-8
\$\begingroup\$

Is it above board to edit another persons question extensively, lets say by adding 755 characters to it - to ensure that another recently posted similar question which otherwise would not be classified as a duplicate is then considered a duplicate?

When that is not sufficient to address all the implications of the question (since it wasn’t actually a duplicate) - is it then ideal to conspire with other users to author a new question which is very similar but purposefully contrived to avoid a duplicate closure?

Is that the type of intervention I should expect on my questions (ie good practice)?

TLDR Extensively edit an old question to ensure new questions are closed as duplicates, good idea?

\$\endgroup\$
26
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ If you want answers about a specific example, you should ask about it. Asking for vague/sweeping recommendations probably won't lead to very useful anwers \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Commented Jun 27 at 0:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ For readers wanting the context here, OP is referring this revision of an answer to a question that was used as a dupe target for this question. For further context, see this meta discussion about that question’s dupe status. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 27 at 1:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You’re clearly revisiting the closure of your “Can I recover a single arrow?” question, but we already have a meta discussion for that, so I’ve voted to close this as a duplicate of that discussion. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 27 at 2:05
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Given the concrete example - there is no issue with what was done. The duplicate target was correct. Some details were added to more explicitly address your question. Your question takes an accusatory stance, however seems it can be reworded to "Should we deliberately withhold information from a question to which it belongs, just because another question exists that asks for it?" without missing anything important. And suddenly the nuance changes and the accusation falls flat. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Jun 27 at 5:14
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard You need to give this a rest and move on past this question. It's been four years since that original question; two years since the most recent event concerning it. It is and was just one question. You're clearly unhappy with how it was handled, but this cannot be healthy for you. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 27 at 10:12
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Outside of looking at the detail specifics, I think editing an old question to make a new one a duplicate seems a bit sketchy. Who is to decide, if that new aspect of the qeustion "belongs" in the old question? Should even the original author of the old question change their question years later? Especially if someone else has posed a new one, that currently is not fully covered by it, and who is strongly invested in their own question? It just seems not to be very nice and healthy to me to do that, you can guess how the new asker will feel about that. \$\endgroup\$
    – Nobody the Hobgoblin
    Commented Jun 27 at 12:41
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin There is a long history with OP instigating conflict on the site dating back to before your time here. This question, like many of their other meta discussions and main site questions, was not asked in good faith. But I appreciate your perspective on how this might be viewed, if it were asked in good faith. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 27 at 12:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There is no history of me ‘instigating conflict’ just overactive (unjustifiable), reactionary moderation. \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jun 27 at 12:56
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard Five different users voted to close your witch question and a moderator voted to leave it closed in review, and three different user voted to close this question. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:31
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard Myself, and everyone else here, vote on content, not users. The author of the content is entirely irrelevant when making voting decisions. I’ve upvoted more of your posts than I’ve down or close voted. Receiving a few downvotes or close votes does not mean you are being unfairly targeted. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:44
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin The question this is about was one of a series of multiple questions asked in close succession to one another, all of which were about recovering a very small number of arrows in specific ways. We closed them to find out what was going on. The others have since been deleted, likely due to aging away. Nobody acted incorrectly. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 27 at 14:26
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard Thomas is one of the more active members of this site and is not currently behaving incorrectly. You asking him to simply not moderate your questions is not a reasonable request. You are not being suppressed. I, personally, cast a deciding vote on this question rather than have it be retrod in this fashion by talking about users conspiring. Your behaviour is completely over the line, disproportionate, unreasonable, and unjustified. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 27 at 14:27
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ So what? A psych eval's results does not certify all your behaviour past, present, and future as absolutely fine, reasonable, and justified. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 27 at 14:33
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard I moderated this site for several years and was well regarded. I believe I was kind, thoughtful, and as fair as I could manage, and feedback I got from others gave me reason to believe so. I am also loved and cared for. I still have bad days and my judgement is not always perfect and I'm entirely capable of poor behaviour. I maintained that positive record by stepping back when I was having a bad time because I would have responded poorly. My better days do not mean that when I am having a bad day I must still be acting with impugnity and everything I am doing must be fine. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 27 at 14:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Reminder to everyone to be nice. We let things play a little more fast & loose on meta, but that's not the same as the rules simply not applying. \$\endgroup\$
    – Oblivious Sage Mod
    Commented Jun 28 at 14:18

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7
\$\begingroup\$

If you're asking about a specific question, please ask about a specific question

Your question sounds like it comes from a particular example given some of the content such as specifying "755 characters" and using the words "conspire" and "intervention". You also sound convinced enough yourself that whatever this question was wasn't a duplicate, since you say, quote "it wasn't actually a duplicate". If you have a question or problem with a specific question, it should be asked as such.

Broad, sweeping, overreaching guidelines and principles are often not very helpful and can easily be misused. Here's one question I found that asks broadly about duplicates which you may find helpful:

And here's three other questions I found that sound like they are broadly about duplicates but are actually about particular questions, which heavily informed their answers, as they should:

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your answer could be improved if it addressed the main issue posed in the question, that being - is it a good practice to edit an older question to retroactively cause a more recent question to become a justifiable duplicate \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jun 27 at 1:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ And I think my stance on that vague and general idea is worthless/unhelpful to users. I will not be answering that \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Commented Jun 27 at 1:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ It’s not really vague, it’s pretty explicit. Would you want someone to edit an old question so they could close your new question? If no, then the answer would be no. If yes, answer would be yes. \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jun 27 at 1:56
-11
\$\begingroup\$

No, it sounds really shady.

That type of petty and unnecessary intervention undermines the integrity of the website. It drives away intelligent people who would otherwise provide quality questions and answers; beyond being unwelcoming it offends the efforts of others and has no place anywhere that respects common community values.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by another user: “editing an old question to make a new one a duplicate seems a bit sketchy. Who is to decide, if that new aspect of the qeustion "belongs" in the old question? Should even the original author of the old question change their question years later? Especially if someone else has posed a new one, that currently is not fully covered by it, and who is strongly invested in their own question? It just seems not to be very nice and healthy to me to do that, you can guess how the new asker will feel about that.”

\$\endgroup\$
13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Your quote is from a relatively new user who only had your account of events to go on where you described things as “conspiring” and “purposefully contrived”. They were not here when the events took place, don't know what happened, & don't know the metas that have been opened since. So you described things as sketchy, a newbie with no other point of reference read your account & said “wow that sounds sketchy”, and now you're quoting them here to back up your position that it's sketchy. That strikes me as fairly manipulative and bad faith; it's virtually astroturfing support for your position. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 29 at 14:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Just to be clear, Nobody the Hobgoblin is new relative to the history that sits under this question, not in the traditional sense of “newbie”. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 29 at 15:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, by most measures Nobody the Hobgoblin is definitely not a newbie. Within the context of these events that took place over a span of 2-4 years ago which haven't had any reason to come up since however, and relative to those of us informed on this issue and who were involved in it including OP, Nobody the Hobgoblin is essentially a newbie. OP's actions are essentially taking advantage of a junior of theirs and I do not like that. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 29 at 15:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ “OP action are essentially taking advantage of a junior of theirs and I do not like that.” Hmmm I just have to repeat it to show how unreasonable the statement is. \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jun 29 at 19:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Its actually quite condescending of you to say those things about hobgoblin \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jun 29 at 21:10
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard I don't condescend to Hobgoblin here. They were not necessarily informed of the situation such that they would see what's going on and the history behind it, and there's no reason we'd expect them to informed of it, and you did not inform them. Meanwhile, I believe we should be looking out for our peers who are still learning the site's history, not take advantage of that lack of knowledge—they are your junior in that regard. You gave them a distorted version of events and used their response to it to support your case as though they're commenting on the actual situation. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 29 at 22:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Knowing anything about the other questions that Thomas linked is completely irrelevant in answering this question, which they understood. Thats why what you are saying is condescending. \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jun 30 at 0:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ I expect @NobodytheHobgoblin can speak their own mind instead of having assertions made. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Commented Jun 30 at 5:54
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @AmethystWizard This is fundamentally not an abstract issue. It is a very specific one about relitigating one specific duplicate closure—you even quote the exact details of the 755-character edit involved in that issue. Knowing about the other questions and the history of this issue is entirely relevant in responding to this meta because it is, in fact, about them. Omitting the details and refusing to acknowlege what this is about doesn't make it not be about that. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Jun 30 at 17:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Except it’s not, i asked the question and determine the meaning and intent of the question because I wrote it. And I selected the best answer. You writing here is conversational and feels unfriendly at minimum, but more accurately hostile. \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jul 1 at 16:00
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ OK, abstractly it's still not shady. If some information belongs in a question - it should be there. Whether or not some different question would be closed as a duplicate has no bearing. Duplicate closure has always been about matching a potential duplicate with where the answer should be found. Even if it's not there yet. So, if the answer should be found in another place, it's a duplicate. There is nothing "shady" or "nefarious" with maintaining a knowledge base. You just don't seem to like that. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Jul 1 at 16:05
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Your answer is wrong even for the general case. You've accepted it just to pretend it isn't. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Commented Jul 1 at 16:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @vlad i wish people didnt close the question, then you could provide a quality answer. You are maybe engaging in the actual point, except the part about me ‘pretending’ its not about me, or anyone, its about editing old questions to cause retroactive duplicates. \$\endgroup\$
    – Amethyst Wizard
    Commented Jul 1 at 16:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .