gives it a modicum of that.
> 
> Now, if we could only train people to type a reason for deleting a post!


 
I'm like Jana.  With the exception of senior members I've contacted before about a similar infraction, I personally always contact posters every time I delete a post. The reason you haven't heard from me is that I haven't deleted any of your posts!  I also make a point of inviting the forero to express any complaints or objections. I am not perfect, and I am happy to restore a deleted post should I be convinced that I was hasty.

Glad you like the new feature!


----------



## Kelly B

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Now, if we could only train people to type a reason for deleting a post!


 Ha. I can only type various versions of "I said something really stupid" a few times a month before sinking into a blue funk, and I'm already pushing my limit. *Somebody quoted me*, so I couldn't just hide the stupid post under a rock and climb in after it.


----------



## Alundra

Kelly B said:
			
		

> Ha. I can only type various versions of "I said something really stupid" a few times a month before sinking into a blue funk, and I'm already pushing my limit. *Somebody quoted me*, so I couldn't just hide the stupid post under a rock and climb in after it.


 
The same as me...  

Alundra


----------



## Fernando

*I do not expect the mod to PM me when deleting a post.*

I was virgin until GenJen 54 deleted one post of mine. He simply posted "Reason:Chat". As he was right and was quite obvious, I simply bow and humbly apologise for the spent time.

If one forero feels he has been unfairly treated he should have the right to complain through a PM and the mod the right to pay no attention. The forero could sue the mod in the International Human Rights Court.
*
I do not expect the foreros to express why he deleted a post.*

As Kelly B has said, I do not need him to perform a public sekuppu.


----------



## Isotta

At first (so that's yesterday) I thought it was a good idea. I wasn't a bit self-conscious, etc., as I could see the logic in the change.

 Today it doesn't seem as attractive. When I was reading threads today, I noticed that showing the deleted posts clutters the thread, detracts from the matter at hand and makes the forum look like a less free-thinking place than we really are. I suspect showing deleted posts could be a turn-off to newcomers. 

 I like our rules, though I don't like seeing them popping up thus in the threads.

 Z.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> I was virgin until GenJen 54 deleted one post of mine. He simply posted "Reason:Chat"


 Then she did notify you, Fer (Jennifer is a _she_, by the way).  Before now, she would have needed to PM you to notify you.  Now, her "reason" is reason enough.




> I do not expect the forero to express why he deleted a post.  As Kelly B has said, I do not need him to perform a public seppuku.


 Well, I suppose that I agree with this.  I guess I'm just nosy... when I see a deleted post, my curiosity asks, "Why?"  My problem, not the deleter's.


----------



## mkellogg

Well, no changes are irreversible.  If we don't like the way it is working a month from now, we can consider changing back.  Just raise the subject here in C&S and we will think about it some more. 

Mike


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Then she did notify you, Fer (Jennifer is a _she_, by the way).  Before now, she would have needed to PM you to notify you.  Now, her "reason" is reason enough.



Just to clear up: I do not demand, by any means, that Jennifer sent me a PM. "Chat" is (sadly) totally clear and I agree with her.

I did not need in the past a PM. A short post would have been enough. With Mike's enhancements PMs are totally unuseful.

Sorry for the gender confussion. I will try to conserve a sexless image of himer. As a matter of fact my chat penalty was due to a previous female post. As every medieval guy knew, women are the devil's main weapon.


----------



## nycphotography

Isotta said:
			
		

> ... and makes the forum look like a less free-thinking place than we really are.


 
Or perhaps it shows the forum as the less free-thinking place (than we all would like to believe) that it really is.

Showing what is, never "makes something look".  The making of appearances can only be accomplished by not showing what really is.

I personally like the rules.  But I think they should be treated more as guidelines and less and laws.  But its neither here nor there what I think, its not my forum. I just come here to learn and to play.


----------



## fenixpollo

nycphotography said:
			
		

> Or perhaps it shows the forum as the less free-thinking place (than we all would like to believe) that it really is.
> 
> Showing what is, never "makes something look". The making of appearances can only be accomplished by not showing what really is.


I agree 100%.


----------



## Philippa

Hi folks!
A couple of thoughts/questions on this.......

Does this system now show up every thread and post that has been deleted since the very beginning?
Are moderators deleting more chat now? It feels like it!!
Is there a policy on what gets deleted from old threads? I wonder whether when a thread gets 'woken up' then the chat gets deleted, but otherwise it stays? I say this because I've just spotted a deleted post of mine  (I'm not a deletion virgin either now, Fernando!) from August. I can't for the life of me remember what I posted, but there's no reason given for the deletion, so I'm assuming it was chat, as Jana said earlier in this thread. Maybe it was better with the chat not being automatically deleted, but with foreros and mods giving reminders about not chatting. When a thread is closed it is interesting because we find out what is acceptable and not acceptable nowadays, but here I'm not even learning from my own mistake!!
Sorry, I don't mean to criticise....
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## VenusEnvy

Philippa said:
			
		

> Are moderators deleting more chat now? It feels like it!!


I haven't noticed them deleting *more*...



			
				Philippa said:
			
		

> I wonder whether when a thread gets 'woken up' then the chat gets deleted, but otherwise it stays?


No, they don't. But, if the last person to post in that thread's post get deleted, the name on the main page of "who posted last" changes.


Just my $0.02.  

I'll wait for the experts to answer your other questions.


----------



## Vanda

> Quote:Originally Posted by *Philippa*
> _Are moderators deleting more chat now? It feels like it!!_
> 
> I haven't noticed them deleting *more*...


 
I do. It seems to me they are spreading since this issue has come to the surface. Some mods I'd never seen deleting things before are doing it now.
I think sometimes things have to be put an end to, but living in a country that has lived for more than 20 years under dictatorship and innocent songs, poetry, whatever was produced by people used to be cut by the censor's scissors, I tend to see some cuts with suspicion. 
How much of this deleting is subjective, a trend, necessary?
My 2 cents of _reais_ (our currency) that worth less than almost all other
ones.


----------



## lauranazario

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hi folks!
> A couple of thoughts/questions on this.......
> 
> Does this system now show up every thread and post that has been deleted since the very beginning?
> Yes, it does... but the moderators' comments as to why the post was deleted are not visible for deletions made before late Nov. 2005. That was an Executive Decision (made by Mike Kellogg). After this date, all mods have agreed to document the reason why a post was deleted and that reason is visible to all (before, I believe it was visible only to the person whose post was deleted).
> 
> Are moderators deleting more chat now? It feels like it!!
> No. Post deletions or thread deletions are not more frequent nowadays. Maybe you 'feel' or perceive more deletions are being made because NOW notices are visible to all. Before, other people were not aware that your/my post had been deleted, chiefly because moderators are prompt in curtailing off-topic chat or excluding rude/offensive/aggressive posts.
> 
> Is there a policy on what gets deleted from old threads? I wonder whether when a thread gets 'woken up' then the chat gets deleted, but otherwise it stays? I say this because I've just spotted a deleted post of mine  (I'm not a deletion virgin either now, Fernando!) from August. I can't for the life of me remember what I posted, but there's no reason given for the deletion...
> Moderators don't actively go back to the archives in _search_ of posts that merit deletion. We all were 'new/inexperienced' mods at one time or another and maybe we were not sure as to what could be construed as a 'deletable post'. Maybe in our days as 'newbie mods' we were a bit more lax.
> Furthermore, concensus between mods as to what is 'deletable' or not is based on a post's adherence to (or departure from) WR's Guidelines and Rules... not on personal whim.
> Again, you cannot see the reason for your post's deletion due to the late-November 05 "cut-off' date I mentioned above.


Saludos,
LN


----------



## Philippa

Laura, thank you for your reply.
It's good to hear about this November cut-off because before then, when we (or mods) were giving reasons for deleting something, we weren't expecting it to be visible to everyone.


			
				lauranazario said:
			
		

> Again, you cannot see the reason for your post's deletion due to the late-November 05 "cut-off' date I mentioned above.
> LN


 Ah so it must have been deleted before then. So there's no general policy of 'tidying up' old threads at all then?! I guess it was deleted ages ago and I've only noticed now.  I wonder.......
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## nycphotography

lauranazario said:
			
		

> We all were 'new/inexperienced' mods at one time or another and maybe we were not sure as to what could be construed as a 'deletable post'. Maybe in our days as 'newbie mods' we were a bit more lax.
> Furthermore, concensus between mods as to what is 'deletable' or not is based on a post's adherence to (or departure from) WR's Guidelines and Rules... not on personal whim.


 
The only thing I would contribute is:

It would be best for all parties if the moderators look for posts that MUST be deleted, and then delete them reluctantly, rather than look for posts that CAN be deleted and then delete them eagerly.

I'm not saying this isn't how it's approached already... but it's the kind of thing that just can't be repeated too often.


----------



## lsp

Lauranazario - strictly as an FYI, the actual poster was never able to see any more than anyone else in a thread if he/she had a contribution deleted.

VenusE and Vanda - how would you see them deleting more (or less), if they were doing so _ invisibly_ until the last month?


----------



## Chabada

I really don't understand your point... to me, very scarce posts are deleted in the whole volume handled.


----------



## Vanda

lsp said:
			
		

> VenusE and Vanda - how would you see them deleting more (or less), if they were doing so _invisibly_ until the last month?


 
Probably this answers the question:


> Are moderators deleting more chat now? It feels like it!!
> No. Post deletions or thread deletions are not more frequent nowadays. Maybe you 'feel' or perceive more deletions are being made because NOW notices are visible to all. Before, other people were not aware that your/my post had been deleted, chiefly because moderators are prompt in curtailing off-topic chat or excluding rude/offensive/aggressive posts.


----------



## cuchuflete

Chabada said:
			
		

> I really don't understand your point... to me, very scarce posts are deleted in the whole volume handled.



Thanks for that brilliant stroke of common sense and good arithmetic Chabada.

I can go for weeks without deleting anything, and then find a thread that has spun out of control and turned into a chat room.  I might then delete a dozen silly comments, totally off topic, in 2 minutes.

We don't get extra credit for deleting, but are as quick as we can be to delete spam, insults, and anything that puts WR in jeopardy for copyright violations.
For that last category, we usually work with the poster to edit the post, and then un-delete it.

Chat doesn't belong here, so the number of chatty posts deleted is a direct result of foreros' decisions to post it in the first place.  It is deleted when spotted...often as a result of a forero reporting it to the mods.  Don't post off topic, frivolous comments, and the number of deleted posts will be vastly reduced.

Cuchuflete


----------



## elroy

I believe this comment by Laura




			
				lauranazario said:
			
		

> (before, I believe it was visible only to the person whose post was deleted).


 
must have been an inadvertent error.  As Lsp pointed out,  



			
				lsp said:
			
		

> the actual poster was never able to see any more than anyone else in a thread if he/she had a contribution deleted.


 
...and that would explain why Philippa is only _now_ aware of a post deleted many a month ago, without being able to see the reason.


----------



## Fernando

Another opinion from the ranks:

I do feel mod policy is stricter than used to be. It is not only a visibility matter.

Anyway I think it is far from being indimidating. I feel chatting is a constant danger to be avoided. 

I encourage mods to delete as many posts as necessary. But those of mine, of course.


----------



## Kelly B

I've decided I like it. 
I just need a demon-horn smiley to go with that statement.


----------



## cuchuflete

Have one of mine!


----------



## Philippa

Hello! I've just noticed that you can't see the 'remains' of the deleted posts when you are not logged on, which makes it rather strange to read comments from about deleting lots of posts like on pages 3 and 4 of Legalization of Prostitution in Germany and then not seeing any!


			
				mkellogg said:
			
		

> Well, no changes are irreversible.  If we don't like the way it is working a month from now, we can consider changing back.  Just raise the subject here in C&S and we will think about it some more.
> Mike


I think I've got used to it now. I guess it does make more sense if you can see things like lots of
mod-deleted posts and then a post by the mod about that.
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## Silvia

mkellogg said:
			
		

> Well, no changes are irreversible. If we don't like the way it is working a month from now, we can consider changing back. Just raise the subject here in C&S and we will think about it some more.
> 
> Mike


 I hope the present situation will be reconsidered. Personally, I don't like what the forums look like right now. In the Italian-English Forum for example, we have whole pages of deleted threads and I fail to see how that could be useful. I find it annoying. And, as Isotta has stated already, seeing several deleted posts in a given thread is distracting.


----------



## Jana337

Silvia said:
			
		

> I hope the present situation will be reconsidered. Personally, I don't like what the forums look like right now. In the Italian-English Forum for example, we have whole pages of deleted threads and I fail to see how that could be useful.


Let's not hype the numbers. I checked the first 10 pages of Italian-English and found 4 deleted threads. Then I ordered threads by replies, which puts deleted threads at the very end of the list. Out of 769 pages, less than four are occupied by deleted threads.

Why it is useful: Transparency and education issues aside, it is very practical from the viewpoint of moderators (but I don't want to speak for other colleagues): Traffic is rising, and I am glad that I do not have to PM all foreros whose posts/threads get deleted. Of course, I do send a PM when some explanation or guidance is needed.

Jana


----------



## emma42

I think mkellogg's suggestions are excellent.  

I have not been contacted by a Mod after a post of mine has been deleted (not that I can remember), but I have been contacted after a post has been moved to a different thread.  I was really impressed with the politeness of that, but I wouldn't expect it.


----------



## Silvia

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Why it is useful: (...) I am glad that I do not have to PM all foreros whose posts/threads get deleted. Of course, I do send a PM when some explanation or guidance is needed.


 If that is the sole reason, I restate my position. In the past, when posts where made invisible, they could be seen:
A) by all the moderators
B) by the member whose posts had been deleted

And, since you raised the issue about transparency, granted that I know almost all there is to know about deletion of posts and threads, I do wonder if there are any changes taking place. I would like to ask: what if a reason for deletion is not contemplated in the WR Rules? Might the action be seen as objectionable? Shouldn't any changes to the WR Rules be included in the text of the Guidelines prior to their enforcement?

I think that a lack of information can be damaging. That is not what I would call transparency.


----------



## charlie2

I am all for the "remains" of the deleted posts/ threads being visible. Transparency and education are good enough reasons (myself not being a moderator).

I do not have that much experience in being "deleted", though. Once I used the "wrong" language (English in French/Spanish) and it was rightly deleted. I don't think a PM was necessary and there wasn't one. Once a thread I started was split into two and I did get a PM from the moderator. I was really impressed.


----------



## lsp

I like it. It's equanimous, and _evidently_ so to all. No one can feel they are more or less subject to a mod's deletions than anyone else. It serves to remind newcomers about chat and other avoidable causes of deletion. Also, some here choose to subscribe and receive emails about a post and return to the thread and find the post missing. Now they know why. I don't find it at all distracting, so infrequent is the occurrence and small the space and time required to accommodate it for all parties.


----------



## lsp

Silvia said:
			
		

> B) by the member whose posts had been deleted


Not so, as I pointed out in post #37.




			
				Silvia said:
			
		

> I would like to ask: what if a reason for deletion is not contemplated in the WR Rules? Might the action be seen as objectionable? Shouldn't any changes to the WR Rules be included in the text of the Guidelines prior to their enforcement?


Granted I know next to nothing beyond the obvious  about deletion of posts and threads, but I can't imagine what this could be referring to?


----------



## Jana337

Silvia said:
			
		

> If that is the sole reason, I restate my position. In the past, when posts where made invisible, they could be seen:
> A) by all the moderators
> B) by the member whose posts had been deleted


Claim B) is not true - read above (Elroy's post, for example). Even if it were true, it wouldn't solve our problem completely: Before this policy was launched, I was regularly PMed by members other than the person whose posts were deleted. They were curious about the reason.





> And, since you raised the issue about transparency, granted that I know almost all there is to know about deletion of posts and threads, I do wonder if there are any changes taking place. I would like to ask: what if a reason for deletion is not contemplated in the WR Rules? Might the action be seen as objectionable? Shouldn't any changes to the WR Rules be included in the text of the Guidelines prior to their enforcement?


 I am not quite sure what you are talking about. We try to keep our rule-book simple and concise, and we also employ common sense in ways that are undefined in the rules (while they are in the spirit of the forums, if you want).

For instance, I deleted posts by a new member who opened a new thread to publish a linguistic article written by himself. It was in the Slavic forum, and the text was about a Slavic language. There's nothing in our rules that prevents him from doing so (perhaps self-promotion) and yet, I felt compelled to delete the thread because we are a discussion forum, not a collection of resources. As I said, there was no particular rule I could quote to justify the deletion, but I don't think we need one.

I am sure all my colleagues can offer a handful of such stories. 

Jana


----------



## Silvia

lsp said:
			
		

> Not so, as I pointed out in post #37.
> Granted I know next to nothing beyond the obvious  about deletion of posts and threads, but I can't imagine what this could be referring to?


 If I say so is because I know what I am talking about. There were two types of deletion:
- soft delete
- hard delete

Soft deletes were visible. And you could write the reasons for deletion just like it happens today.

I hope I have answered your objection too, Jana.


----------



## Jana337

Silvia said:
			
		

> If I say so is because I know what I am talking about. There were two types of deletion:
> - soft delete
> - hard delete
> 
> Soft deletes were visible.
> 
> I hope I have answered your objection too, Jana.


Soft deletes were visible - but exclusively to moderators. Now they are visible to everyone. Hard deletes were disabled quite a few months ago.

Jana


----------



## Silvia

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Soft deletes were visible - but exclusively to moderators.


 As far as I know, they were also visible to the member who posted the deleted post (that was quite a few updates ago).


----------



## cuchuflete

> I would like to ask: what if a reason for deletion is not contemplated in the WR Rules? Might the action be seen as objectionable? Shouldn't any changes to the WR Rules be included in the text of the Guidelines prior to their enforcement?
> 
> I think that a lack of information can be damaging. That is not what I would call transparency. __________________


The WR rules are modified from time to time, as we learn more about what is needed. For example, for a long time we had a prohibition against links in signatures, and recently added user names to that rule. Because links in user names were against the spirit of other rules, we had removed those with links previously, and later adjusted the rule to put it in accord with common sense.

Personally, I rely much more on the Guidelines than on the rules. They speak of "... an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone. " If a post or thread is not in accord with that atmosphere, I really don't worry if a detailed sub-regulation has yet been written to cover a specific event. The rules are merely an attempt to codify the most frequently seen affronts to the tone we try to maintain. 

The quote above implies that some wrong has been committed, but in the spirit of transparency, it should be stated explicity.  We cannot usefully reply to vague generalities.

In the event that a member objects to a specific moderator action, such as a post or thread deletion, they are asked, explicitly in the rules, to discuss the matter by PM with the moderator involved or with another moderator of the member's choice. Of course that, or any attempt by a moderator to explain a deletion by PM, requires that the member (1) have PMs enabled, and (2) that they have available space in their private message inbox.

We find, from time to time, that those members we might like to contact, in the event of a deletion or other matter, have not enabled PMs, or have effectively disabled them by not clearing a full mailbox. In such cases, the member denies themself the possibility of being informed of the facts, and sometimes gets quite annoyed, and posts accusatory messages in this or other forums, demanding justice. 

It's really not a very effective way to resolve a difference of opinion.  

Finally, there are these clear statements in the WR Rules:



> To maintain an environment conducive to quality discussions, please agree to the following basic guidelines and requests before using this system:





> Moderators control individual forums. They may edit, delete, or prune any posts in their forums. If you have a question about a particular forum, you should direct it to your forum moderator.





> Any matter determined to be inappropriate, unrelated or not within the intended scope of these forums will be removed without notification.


Those rules say that moderators have considerable latitude in their efforts to keep the forums in accord with the goals of the Forum Guidelines. Just as members make inadvertant mistakes, a moderator may do so also. A PM conversation is a good way to resolve such matters. However, sometimes the differences of viewpoint remain. In such cases, we have to accept the moderator team decisions, or allow for 50.000+ sets of individual rules. The latter is not a viable option. 

One of my fellow moderators deleted I post I made a few days ago in a forum where I am not a moderator. I wasn't too pleased, but when I looked at the reason given, I could accept that the deletion was based on a reasoned judgment.
We exchanged a couple of PMs on the topic, and there was no dispute. When I act as a forero--which is the great majority of my participation in these forums--I accept that moderators may delete what they believe to be inappropriate threads or posts I have written. 

Please feel free to send a Private Message to any moderator at any time to discuss specific actions. 

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Bienvenidos

Jana337 said:
			
		

> For instance, I deleted posts by a new member who opened a new thread to publish a linguistic article written by himself. It was in the Slavic forum, and the text was about a Slavic language. There's nothing in our rules that prevents him from doing so (perhaps self-promotion) and yet, I felt compelled to delete the thread because we are a discussion forum, not a collection of resources. As I said, there was no particular rule I could quote to justify the deletion, but I don't think we need one.
> 
> I am sure all my colleagues can offer a handful of such stories.
> 
> Jana


 
I support Jana 100%. There isn't always a rule to justify deleting threads, but what more justification does one need? Common sense (i.e. this shouldn't be here) and simple self-reasoning (i.e. well, this isn't what the forums are for) are perfectly acceptable reasons for deleting a post. We trust the moderators to do what's right, and they always deliver. 

*Bien*


----------

