11

Here is sequence of events:

  1. I created new tag and assigned it initially to only one question.
  2. I created wiki and excerpt for it.
  3. Both were approved with 3 Approve votes and 1 Reject vote.
  4. User which voted for rejection edited question and removed this new tag from it. This would cause the death of this newly-born tag in one day.

The main question here is:

Is it appropriate for reviewer to be an executor?

Is it appropriate for judge to shoot suspect while voting is still in progress?

Is it fair to other reviewers? They spent some time for this review and one user wants to delete what they just approved (he has the lowest reputation from all of them).

I tried to behave in proper way. I assigned this tag only to one question to make it easy to burninate in case of rejection of my wiki proposal. But by assigning it to only one question I made it also very vulnerable for deletion regardless of verdict.

I didn't write the name of this tag because I don't want the discussion to concentrate on this specific case.

I created this tag in good faith. User which tried to burninate it did it also in good faith. But he should do it in different way. At first he should try to convince me to burninate this tag by myself. If it failed, he should gather more cannons and fire instead of trying to kill this tag silently.

What do you think about it?

EDIT

While voting for rejection this user provided some arguments. But I think that he should give me a chance to respond to them and to defend this tag. So his message should be like this:

This tag is bad because.... Either remove it yourself or prove that it is worth saving.

Then I would gladly take a challenge and start a battle on meta. In case of defeat I could even remove this tag by myself. User should assume that I had some good reasons for creation of this tag. He should refrain from burnination for some time.

He voted for rejection and burninated in the same time. So he send a message like:

I am right here. It doesn't matter what intentions you had. It doesn't matter what other are thinking.

I am not 0-rep user which appeared yesterday. I am engaged in some burnination processes. I am also carefully preparing burnination process of bigger tag. And creation of this new tag is some background work for this.

| | | | | |
  • 12
    I assume you're referring to the sql-max tag that you recently created. I agree with the user who removed the tag: I don't think it's necessary to create tags for specific functions when you can just use the appropriate language tag. What benefit would we get from creating perl-map or javascript-substr when we can just use perl and javascript, for example? – ThisSuitIsBlackNot Dec 29 '14 at 17:25
  • @ThisSuitIsBlackNot Yes. This is about sql-max tag. In few hours I will create new post defending this tag and explaining my intentions. Then I will link it and invite all of you. It seems that I am on lost position but I will do my best. In case of defeat I will kill this tag myself. – rtruszk Dec 29 '14 at 19:09
  • I've seen a few burninate requests in the past for tags that are simply named after functions, but in searching meta, I didn't find any posts that say that such tags are bad in general. (I swear I've seen something about this before, but maybe not. Personally, I think these types of tags just create clutter.) I did find one post (written by a mod, no less) that seems to say that these tags are useful, but it will be good to see what the community thinks in this particular case. – ThisSuitIsBlackNot Dec 29 '14 at 19:19
  • 2
    @ThisSuitIsBlackNot Same could be said for the git-something tags, yet they remain. – Angelo Fuchs Dec 29 '14 at 20:26
  • 1
    @AngeloFuchs That's the kind of post I was looking for, thanks. – ThisSuitIsBlackNot Dec 29 '14 at 20:30
  • 3
    @rtruszk, I have no idea why your post is so laden with analogies to high-importance court cases: the burnination of a tag is of far less moment than even being fined for a traffic violation, a type of case that is usually settled with very little fanfare (probably an hour or two of paperwork between all involved). The similarities you see to questions of the death penalty or the like are entirely overblown and overwrought. – Nathan Tuggy Dec 29 '14 at 23:53
  • 1
    @NathanTuggy Maybe I exaggerated. Maybe it is because I read too much John Grisham books. :) – rtruszk Dec 30 '14 at 0:01
  • 1
    I just created post defending this tag. It is here . You are all invited. Have fun. – rtruszk Dec 30 '14 at 1:31
26

Sure it is. If the person believes the tag is a bad one, then why wouldn't they go remove it?

The problem here is that you seem to be assuming that it is the burden of the user removing the tag to prove that the tag is not valuable. You're also assuming that just because a couple of wiki edits got approved that your tag is acceptable for our site. Neither of those two things are true.

The status of tag wiki edits or the fact that they are in review should not be considered relevant when determining whether to burn a tag. There are plenty of pretty terrible tags out there that still exist or have since been deleted, and the wikis attached to them are not their saviors in any way.

If you encounter a situation where you've created a new tag, regardless of whether wiki edits for it have been approved or not, and another user subsequently removes it, feel free to ask them in a comment why they feel the tag is inappropriate. If they don't respond or you disagree with how they respond, your only course of action should be to come here to Meta and convince the community. Bring it to the attention of the entire community and don't rely on one person's judgement. Explain exactly what you are trying to achieve by adding that tag, why you think it should exist, etc. Prove your case. You are the one that wanted to add the tag and it is your burden to prove to the community that it is a valuable addition to our site when someone disagrees.

If the community agrees with you, then you have a nice Meta discussion backing you up, that you can point to whenever anyone tries to say "no, that's a bad tag." If they disagree, then you walk away with a better understanding of our system and knowledge of why the tag was not considered appropriate for our site.

| | | | | |
  • So you said that this is innocence that should be proved and not guilt. – rtruszk Dec 29 '14 at 10:15
  • 13
    @rtruszk Where do you get from animuson's answer that any of this is about guilt or innocence? – Louis Dec 29 '14 at 12:12
  • @Louis It is only further part of analogy to court. – rtruszk Dec 29 '14 at 13:16
  • 8
    @rtruszk: Well, there's your problem. SO is not a court. This isn't about you. It's about the tag and what's best for the site. – Kevin Dec 29 '14 at 16:21
  • @Kevin I didn't say that SO is a court but only that there is some analogy to court. I often use analogies in my posts to make them more colorful. I also care about what is the best for the site. This is why I wrote above post. – rtruszk Dec 29 '14 at 17:06
  • 2
    @rtruszk: If you insist on the court analogy, then consider yourself the prosecution. Edits to remove superfluous tags are generally encouraged; you need to make the case that it causes harm here. – cHao Dec 30 '14 at 0:19
  • 4
    @rtruszk That's the problem with analogies when you take them too far. The fact that ethylene glycol is a colorless fluid similar to water doesn't imply it's a healthy drink. – BartoszKP Dec 30 '14 at 0:35
  • I did something similar for c-select tag explaining what I think about language-function tags. – TLama Dec 30 '14 at 20:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/281284/is-it-appropriate-to-burninate-tag-while-reviewing-its-wiki-edit?noredirect=1
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-24
137784
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:F3EEFUA5CNTZJP5A2UMLYAB32TSQUZXG
<urn:uuid:12b92eb7-22ef-44f7-b88e-273e54e6831f>
2020-05-26T14:15:51Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:3LFLODOKPB6RYCTONUV6DWLO4HZIFWXW
<urn:uuid:ffb755e1-3f54-4659-84ae-3b4acbeeca5a>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/281284/is-it-appropriate-to-burninate-tag-while-reviewing-its-wiki-edit?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:db5d43b4-9a25-42bd-a05e-a3074241e6f9>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-24
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-236.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/