When to delete and when not to delete a post? / Коли вилучати і коли не вилучати допис?

Question

This question arose due to almost-simultaneous deletion of the four posts (a/2688, a/2689, a/2698, a/2700) from a single user by moderator.

This question actually covers two distinct cases: (1) when a regular user should vote (or not vote) for a post deletion and (2) when a moderator should (or should not) delete a post that has not even been voted for deletion by the regular users using his moderator power.

In fact this question seems to be already resolved by the reference to the section of the general StackExchange community FAQ (thanks to Kyrylo Yatsenko; see the answer below for details), but you can express alternate opinions if you wish.

---

Це питання виникло через майже-одночасне вилучення модератором чотирьох відповідей одного учасника (a/2688, a/2689, a/2698, a/2700).

Це питання фактично покриває дві різні ситуації: (1) коли звичайному користувачу слід голосувати (чи не голосувати) за вилучення якогось допису; (2) коли модератору слід (чи не слів) вилучати якийсь допис, про вилучення якого звичайні користувачі навіть не голосували, використовуючи свої модераторські можливості.

Фактично це питання, здається, вже вирішене завдяки посилинню на секцію загального FAQ спільноти StackExchange (наданому Кирилом Яценко; див. подробиці у відповіді нижче), але ви можете висловити інші думки, якщо бажаєте.

Answer 1

General StackExchange community FAQ has the section "What are the criteria for deletion?" has the following text:

For questions, a post that no longer adds anything to the site should be deleted. Basically, this includes most closed questions that cannot be improved and reopened. However, it may be beneficial to keep duplicates to aid future users in finding the canonical question, as different people may use different wordings that cause the canonical question to not show up in search.

For answers, any post that is not an answer (should be a comment, doesn't answer the question, etc.) should be deleted. Answers that are wrong or that dispense poor advice should be downvoted, not deleted.

More specifically, the "not an answer" link points to the following text:

An answer that is not an answer should be deleted (should be a comment, doesn't answer the question etc...).

Answers that are answers but are factually wrong or are actively bad (say promote SQL Injection) should get downvoted, but not deleted.

From that sources, it seems that the deletion of the four aforementioned answers was wrong. These answers differ in quality and some of there were at that point (or even are now) of very poor quality, but they certainly are answers.

---

Загальний FAQ спільноти StackExchange має секцію «Якими є критерії для вилучення» із наступним текстом:

Для запитань: допис, що не додає нічого до сайту, має бути вилученим. В основі своїй, це означає більшість закритих питань, що не можуть бути виправлені і перевідкриті. Однак, може бути корисним зберігати дублікати, щоби допомогти наступним користувачам знаходити основне питання, оскільки різні люди можуть формулювати запит по-різному, тому саме основне питання не завжди з'являтиметься в пошуку.

Для відповідей: будь-який допис, що не є відповіддю (має бути коментарем, не відповідає на запитання тощо) має бути вилученим. Відповіді, що є неправильними або поширюють пошані поради, мають отримавати негативні голоси, але не вилучатися.

Більш конкретно, посилання «не є відповіддю» вказує на такий текст:

Відповідь, що не є відповіддю, має вилучатися (яка має бути коментарем, не відповідає на запитання тощо…).

Відповіді, які є відповідями, але фактично неправильними або активно-шкідливими (наприклад, спричиняють SQL-ін'єкцію) мають отримувати негативні голоси, але не вилучатися.

Згідно до цих джерел, здається, що вилучення чотирьох вищезгаданих відповідей було неправомірним. Ці відповіді мали різну якість і деякі з них на момент вилучення мали (а то й зараз мають) дуже низьку якість, але вони точно є відповідями.

Answer 2

A Straightforward Answer

The following sections alone seem to have attracted denials and discussion, so here is the direct answer to the question, the way it has been asked:

• This question has been asked for many times, and the OP knows the answer.
• The direct answer is: Every user has an inalienable right to cast their votes freely. Period.
• This includes votes for up, down, close, delete, etc.

  Update June 2019: it seems that the very same asker @Sasha, once they became a Moderator, has silently restored several of linked posts. By doing this silently and with no consultation with the site community, @Sasha has completely supported my point that everyone has the right to cast their vote.

• It is generous to comment, however.

  Some users, including Moderators, don't do this, as noticed above.

• Hence,

  When to delete and when not to delete a post?

  • you (every registered user) down/close-vote when you think the post is bad, and
  • you (every registered user) vote to delete a post when you think it is irreparably bad.

Unfortunately this question does not ask, "how to tell a good post from a bad or irreparably bad one?", and it probably worth asking a separate, well-formulated, question.

Community-driven

• The Stack Exchange is built as a community-driven network.
• For this very reason, many SE sites can live without intense moderators' "babysitting".

Existing Tools We Fail to Use

• A vivid example of such sites is Linguistics.SE where the Mods' activity is no different from such of non-Mods, so instead of revolutionizing their life, all users simply enjoy the knowledge, and even "bootstrapping" the new users is basically done by regular users.
• The Language Learning.SE is also a good example, where someone who barely has 1,000 rep.points is happy to help the new users, with no need of neither the Moderator's diamond nor even the high reputation. Note the non-Moderators' role in Review queues, too.
• We, instead, barely have 5 users who touched the Review queues more than 10 times in their life.

A Healthy Community

• So, a healthy community quickly identifies bad posts (whatever meaning the "bad" has) and acts accordingly. It needs no moderators at all, unless some rare scandals that happen, say, once a year.
• Out community is far from being healthy. One argument towards that is that we still have no consensus about the cornerstone principles of Stack Exchange. I still keep hoping that someday we grow to that level, that's why I am here.

Hence, the main question should be:

• Who should delete the bad posts? — The Community.
• When the Moderators should delete bad posts? — Whenever the Community, who supposed to do that, fail.

---

Summary

Let's educate ourselves. Let's teach the others. Let's build a healthy community. Let's enjoy the knowledge.