Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 32
    You began with "Let's be objective, then", and then gave a bunch of subjective reasons for justifying the closure/lock Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:10
  • 5
    You say that the discussion (which your 2nd link suggests several matters, e.g. the loss of a person's moderating privileges, the resulting resignation of several moderators, the reaction of the community, the updated CoC, the (bungled) apologies by SE management, the recommendations about pronouns usage, the fear of being singled out and being made unwelcomed, the utter and complete lack of communication between a former volunteer moderator and her bosses... how can you claim it "has been thoroughly covered by now?" It has not. It has, largely, been a one-sided discussion. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:30
  • 6
    @Mari-LouA: This is why I believe it's been thoroughly covered. One side wants to continue the conversation. The other side doesn't (or can't, because of Legal). Saying nothing in a conversation is still holding a conversation; the phrase "silence speaks volumes" comes through on this one. Not being satisfied that you're not getting the conversation you want is not the same thing as not having a conversation. But it still has been quite thoroughly and quite extensively covered. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:40
  • 2
    @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man: I stayed objective with my first paragraph. The facts are clear - the community is split on what to do with this question, and I do believe that a lock on the post is sufficient to give everyone a chance to cool off and really evaluate what's going on. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:42
  • @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man: My subjective take on it is to try to find value in the discussion. What are we discussing that hasn't already been discussed? Is the focus of the question the ban on Wikipedia (which requires knowledge into their politics), the Monica situation (which we know isn't going to get an official response per Legal), or something else? The question posed itself isn't clear on that. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:42
  • 7
    Saying nothing in a conversation is still holding a conversation So, we should just forget about it because the other side is unwilling to talk? That is usually the signal that the partner willing to talk, listen and compromise will give up and walk away. Exactly what is happening on SE, the best users will stop caring, stop participating, stop moderating. SE will continue to have newer and newer partners (i.e. “contributors“) but they'll never match up with the original ones. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:45
  • 4
    @Mari-LouA: I never implied that you should "forget" about it. I'm only looking at the constructive value of this question in this context. Is the question talking about Wikipedia? Is it trying to discuss Monica again? (Again, we know that Stack Exchange isn't going to issue an official statement on that, so I very much question why one is trying to bother.) If it's discussing, Wikipedia's policies and politics, why should I care? Convince me. I'm willing to be convinced. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:50
  • 2
    My post is asking for users' opinions (and you gave yours). It is asking that the question to be unlocked. Rebecca's Q was hardly controversial. My post is also asking what happened to the three reopen votes that were cast. Does locking a question mean those votes are hidden or deleted? J.Geek left a comment, I waited several hours to see what would happen. I took the plunge because I think it's a good question. It's interesting, well presented, formatted, and researched. And it's on-topic, it is not only about Wikipedia. Commented Nov 21, 2019 at 22:57
  • 2
    May I suggest editing the answer to possibly remove the first sentence, or perhaps reword to provide a line between objective statements and subjective ones? Otherwise, I am in firm agreement. Commented Nov 22, 2019 at 0:41