Timeline for How should we deal with "vexatious questions?"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2023 at 13:56 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) Otherwise, the Stack Exchange we're discussing prominently displays user names and that is unlikely to change. If you wish to change how SE works so that you can come back here and discuss a problem that didn't exist before, I'd be all for that! | |
| Jun 29, 2023 at 13:54 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) I hold that your reading of the issue is incorrect. The context is clear: the things that are vexatious here are the questions, not the persons. Since you agree that there are vexatious questions, and since that is the problem JBH is describing, I suggest that there is sufficient agreement that we can end this back and forth. If you want to extend the problem into the realm of "without regard to who wrote them", then I would urge you to formulate a new question based on an entirely different and currently non-existent version of Stack Exchange where all Qs & As are anonymous. (cont) | |
| Jun 29, 2023 at 13:49 | comment | added | elemtilas | That's an implication I would not make. It's also meaningless within the context of SE because user names are public. Sure! Let's read the problem one more time! I define "vexatious questions" as a series of questions from the same user that are minor iterations on a theme or idea. The first question in the series contributed to worldbuilding. The rest of them are, for practical purposes, duplicates of the first and are not contributing to worldbuilding. I've consistently read this as a problem of question while you've consistently read this as a problem of person. (cont) | |
| Jun 28, 2023 at 19:31 | comment | added | JamieB | @elemtilas You're not describing the problem that JBH is talking about. I agree that there are "vexatious questions", which stand alone as problematic without regard for who wrote them. JBH is specifically talking about lines of questions from singular individuals, implying he would not be able to recognize the problem if he could not see their usernames, and had assume it was multiple askers. Read his first sentence one more time, please. | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 19:17 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) to be more than willing to help and defend users who cause problems, especially when that user is known to have otherwise provided quality questions in the forum. I'll happily upvote your response if you provide a real solution that does not involve sweeping it under the rug. | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 19:14 | comment | added | elemtilas | Your "solution" doesn't actually solve anything, which brings you back to the problem --- that there are a number of vexatious questions that do actually have to be dealt with somehow. Ignoring problems never makes them go away. Whether or not you can see the user name, the underlying problem remains. In your forum, where user names are suppressed, you simply place the problem on the moderators. Moderators might not be so willing to help or defend the user who created the problem and might be more likely to give them the boot. SE relies on community moderation, and people have proven (cont) | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 5:00 | comment | added | JamieB | @elemtilas Exactly! We are in complete agreement, along with JBH, that it is caused by a user -- or rather, the perception that it is all coming from a single person -- and my solution up top therefore resolves the issue. I look forward to your upvote and am glad we finally settled this! I often wonder how many problems could be solved simply by hiding usernames and thus removing egos or grudges from all equations. | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 1:58 | comment | added | elemtilas | Great!! We're in complete agreement: It's not (a) vexatious (question) if it's 6 questions from 6 people. Yep. I support this position 100%, as I do not believe that JBH's query applies to multiple people asking questions. Indeed, their questions are not the problem. Quite simply, Person C doesn't know that person A asked a functionally identical query 5 years ago. She couldn't find anything similar on search, and so asked. And so on. JBH never once states that it is about people, so you're obviously quite wrong on that point. If you think he does, then take it up with him and prove it. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 18:42 | comment | added | JamieB | @elemtilas Which brings us full circle to my statement. It's not vexatious if it's 6 questions from 6 people. Ergo the questions are not the problem. The problem is with the user. A problem that does not exist unless you are looking at usernames. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 17:01 | comment | added | elemtilas | I'm not "skipping" anything. Understand this: a series of questions can only be "vexatious" in this context if they're coming from the same person. If six people ask roughly the same question, we close those for being duplicates. We don't seem to do this much, but I think they can even be merged. If one person asks roughly the same question six times, this is a problem with a particular user that requires attention and action by both the community and the user in question. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 16:00 | comment | added | JamieB | @elemtilas Again, "from the same user". He's saying he wouldn't have a problem if the questions were all from different people. Not sure why you're skipping that. It is the entire reason I'm saying we should ignore usernames -- instantly his problem vanishes! If it's not what he meant, then he should change his original post, but it is a direct quote of what he said. | |
| Jun 22, 2023 at 21:03 | comment | added | elemtilas | Your reading doesn't make logical sense. You may be right, but you are assuming that JBH has a personal problem with IK. This is outside the scope of the question. | |
| Jun 22, 2023 at 19:30 | comment | added | JamieB | @elemtilas I'm just reading what he says. You don't get vexatious questions without them all coming from a single person, meaning the questions themselves are not the problem. But it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, so I'm not sure why you have spent so many comments on it. We'll save it for a discussion about "vexatious comments". | |
| Jun 22, 2023 at 19:16 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) and a noun, whereas "users" remains unmodified by any adjective. It is best to not ascribe emotions and motives to JBH's query. You run dangerously close to contradicting your own rule of thumb. It simply doesn't matter what he thinks of any user; the only consideration here is the nature of the questions themselves. Per the query as written, a series of 15 "vexatious questions" from a non-vexatious user must still fit the definition, since the query is not about the user. I think you need to retract your statement. | |
| Jun 22, 2023 at 19:12 | comment | added | elemtilas | No, it's literally about vexatious questions. Nowhere does the querent speak of "vexatious people". Let's see the whole quote so there can be no confusion: "I define "vexatious questions" as a series of questions from the same user". In other words, a single user --- who could in fact be the sweetest person in the whole forum --- writes a series of vexatious questions. Your analysis of the grammar is, I think, incorrect, especially given that "vexatious" and "question" are clearly connected into a single concept involving an adjective (cont) | |
| Jun 22, 2023 at 18:27 | comment | added | JamieB | @elemtilas This is a topic about vexatious people. JBH says so in his opening definition. "From the same user". It is ultimately the user he finds vexatious. If it was 15 similar questions from 15 different people, it would not meet his definition of "vexatious" and presumably would just be "people not searching for similar questions" rather than "a single user being annoying". | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:58 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) We would, I hope, never encourage any querent to ask the same question again 2 times, let alone 15! As for trolling. It's possible. If it's thought a user is actually trolling, Mods should feel free to hammer the troll into the void. A further note on 1. --- We are in full agreement that this issue is not about any specific user, and further, that this kind of problem can not be approached from that direction. (There may be other abuses of this forum that pertain to an individual person that moderators might need to deal with.) | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:56 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) enforce that rule. I will also admit that I might enforce a rule on a vexatious question that I would not if the question were in isolation. I think you make a good point about one possible outcome of the "series of 15" questions. However, we need to understand an important distinction here: the problem arises from querents who ask 15 different questions in their initial post! We ask --- nay, encourage --- them to break such questions down into multiple new ones. What's going on here is a series of questions where question 2 through x are functionally identical. (cont) | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:48 | comment | added | elemtilas | 1. You do make a valid point about how to treat people, but the question isn't about "vexatious people". It's about vexatious questions. 2. I totally agree with you on this point. This is one of the design features of community moderation: everyone has their own ideas on how the place should be run (including me and including you) and we all nudge the forum a little bit every time we interact here. I actually am not going to say it's so very important to enforce those rules. I have very strongly disapproved of the "opinion based" rule for years. I almost never (cont) | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 19:51 | history | answered | JamieB | CC BY-SA 4.0 |