text:
Aren't unfounded attacks on Buddhism unacceptable here?
In civilized discussions, if you disagree, you should provide counter-arguments, not offenses.
For example, when Dhammadhatu called Pratityasamutpada explanation "materialistic error" (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22096/11762), I provided sutta quotation and reference to show that it was actual Buddha's Teaching, and I explained the seeming contradiction with another sutta (https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/63892/discussion-on-answer-by-dhammadhatu-once-ignorance-is-removed-is-the-cessation)
That's a proper way to discuss disagreements.
Dhammadhatu commented on that as "misunderstanding ... confusion, materialism & unverifiable superstition"[2], instead of backing his view with any arguments.
I don't think such behavior is mature and should be accepted on this site.
So I propose that moderators:

Leave important comments like mine under the answer, rather than moving them to chat. Then users could compare such answers with actual words of Buddha, and avoid being misinformed.
Delete comments with denigrating labels, rather than moving them to chat. Such unfounded attacks on Buddha's Teaching have no benefit for anyone.

@user3293056, "everyone thinks they're usually right" - that's why the culture of discussion was developed. E.g., reasoning without criticism is OK, criticism without reasoning is not OK.

My answer addresses the situation as I see it, i.e. the specific answer and comments which you referenced, and the moderator's response to them. My answer doesn't attempt to answer the question as you phrased it in the title, i.e. about accepting unfounded attacks on Buddhism.

@ChrisW, yes, you wrote long explanation about the situation in general, but managed to avoid answering the topic, "about accepting unfounded attacks on Buddhism". Maybe it would be reasonable to move your answer to some other question, leaving here only a link to it; and answering here the question itself.

I don't think we should treat people differently depending on attachments.
So let's examine, not automatically accept habitual oppositions, such as

"host" (author of an answer) and "guest" (author of a comment),
"new user" and "old user".

Commenting on someone else's answer is like being an uninvited or unexpected guest in their house

In the context of Buddhism, Buddhadharma is always invited. No matter if you are a guests or a stranger.
Hosts have no more rights to be abusive than guests.
If the answer is factually incorrect, pointing that is a necessary part of gathering quality information, because omitting that would mislead readers. Not all the readers are interested in discussions and go to chat, and so they would lose important information if it was just moved to chat.
If valuable comments were moved to chat and considered preserved, the same approach would preserve abusive comments. Thus abusive comments should be deleted, not moved to chat.

you wrote long explanation about the situation in general, but managed to avoid answering the topic, "about accepting unfounded attacks on Buddhism". Maybe it would be reasonable to ... answer here the question itself.
Assuming that the question itself is, "Aren't unfounded attacks on Buddhism unacceptable here?", I suppose an answer is that "attacks" of any kind are fairly unwelcome, including:

Attacks on Buddhism
Attacks on non-Buddhism
Attacks on users
Whether well-founded or unfounded

Any "attacks" may be moderated (and hopefully all users usually moderate their own posts).
Sometimes, moderation takes the form of simple deletion (especially when a post is nothing but an attack).
Sometimes the situation is more complicated:

When an "attack" is mixed into otherwise-acceptable content
When it's not clear whether something is an "attack" or a "defense"

In these situations, moderators often handle that by moving the whole conversation off the page, into chat.
Incidentally you probably shouldn't expect me, as a moderator, to define what "Buddhism" is ... for example I'm not going to say, "What Dheeraj Verma and chang zhao say is Buddhism, and what Dhammadatu says is non-Buddhism or against Buddhism". Instead I see it as a discussion or explanation of different views, interpretations, doctrines (which I think is usually acceptable), or a public argument between users (which is less acceptable, and likely to be moved to a chat room).
I apologize if this too doesn't answer your question.
Moving arguments to a chat room is a kind of compromise solution. What you want is for moderators to "Leave important comments like mine under the answer, rather than moving them to chat". Sometimes moderators do that and sometimes not. I tried to explain in my first answer what we could do (five options), and what we actually do and why. Your "important comment" was preserved, in the chat room associated with the answer (and whose hyperlink is displayed underneath the answer), where it's available to anyone who wants to read the "extended discussion" associated with that answer, so I'm not sure I understand why you were dissatisfied.
I think it would be ideal if people would choose their language carefully and avoid making statements which can perceived (or even mis-perceived) as an attack. Thankfully people are generally successful at doing that, so moderators intervene only occasionally.
Also you are a welcome but relatively new user. I hoe you understand that, on his site and perhaps unlike on other "discussion forums", questions and answers are paramount, comments are auxiliary, discussions are tolerated, and arguments tend to get deleted (and even "extended discussions" may be moved).

(1) In the context of Buddhadharma, a new user or not, guest or host, it has nothing to do with "welcome" or "unwelcome". Buddhadharma is always welcome, even from guests and strangers. (2) If the answer is factually incorrect, pointing that is a necessary part of gathering quality information. (3) Hosts have no more rights to be abusive than guests. (4) If you move valuable comments to chat and think they are preserved, then you shouldn't do the same with abusive comments and preserve them.

If you move valuable comments to chat and think they are preserved, then you shouldn't do the same with abusive comments and preserve them. It's a compromise. I want people to be able to read questions and answers without seeing rude comments. But the chat room exists for people who want to read "extended" comments associated with an answer. Anyway I hope I've explained our (or my) existing policy. I don't think it's perfect, I think it's a compromise. I look forward to seeing whether a community consensus develops around another, new policy.

When you say "Also you are a welcome but relatively new user." Why is there this opposition: "welcome but new"? It reminds me of a mistake made by many moderators, everywhere, which destroyed more than one online Buddhist community. They are lax to themselves and to "old users" and allow them to break rules (perhaps out of attachment).

I said you're welcome because I want you to be an old friend and a good one. I said "relatively new" because you've been a member of this site for 33 days, and you're not experienced with other Stack Exchange sites, so you may not be familiar with underlying policies like We're a little bit different from other sites. Here's how: Ask questions, get answers, no distractions This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat. and with policies (compromises) which "the community" evolves for this site.

You're right that I am (and other users are) "old" though, and that I'm maybe not as zealous as possible at jumping on every impolite phrase, perpetually trying to correct how other users express themselves. I wish people wouldn't get into arguments. I have a younger brother, by the way. We used to fight, apparently to get my Mum's attention. We used to have conversations like, "Mum, he hit me." "But Mum, he started it." and she'd say "I don't care who started it, you both have to stop." So.

Now consider the situation where one of the brothers shits around. Another brother tries to clean it, but it's not possible to clean others' shit completely. And mum doesn't care, just pushing the shit under the bed. It will be stinking there, and new brothers will shit there as well. As some Teacher said: "If you want to have a great community, don't think it will appear miraculously from nowhere. If one person in community behaves properly, all the community will behave properly; if one person neglects discipline, all the community will neglect discipline". (2) Welcome BUT new. Why BUT there

Now consider the situation where one of the brothers shits around. So do you want to make this personal? Are you hoping we'll sanction the person somehow, for being undisciplined, instead of just discussing how we handle content? Are you proposing a new moderation policy such as, "Any comment which includes any phrase which a moderator considers possibly-rude will be simply deleted?"

..."but" between "welcome" and "new" shows there is some opposition. So why do you point that I'm new here? If a new user doesn't know something, we can point that, no need to discuss his personal characteristics. (3) "Are you proposing a new moderation policy" - I thought it is already existing policy that abusive comments should be not tolerated. Am I wrong?

Why BUT there If I'd left out that introduction and just written, "I hope you understand that, on his site etc." then that would have seemed more already-cast-in-stone and forbidding any input from you. You are welcome since you're able and willing to post on Meta -- that makes you part of the Community whose input helps to define policy. BUT I'd like you to understand the situation, the contraints, possibilities, policies and so that I think are operational at the moment -- then you might suggest amendments to existing policy (or accept, having better understood, the current situation).

If you want to know is something "possibly-rude" or actually rude, feel free to ask. When I flag abusive content I'm always ready to explain that. Bro.

Let's agree that "confusion, materialism & unverifiable superstition" is the kind of phrase that some people can consider "abusive", especially out of context. Where we differ, you and I, at the moment, is in how moderators handled that. Pushing all comments into a chat room was like, "If you want to talk like that you can do it somewhere else" -- which is not exactly good, but I still think may be the least bad (or the easiest) of the alternatives I identified in the first answer.

(1) Phrases should be taken in context. And it is abusive and has 0 usefulness. I explained that in details already. (2) Chat is not "somewhere else", it's just another part of this site. (3) If something requires to apply your discriminating wisdom, then it also trains you in discriminating wisdom, so why be lazy in that? (4) Disrespect to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha actually harms study of Buddhism. I could give you many examples of that. So just pushing abuses to chat is not proper moderation.

And it is abusive and has 0 usefulness Does it make any difference that Dhammadhatu probably meant it literally? Chat is not "somewhere else"The Help implies it is different: and calls it the "third place". why be lazy in that I'm not sure I follow what you're saying :-) disrespect ... actually harms study of Buddhism I suppose a lot of things actually harm it. Dhammadhattu has views, on some details, that not everyone else will agree with. Perhaps he thinks that "misunderstanding" is harmful. IMO the primary purpose of ...

... comments surrounding his answer is to better understand his answer (if you want to). If you don't want to, you don't have to. But I think that part of my job as moderator is to let him answer, just as it's my job to let other people answer.

(1) "why be lazy in that - I'm not sure I follow what you're saying" - You said that for mods it's easier to just push content away, than see thoroughly, what should actually be deleted there. I'm saying that it's your job and it trains you in discriminating wisdom. (2) "Dhammadhatu probably meant it literally" - now I don't understand you. If you spit a lot of rude labels out of vexations, how does "speaking literally" make it acceptable? (3) We already discussed should we point that answer is factually incorrect. I already said here: without that, the quality of info suffers. Period.

I feel you don't get what I say, so let's stop the conversation. Maybe later you'll see what I mean. Cheers!

"everyone thinks they're usually right" - that's why the culture of discussion was developed. E.g., reasoning without criticism is OK, criticism without reasoning is not OK.

In the example you gave I think that a moderator moved the "discussion" into a chat room, where you can continue the discussion if you want to.
So far as I know, moderators have the following options:

Try to persuade people to be civil
Delete the whole discussion if any comment takes a turn for the worse
Move the whole discussion to a chat room
Delete selected comments and leave others
Edit other people's comments

1. Try to persuade people to be civil
It seems to me I have done that a lot, perhaps too much -- see my previous answers to topics marked comments. I don't want to repeat that all here.

2. Delete the whole discussion if any comment takes a turn for the worse
I do that if there isn't much substance to the comments, if they're just like, "You're wrong." "No, you're wrong."
I also do that if comments are obsolete. e.g. if their content is edited into the answer.

3. Move the whole discussion to a chat room
Lanka did this, and I do this (and this seems to be what you're objecting to), if any part of the discussion sound so hostile that I don't want it to appear on the main site, yet it contains some content that might be interesting to someone -- either which the users might want to continue discussing, or which a future avid reader of the answer might want to read if they see ...

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

... at the end of the answer.
Your comment wasn't exactly deleted: it was "moved to chat".

4. Delete selected comments and leave others
This is what you're suggesting, and it's not a bad suggestion, and I often do that.
In this particular case (where Dhammadhatu is the OP) I see some disadvantage to doing that, and so option 3 ("move to chat room") might be better (I agree with and don't see a disadvantage of Lanka's decision to move it all to chat).
My general policy (a personal policy, I don't know about other moderators) is that whoever wrote the answer is allowed to have the last word in comment discussion. So if it's Dhammadhatu's answer then Dhammadhatu is allowed the last comment. See e.g. this answer where I wrote,

Commenting on someone else's answer is like being an uninvited or unexpected guest in their house:

Be polite, straightforward, easy to support, not too demanding
My visit is over when tell me it's over: don't overstay my welcome.
Generally I think that the other user (whose answer it is) should be allowed the last word. For example if I post a comment to ask a question, and they post a comment to answer, then that's it: end of "discussion". Sometimes I might have a follow-up question, but in general I'm hoping for a satisfactory reply.

Part of hoping for a satisfactory reply is not posting comments like, "you are wrong", because it's hard to imagine any satisfactory response to that comment.

5. Edit other people's comments
Moderators can edit anyone else's comments.
It's been very very rare that I edit someone else's comment ... and that's usually just to improve the formatting of a hyperlink.
If I edit their comments then that confuses people, which itself leads to further discussion (see e.g. here).
There are disadvantages to my editing comments:

It's a "hostile edit" rather than a "helpful edit" i.e. it's editing to say something which maybe the author didn't intend to say (it's not just like correcting a spelling mistake or something)
There's no edit history for a comment, the previous version of the comment is lost even to me
The edited comment appears to be from the original author, there's no indication it was edited by a moderator (so I'm "putting my words into their mouth" as the saying goes)
It hasn't been policy

I think that as a result of this discussion I eventually decided that I should edit people's answers to remove what I decide is hostility ... that it's OK if I edit an answer for tone, like I edit for grammar and so sometimes.
I haven't (we haven't, the community hasn't) decided (or hasn't yet decided) that it's OK for moderators to do the same to comments.
For example the comment you're objecting to, which you call "unacceptable" and an "unfounded attack on Buddhism", was,

This last comment about name-&-form is a misunderstanding. I will start a new question about this to avoid further confusion, materialism & unverifiable superstition posted about my answer. Thanks

Theoretically I could edit that to say something like,

@changzhao I think your comment about name-&-form misunderstands what I was trying to say. I will start a new question about this, to avoid further discussion about this answer. Thanks.

Some people might see that edit as an improvement, I'm not sure everyone would find that acceptable.

To conclude:

You might not agree with every answer posted on this site
If you dislike an answer, you really are welcome to post a better answer of your own
Discussing an answer using comment is tolerated, but is not the main purpose of the site
If a discussion becomes an argument, that's less tolerated and a moderator may (or should) intervene
To have a "discussion", both parties need to be willing
In this case, the author wasn't willing to edit his answer based on Dheeraj Verma's comment, and wasn't willing to discuss it further with you ... and that's OK.
Your starting your comment with "Actually @DheerajVerma was correct." might be an example of "piling on" so regardless of the content, maybe you didn't phrase it very tactfully. Tactically I suggest you use "I" messages ("I don't think that...") instead of allegations ("That's wrong") nor "You" messages ("You're wrong"), and or that you phrase your comment as a (polite ... open-minded?) question instead of as a statement.

If I ever have to choose between people using comments to argue, versus not having comments at all, then it's likely to be the latter and comments will be deleted.

that's why the culture of discussion was developed. E.g., reasoning without criticism is OK, criticism without reasoning is not OK.
Yeah...
The purpose of this site is question-and-answer rather than discussion. Part of the reason for (or a beneficial side-effect of) minimizing discussion is that it minimizes argument too.
So I guess we tend to emphasize "reasoning without criticism" and de-emphasize "culture of discussion".
People who post answers may, but aren't required to, discuss their answer if you comment.

"Tactically I suggest you use "I" messages" - yes, originally I used similar approach, "Buddha" message: "Buddha said that". But then I realized it wasn't so obvious that I was pointing at correctness of @DheerajVerma explanation. So I formulated it as confirmation of his original sentence. It's not "piling up", because his original sentence had nothing to do with arguing with Dhammadhatu. So in your answer you imagine "piling up" but totally ignore abusive nature of unfounded negative labels. Do you think it's OK if I say that your answer is total delusion & demagogy, even if it really is?


text:
This site is Elitist Not Buddhist
This site is not inclusive. In fact, it is elitist. It is everything Buddism speaks against. When you post a question anyone who has a thought on the subject should be able to post a comment and not have to earn the privilege to have an opinion.
Sandra Lockhart- I will not return, thanks anyway

@Sandra, I hear you.  I agree elitism is not good.  However to be fair, requiring reputation for comments was not a policy proposed by anyone here.  The policy was created long ago when buddhism Q&A was not even part of the network.  There are plenty of people who don't like the policy as you can see here, but notice there is no connection to this buddhism site:  https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214173/why-do-i-need-50-reputation-to-comment-what-can-i-do-instead

The SE engine is a website type that can be reused for different special interests. It was created to address the problems of forums (e.g. phpBB) and mailing lists. Those online social mechanisms have a variety of problems, such as lacking features to encourage people to stay on topic, to create high quality content and be civil.
SE started out as Stack Overflow, which was for software development questions. It was very successful in that area and the developers of SO create SE for a long list of special interests that might fit the question-and-answer format, including Religions and so on. There is nothing in particular drawn from the field of Buddhism (or Personal Finance or Parenting or whatever) to make the rules. For example, I imagine a Buddhist site might have features related to sectarianism (this SE is all sects and sometimes that works, sometimes not) or the fact that some forms of Buddhism give special status to gurus, monks or the like (this SE give special status to people who write good answers and questions as judged by votes of people who happen to visit the site)

You wrote, "When you post a question anyone who has a thought on the subject should be able to post a comment"
In fact, when you post a question, anyone who has a thought on the subject is able, to post an answer (not to post a comment).
This is intended as Q&A site. The tour (i.e. the quick overview of the site) says:

Ask questions, get answers, no distractions
This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

People can eventually comment on other people's answers ... but that (i.e. commenting on other people's answers) is not the main purpose the site ... it's a "privilege" reserved for people who have used the site enough to understand the difference between an answer and a comment. See also:

What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?
Comment Everywhere

Note that the "Comment Everywhere" description has quite a long list titled, "When shouldn't I comment?" One of the reason for making commenting a "privileged" operation is so that users have time to get used to policies like this, before they begin to post comments themselves.
In summary:

You are welcome to post questions and answers, and post comments to your own questions and answers.

You can post comments to other people's questions and answers after you've "earned" some "reputation" (not very much is needed, i.e. "50" ... you can get 50 by getting 5 upvotes on your answers).

There's one exception to the above: a very few questions are protected, because these specific questions attracted several low-quality answers from new users. To answer one of these questions, users need a reputation of at least "10" (which you would earn from one upvote to an answer, to one other question on the site).

Chris, I appreciate your valiant attempt to provide an answer when you were not even allowed the benefit of a question to start with (it seemed like only a statement).  Fwiw, I hope you don't feel too elitist now :)  I think she just didn't have enough time to understand how SE works, only having joined a day earlier.  It's easy to forget it takes some getting used to.

I find this site amazingly helpful in so many ways.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
The site's functioning
I see that the latest question on the site (i.e. Buddhist PHP-coders? Help needed for Rohingya crisis site) is on hold, sort of banned.
One can't even add a comment; but another comment, "Is this going to be another Anti-myanmar site?", was allowed. So if we don't have 50 reps we cannot express anything?
I wouldn't know how to respond to this question but can't it be related to Buddhist practice somehow?

thanks for posting here on meta.
I think you're asking two questions:

Why can't I post a comment?
Why was the question off-topic?

Ideally this site is for Questions and Answers, not for discussions and conversations.
Comments can lead to discussions, even to people arguing with other, getting angry, trolling, and so on, all counter-productive.
But comments can be helpful or necessary, e.g. to ask for or to suggest some clarification to an answer or a question.
For that reason, the stack exchange site/software allows (all) users to post comments, but only after they have acquired a little experience of what the social conventions are, how people are expected to use the site, what kinds of comments are considered good and bad, and so on.
The "reputation" system is used as a measure of a user's experience with the site: when you post questions and answers and people up-vote your posts, that's evidence that you are using (and have been using) the site properly. Conversely if you have no reputation there's no evidence that you know how people are expected to use the site.
"Reputation" is not a perfect measure of whether a user is experienced and well-behaved ... but it's something -- see also What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?
With increasing reputation you automatically gain increasing Privileges.
The privilege that will let you Comment Everywhere is given when the reputation is 50 (which isn't very high). And you can already post on Meta instead (as you have).
Even so, comments are troublesome. I think it's mostly because of comments that "moderators" have to exist, i.e. moderators intervene when users start abusing comments, being rude to each other and so on.
You can kind of see that by looking at how many topics are on Meta, tagged comments.
I recently posted a topic What are comments underneath answers for? to try to clarify how I expect that comments underneath answers should be used. It's kind of long -- either too long, or not even long enough, I'm not sure which -- more proof that it's a complicated topic.
I don't think there's a similar meta-topic about comments under questions, but they're generally simpler. Comments under questions should generally be:

I don't understand this question, what are you asking?
I don't approve of this question, don't we agree it ought to be closed?
See also [link to another topic], which is related to this question.

As for why the question was considered off-topic, this site (Buddhism.SE) is already (compared with other Stack Exchange sites) very permissive about what kinds of questions it allows -- see Moderation policies for Questions for details.
Even so, some questions would be considered off-topic, even if they mention the word "Buddhist"; for example:

Thailand is a Buddhist country. I'd like to visit. Which airline has the cheapest fares from North America?

So, some questions are off-topic.
Why was this question off-topic?
Perhaps there are several underlying, unspoken reasons (it may be a bit spammy or a bit scammy, we don't know who posted it, whether they're competent). Those reasons would be subjective, maybe offensive, arguable, if they were given as reasons -- but it's straightforward (an easy decision) to say it's off-topic -- it appears to be a question about programming, not about Buddhism.
There are (several) other Stack Exchange sites related to programming (i.e. software development) -- including stackoverflow, webapps, softwareengineering, etc. Theoretically we might suggest the question be posted there instead. However the question (if I may say so at the risk of being rude) is not good enough to post on other sites -- because the person who posted it isn't a PHP developer, and (as it says) it's a question which is asking for a PHP developer to volunteer their time (to do some PHP software development).
You ask whether it can be "related to Buddhist practice somehow". I suppose that if there are Buddhist PHP developers, they might choose to practice Buddhism by doing this kind of volunteer work. This isn't really a proper site to "fish" for them though; and if a PHP developer did want to do that specific programming work (i.e. develop a web site with an online petition) IMO they could already have done it by themselves, or found existing organisations (people) they could work with.
I personally believe that part of what makes a site useful is what it isn't, as well as what it is. For example, what makes a car useful is that it's not a bathtub. Similarly, part of what makes this site useful is that it's not a place where people post requests for material help, for labour, publicity, etc. I imagine there are other sites on the internet where the post would be more on-topic than it is here.
I don't want to have to say that it's a bad question, or an ignoble cause, nor criticise the person who posted it. It's just "not on-topic" for this site (which, is for Q+A about Buddhism).
Another thing I note is that the Tour says,

With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice.

Part of what makes this an unsuitable question is that it's ephemeral, not timeless (even if it is urgent and important). One of the reasons why Stack Exchange doesn't like "What kind of X shall I buy?" question is that the "right answers" change from year to year, i.e. the answers go out of date, become obsolete.

Note too the the question wasn't only "banned" by moderators:

Four downvotes, no upvotes (so a score of -4)
Two other users voted to close it, before a third (moderator) agreed with that decision

I think that's an example of "the community" (i.e. the regular users of the site) voting to agree (come to consensus about) what's on-topic and off-topic on the site.

Thank you for making things clearer. As the question is related, inappropriately you convinced me, to a major but delicate issue which nontheless concerns and the practice and the teachings of Buddhisme

The "Rohingya" have been mentioned on the discussion site of SuttaCentral (for example). And this exact question was asked and answered there (and it is still open if e.g. you want to discuss it there).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is it not possible to split this platform into Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism?
I think the question is simple, why is it important to maintain a single platform for clearly distinct sects of Buddhism ( Theravada and Mahayana )?
I know there is also Vajrayāna tradition but I think that wouldn't cause the same issue if included with Mahayana.
Most of the responses given here are in the form of contention/competition between these sects, and for most people who don't have a deeper knowledge of these traditions, the answers could at times be confusing to say the least.
Clearly, the higher goal for these traditions is not the same, see here for example responses given for a recent question about craving by @Sankha Kulathantille and @ Andrei Volkov.
Why not maintain a distinct SE section for each tradition?

I don't think it's possible (i.e. I doubt that Stack Exchange would support it, and/or that sufficiently many users would support it).
I guess that, to do it, people (i.e. you) would need to:

Propose new (separate) sites on "Area 51"
Get a lot of support for that proposal (which may be difficult or impossible -- it was difficult, or took a long time, to get enough support for a single site)

Note that other "religion" SE sites don't have separate sites for separate sects or traditions:

Chritianity
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism

Many of the policies discussed on this meta-site were meant to let the different traditions co-exist on one site -- see the topic tagged traditions.

I don't know much about Stack Exchange's policies on this topic (but as I said I guess they wouldn't be keen to split the site, and/or would need a lot of persuading, or rather might require the normal "Area 51" process).
There's a blog post from 2010, Merging Season, about how big a site should be (e.g. whether it should be one site or several).
To start a new (Beta) site I think you need (a minimum) 200 users committing to the proposal on Area 51 (or 100 users who are already active on other SE sites).

I'm not even sure the sects are clearly distinct: you can identify differences but I think they have a lot in common too -- see for example What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
Since you mentioned Andrei and Sankha, I also note the interchange in these comments a few years ago:

Could you mention that your answer is based in Theravada Buddhism? Thank you. – Lanka
@Lanka Theravada Buddhists don't really recognize other schools. Mostly historians do that. So it's just Buddhism for us. – Sankha Kulathantille
And we do recognize other schools, it's all Buddhism for us :) – Andrei Volkov♦

Even where there are two traditions I believe that at least some people are interested in both.

Well, it may be difficult to split as you say, but as it is now, it's a landmine with two contradictory answers given to almost every question. These traditions are aiming to a completely different outcome. When you look at the outcome only the difference is not like Catholics and Oriental Orthodox or alike where both aim for heaven, it's more akin to Judaism and Christianity for the Jews the earth is what there is and living in harmony here is the end goal whereas the Christian’s aim for heaven.  I admit the parallel is not exact but I’m sure you get the idea.

Do you know that, when you ask a question, you can add a tag like [tag:theravada] to the topic: to ask that all answers should relate to that specific tradition?

I disagree that Buddhism SE should be split into different sects for the following reasons.
Firstly, the fundamental doctrinal core of the different sects or traditions are the same.
In Christianity, all major denominations accept the Nicene Creed. In Islam, all major sects accept the shahada.
Similarly, all major Buddhist schools accept the Four Noble Truths, the Three Marks of Existence, the Noble Eightfold Path, Dependent Origination and the Three Refuges.
Secondly, certain sects or traditions may have additional philosophical content that other sects or traditions do not accept, but are nevertheless ultimately not contradictory to the fundamental doctrinal core.
I've made some analysis of this in this answer.
Thirdly, there are definitely many questions that are tradition-agnostic or sect-agnostic. I think more than half of the questions we have on Buddhism SE are tradition-agnostic or sect-agnostic.
Fourthly, there are some hybrid experts both on this site and those outside this site (who are used as references), who can cater to multiple traditions simultaneously. We would benefit from their diverse and cross-traditional perspectives.
I would completely agree with Lanka's proposal here as the solution to your problem:

In the past we discussed writing a short sentence in the beginning of
  an answer, to state which tradition the answer belongs to. I myself
  forget to do that sometimes. I guess we could be better at stating
  that to avoid confusion for new-comers.

I did not notice any Mahayana answer. The following is not Mahayana:

And suffering is singled out because it's the most obvious difference between Samsara and Nirvana,

In Mahayana, it is said Samsara & Nirvana are the same; but @ Andrei Volkov appeared to not say this.

but then he said.... "However, cessation of suffering is just one aspect of The Goal. The other aspect is Bodhi - awakening. If we remember awakening we can see that cessation of craving is not enough, there has to be realization or insight. And achievement of that insight is what most of the Noble Path is about...." which is purely Mahayana.

I disagree. I think both the comment you are commenting on & your comment could be better articulated.


text:
What to do when it seems a useful answer may have nothing to do with Buddhism?
I recently saw a question on the "hot question" list about a dude not wanting to hurt his mother by moving away from her. (So I clicked through, otherwise I wouldn't have ever come to this sub.)
I had originally posted my advice in a comment because it has nothing to do with Buddhism (and I know NOTHING about Buddhism).  That got deleted - fair enough, answers shouldn't be in comments.
So I posted it as an answer and elaborated a bit. I was hoping it would be downvoted (as it was somewhat off topic, I do realize that) but at least left there for the OP to see.
What should I have done in this situation as far as this sub is concerned? My goal/intention was to help the OP.

In the end there may be little you can do, but I'll try to post a complete set of options.
And thank you for wanting to help.

You can post a comment (under the question) to suggest another Stack Exchange site, e.g.

"This question would be on-topic at Interpersonal Skills (or Parenting), if you'd like to ask it there."

Then, if they choose to post their question there, answer it there (according to the conventions of that site).
Learn a bit, enough, about Buddhism: so that you can begin to answer questions on this site.
Be a counsellor (perhaps a professional or friend): so people bring questions to you in person.
Maybe do nothing (except silently offer best wishes and hope that other people will help, and/or that the OP will find a way of their own): because you can do nothing -- the topic in question was tagged equanimity after all

No comment, on whether your advice and the reddit site you suggested would have helped the OP.

In the past I have been required to edit one of my answers, to clarify its connection to Buddhism: in a comment under Should content the from a Buddhist POV or Perspective or presented in relation to Buddhism, one of the (other) moderators wrote, "a buddhist approach should be added".
Now so far as I know, that (i.e. "answers must be related to Buddhism") is a policy of this site; and I try to apply the site policies even-handedly no matter whose answer it is or what question.
If you had posted an answer saying, "Well Christianity teaches X...", then would have been off-topic; and similarly an answer saying, "reddit teaches Y...", was also off-topic in my opinion.
Any question on this site is implicitly trying to ask about Buddhism. Any answer should at least, I don't know, try to be informed by Buddhist values, even when it isn't quoting Buddhist doctrine. If what you said is true, that "I know NOTHING about Buddhism", then this isn't (yet) an ideal site for you to post answers? And in this question the OP ended, explicitly:

I would just like to try to evaluate and get feedback on my situation from a spiritual/Buddhist point of view.

People take "refuge" in Buddhism. By posting on Buddhism.SE the OP is asking for a Buddhist POV.
Part of the purpose of Stack Exchange is to make sites which are moderated and so on (by the community)


text:
Could we be able to choose more than one answer to our questions with a check-mark?
I appreciate that there is the option to up-vote answers, but I would also like to be able to choose more than one answer as the "this helped me most". I realize that the idea of "most" would not be honoured in the strict sense that governs competition, but in this context... maybe we could move beyond it ?
if the concern is that it should be done sparingly, perhaps there can be a "cost" to the "asker".
In some situations where I ask a group of people to vote for something I do not give them one vote each, but rather 5 votes each. I tell them they can allot the votes as a block, or in pieces. This results in a clearer picture when I add up the votes. It also leads to people having a higher sense of ownership in the final outcome.
thank you for considering.

The current software doesn't permit it, so that would be a new feature request.
I don't know whether Stack Exchange developers or product managers read this Meta site, or whether you must post any feature-request on the main http://meta.stackexchange.com site instead.
Beware that I fear that, no matter how good your suggestion is, I think it's unlikely to be accepted for implementation -- see for example my answers to previous feature-request topics:

https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2082/254
https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/314/254
https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1845/254

Let me know if you would be helped by my posting it on the main page. thank you for your (extra-ordinarily prompt! and detailed) reply soft smile - je viens de réaliser que nous sommes deux francophones qui se parlent en anglais ;) c'est comique ! - bonne journée..

De rien ! :-) En fait je suis anglophone, mais mon école primaire était en français et il me semble que ça se voit dans quelques de mes phrases écrites (p. ex. "I fear that" -> "Je crains que").

Je suis francophone, mais j’ai fait toute mon éducation en anglais...  alors... nous sommes les deux côtés de la même médaille. Tu écris très bien en anglais... et l’anglais, langue qui est faite de pièces volées et recycler, pardonne... n’hésite pas...  ton discours est plus important que ton manteau.


text:
Using an answer/response re: boredom
I am writing a book, a memoir and a manual.
In it a plan to discuss the self-sabatoging strategy/experience of boredom as it pertains to exercise adherence.  The first reply here is awesome, was wondering if I can use it, in whole or in part, if so what might it require to do so 'skillfully.'  Thanks so much.
Namaste,
Steven Head

If you want to quote something you find on this site, the license terms are identified here -- Public Network Terms of Service -- see what that says about "Subscriber Content".
I guess you might also perhaps make another/private agreement with the author of the content that you're intersted in, but I don't know what/which answer you were referring to.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can comments removal be delayed till after a period of time?
Firstly, thanks for the thankless work, moderators! I am truly sorry if asking these questions on comments removal create more work and headaches for you. But I would like to clarify a few doubts.

I recall receiving a system prompt upon downvoting a while back. (Sorry, no screenshot and it didn’t appear again subsequently. Maybe it only does so when you first downvoted?) So, I thought the system is kindly reminding us to leave a constructive comment as part of our downvote. It makes sense as it would help to improve the quality of postings if taken positively. Therefore, I had the impression that this is an encouraged thing albeit controversial.
To clarify the tolerance level in buddhism stackexchange. It is a bit confusing as I have seen different treatment in different stackexchange forums. There are some that appears to allow long list of comments (left alone even years later) like this, here and there (I do read many of these comments especially on topics I am interested in to get a range of objective (or not) views. Sometimes, I find it helpful as it helps to shape a more objective and balanced perspective, maybe?
Lastly, why I asked if comments can be removed after a period of time was due to this. As recent postings maybe more actively read (and updated) than older ones. Would it be a good idea to only remove comments for postings after a certain age?

Personally, I will refrain from downvoting if comments are not encouraged. As I am not in the habit of downvoting a post without leaving a reason (as it can be puzzling and confusing). E.g. there were 5 downvotes in a day (Mar 19) for postings in 5 different areas (sometimes, months apart) all without a comment which left me totally clueless.
With Metta.

Therefore, I had the impression that this is an encouraged thing albeit controversial.
You may be right.
OTOH this site has a lot of conventions which aren't common to other SE sites. Many of the users are or were not also users of other SE sites (I'm an exception with some experience of the other sites, which was a reason why someone asked me to help moderate here). So unfortunately you can't assume that what's encouraged elsewhere is encouraged here.
Some of the most notable oddities are:

We're lax about closing questions -- Moderation policies for Questions
Moderators are encouraged not to delete off-topic answers if there's any doubt -- Moderating answers which don't answer the question?
Don't post questions in order to answer them yourself -- May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?

I tried to summarize them here, they're the topics tagged faq:

FAQ index (summary of site policies)

And a few more which explain how moderators behave but which don't have the votes to be considered official FAQs, they're tagged proposed-faq.
It is a bit confusing as I have seen different treatment in different stackexchange forums.
Yeah. They're different.
To the extent that we have trouble with moderation, it's often trouble with comments -- comments along the lines of "your answer's wrong" or "you're wrong" which can upset people after a while.
I too enjoy reading friendly dialog, and wouldn't delete it -- I just don't often see it, users don't seem to make a habit of it here.
The Chat site is empty too, which may be related.
This is a much smaller site -- fewer topics/day, fewer users -- than the others you referenced.
Lastly, why I asked if comments can be removed after a period of time was due to this.
Yes I assumed this might be in reference to that.
So did I already answer your question about comments, there?
In reply to this question:

@ruben2020 Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post is this considered met? Should reasons for downvoting be left in comments as well for reference?

... I answered:

Stack Exchange assumes that people don't want to read a lot of comments.
When a moderator does "move comments to chat" you shouldn't post another comment after that.
As for "comment as a reason for downvoting": maybe not.
If it's a friendly or inquisitive comment then it may be welcome.
If it's a less-than-friendly comment, then maybe -- but be sure it's about the answer (not about the downvote, nor about the user) -- and maybe no more than one comment, occasionally, or it can get to be too much.

Some users might welcome an occasional comment on their answer. Another not so -- and might flag any comment for moderator attention!
And your comments weren't deleted -- they were "moved to chat" (the phrase "Comments have been moved to chat" includes a hyperlink to the chat topic).
More interesting (for others) than a critical comment might be to post a better answer instead.
Would it be a good idea to only remove comments for postings after a certain age?
I often do -- leave it long enough for an active user (who visits the site daily) to have seen it.
Personally, I will refrain from downvoting if comments are not encouraged.
That's respectable/defensible.
There aren't many users who do downvote.
I downvote without a comment sometimes, reasoning, "I'd like to signal that this answer isn't trustworthy -- see Why is voting important? -- but my comment wouldn't be welcome, and be more trouble than it's worth".
E.g. there were 5 downvotes in a day (Mar 19) for postings in 5 different areas (sometimes, months apart) all without a comment which left me totally clueless.
That pattern sounds like "serial downvoting" aka "revenge downvoting" -- i.e. someone doesn't like something you posted, therefore found your past answers and down-voted them too.
It's a known thing on SE i.e. sometimes a topic on the main Meta site.
My advice -- for me, you, every user of this site -- might be to happily ignore any single downvote. It means that someone else (one other person) is having a bad day, not community/consensus opinion of your answer. Two downvotes on an answer are much rarer.

And your comments weren't deleted -- they were "moved to chat". If I am not wrong those chat links become invalid after sometime. Perhaps, I should paraphrase as: Can moving to chat for comments be delayed esp. for postings still in the active or hot list? Sorry if it was not clear and thanks a lot for the clarifications.

If I am not wrong those chat links become invalid after sometime.  I think the chat rooms "freeze" after a while i.e. they become read-only -- but the links and the rooms remain. See https://chat.stackexchange.com/?tab=site&sort=created&nohide=true&host=buddhism.stackexchange.com

Can moving to chat for comments be delayed esp. for postings still in the active or hot list? I don't think that's practical. a) If we want to move comments it's for some reason e.g. because it's annoying someone. b) I don't want to spend time reviewing weeks-old comments threads to see whether there's something to be moved -- instead I'll do it, or not, when it's brought to my attention, which usually means while it's "active".

The process is clearer now after your explanation, thanks. I am currently unable to find an example of links to chat that turned out to be broken but I chanced upon this explanation and it clarifies how things work...even the broken ones. So, all’s clear now.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
New Tag Proposals
As I have noticed we new covering certain areas. If you think we need a perticular tag send it in with a description so it can be created after up voting. Limits one tag proposal per entry so voting can be done.

Tags don't have an independent existence. Questions have tags. If you ask a question, or see a question, which would benefit from the addition of a tag which doesn't currently exist, then add it*. You don't create the tags first.

* If you don't have sufficient rep to add a new tag, then it might be appropriate to post on meta, with a link to your question, asking someone else to add the new tag for you.

I suggest using a tag, only if the tag is going to be applicable to (shared by) more than one question.

Tags which exist only on a single question are occasionally automatically deleted anyway, @ChrisW, so there's no need to worry too much about it.

@nocomprende See the footnote of this answer.

@nocomprende Meta's fine. Be specific. A tag cannot be created out of thin air: ask the question first. Then, on Meta, ask for your new tag to be attached thereto. You should be able to suggest a tag wiki through the tag interface. Failing that, post it as a question here on Meta.


text:
Answers with over-long quotes
Some questions and answers are very long an most of the time just quotations from other sources. With discussions happening in between.
Perhaps it would be better to give the link, citations and reference to the source and keep the Q&A concise. These is no loss of clarity in doing this. Anybody wishing to go to the sources can do so if they desire. Also less distraction in extracting the points out. One benefit (as I see it) of the Q&A format is to the points that matter.
Alternatively the quotations can be moved to footnotes and endnotes. This way the reader who is familiar with the material can skip it while going with the flow of the answer.

E.g. Wikipedia has the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Very_long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lead_too_long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Overly_detailed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TLDR

With regard to clean up. We don't have to go to this extent but perhaps revisit some Q&A when time permits and occasionally do a clean up.

Could you give an example of a question or answer you think is too long?

Perhaps you experience this problem because you're using  a mobile to view the site. On a large (PC-sized) screen it's easy to scroll, and it's clear (from the format and color of the text) what's quoted versus what's original, and where blocks of quoted text begin and end.

Not your answer I had in mind. General observation. As long as it is distilled and you extract the relevant point from any quotation it is OK in my opinion. Idally if you can read and understand skipping the quotes then it is fine as quoting is to support your discussion. Out of curiosity this is the question of your you though I might have referred to?

On any Stack Exchange site it's a good idea to follow guidelines for academic writing. Nobody has to adhere to them exactly, but they should be kept in mind. Guidelines abound, for almost every university has published its own set of best practices in academic writing. I particularly like the University of Toronto's advice on using quotations:

The focus of your essay should be on your understanding of the topic. If you include too much quotation in your essay, you will crowd out your own ideas. Consider quoting a passage from one of your sources if any of the following conditions holds:

The language of the passage is particularly elegant or powerful or memorable.
You wish to confirm the credibility of your argument by enlisting the support of an authority on your topic.
The passage is worthy of further analysis.
You wish to argue with someone else's position in considerable detail.

Quotations can be powerful tools in your answers, and they should be exactly as long as you need them to be--and no longer.
Finally, on a site like Buddhism, it is to be expected that answers are a little longer than we see on many other sites. Questions on sites like Stack Overflow tend to have specific, finite answers. Buddhism SE, on the other hand, falls into a category more similar to Philosophy SE. On sites like these, questions are a little more open-ended and answers demonstrate understanding, explain broader concepts, and indeed may contain opinions that need lengthy defense.
I don't think Buddhism SE has a length problem, but it's never a bad practice to make sure your writing is clear and concise.

The main thing is you should extract the relevant point so the understanding is not affected if you skip the quotes. As you said quotes should be defence and support, not the main content.

Short answer to this question:

Don't merely provide a link to an answer because if the link breaks the answer will be worthless.
You can add a summary to your longer answers (like I've done here).
Do revise and shorten your own answers when appropriate, but don't do this with other people's answers.

Long answer to this question:
Short answers are great, but may not cover all the important aspects of a question. The more difficult the question and the more factors are involved, the longer a good answer will be.
Of course there is a limit. A question can be too complex or broad to discuss properly in a limited amount of words, but those questions should be closed as being too broad.
What I myself sometimes do when I've written a long answer, is to start the answer with a brief summary with the main points of my answer. This way the OP can have his/her detailed answer and other less-interested readers can use that summary to see the main points and then decide whether they are interesting enough to read the full answer.
I think you should be careful with your suggestion to shorten answers and mainly refer to other references. Links tend to break over time and we want an answer to be valuable for a long time. If the linked webpage or document is gone (parts of) an answer can become worthless. That is why it's policy on all StackExchange sites that link-answers are not real answers and why we should encourage users to summarize the contents of a linked page in their own words. The linked page should merely be provided for extra detail for interested readers.
When it comes to other references such as books, the same does apply. A book doesn't go missing like a link, but it may be difficult for people to find the referenced book.
Finally, with respect to doing clean-up; I think it's great if you revise and improve your own answers from time to time, but I don't think it is a good idea to completely revise other people's answers. Small improvements are ok of course, but removing parts of an answer because you yourself feel it is long is a big no.

+1, Generally agree. What I meant not just providing link but extracting the point and providing a link than long quotes followed by a discussion point followed by long quotes / explanation, etc. Also when quoting you have to read the whole quote where the point may need only a phase od sentence as a discussion point which is relevant. By the time you come to the end you are sometimes exhausted / overloaded.

You didn't identify any specific questions with this problem, so I can only answer in general.
I hope that an answer may include:

Some text written by you: your own thoughts in your own words, your answer to the question, even when your thoughts are informed by (are a paraphrase of) some scripture; if you don't do that, and only quote or reference scripture, a reader might not understand how that scripture is relevant to the question
A citation/reference (perhaps a hyperlink) to some relevant scripture; because a good answer doesn't only express your personal opinion (people are trying to ask questions about "Buddhism", not only asking about your own personal opinion)
A quote from the referenced scripture; you don't have to quote the whole scripture, maybe just quote enough of it so that someone who is reading your answer will understand why you referenced that scripture, and how that scripture (or which part of that scripture) is relevant to the question.

In a longer answer, this structure may be repeated; perhaps something like:

Text written by you. This reference says,

Quoted extract from the first reference.

More text. Another reference says,

Quote from the second reference.
Another quote from the second reference.

Further text. Etc...

I suppose the ideal is some kind of middle way between two extremes: the two extremes being 'not quoting at all' and 'quoting everything'.
Quoting some of the scripture is useful:

Readers can see why the scripture is relevant to the question
The scripture's words are a better answer to the question than yours are
A quote within your answer remains even if the reference disappears because of Link rot
The scripture may be long and only a little of it directly relevant to the question; quoting the relevant part identifies which part within the scripture is relevant
It allows people to read and understand your answer in its entirety (including quotes and not just references) without reading the references or before they read the references.

I don't mean this as an invariable rule: some good answers have little or no text, some good answers have a reference but no quote (there are also answers which quote without referencing).
If the OP is suggesting that answers should reference, but need never quote at all, that would be going too far.

I am saying you should quote by all means but should be like a foot note in a book. I.e., towards the end in most cases. If you have 5 lines of quotes, one line discussion 10 lines quotes, 2 lines discussion then it is difficult to fish around for the relevant facts. Also some question are more of a copy and past job than taking the trouble to get the facts / points communicated. I do not want to reference the question as not to create a negative vibe.

Also I have never seen another site which quotes this much. Average answer lengths are shorter. Also, quoting should be to support your claim not the be all and end all.

May be one way would be to push the quotations and explanation towards the end of the write up. Someone needing this can read it it desired. Keep a summary of the relevant points extracted towards the top.

I prefer quotes which are integrated with the answer. It's important (for clarity) to show how and why they're connected to and part of the answer. IMO these quotes should also be no longer than necessary, and less than the whole page being referenced (unless the reference is short e.g. a dictionary definition or a short sutta). The length of the quote affects whether it seems to me to be fair use. If you put one or more references at the end of the answer, in that case maybe links are sufficient with no need to quote them.

My preference is otherwise and I plan to tick to this format when it makes sense to me.


text:
Reopen question on Anapanasati
Following question is marked as too broad but it is not. It asks for additional instructions on Anapana if it is covered else where which is specific and limited to the one question.

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once.

I edited it. Is it a good edit (i.e. do you want to change or roll back that edit before reopening)? Also do you really want the [tag:vipassana] tag on that question? How about deleting that tag and replacing it with a [tag:reference-request] tag?

The editing was good.

I reopened it.


text:
Moderators Promoting One's Own Ego / Agenda than the Benefit of the Site at Large
Moderator ChirsW is exhibiting following behaviors which might be detrimental to the site:

Always has my way or no other way attitude (Most content on Meta is evident of this)
Pays little attention to the opinion of others in many cases (Most content on Meta is evident of this)
Disagrees for the sake of disagreement for show of power and ego (Most content of Meta is evident of this)
Jumps to a decision and stands on the ground regardless of benefit to the site or users, always argue to preserve status quo than weighting benefit the site of the users (Most content of Meta is evident of this)
Always finds clear way to justify initial decision than make the best decision
Total lack of empathy in moderation issues
Inclined to delete content than improve and produce more good quality content (does not play by the same rules or not willing to play by the same rules for own content)
Prone to listen to one set of users than another set of users
Many meta arguments are not based on how it would benefit users or the site
Only accepts options of an inner circle than the community at large, or only when also told by a close associate.
user the opportunity from one slip of word sway arguments

For this reason I feel unless ChrisW amends his ways, something be done about it.

Also for new users on a bit of history how ChrisW came to Mod position. ChrisW was recommended by Ven. Yuttadhammo. At that time ChrisW was supporter of Ven. Yuttadhammo on where I raised issues of asymmetric moderation (more strict on one set of site uses and less strict on another set of site users - posts by one set of moderators being more closely scrutinized while similar quality posts from other were not. Also some of the less closely scrutinized happen to be students of the Ven. Sir), thus gaining the Ven. Sir's trust. My perceived motivation is that he was taken aboard because this would mean Ven Sir would command more support from ChrisW than independent party. Also the thinking would have been, it would be easier working together than have "outsiders"/ independent moderators or people they find easy to work with and implement what they wanted. (By implementing Vetoing of possible moderators they did not like or did not want to work with or even keep power and control in an inner circle) Also the Ven. Yuttadhammo was initially trailing on votes but suddenly picked up on the last few days. Also Ven. Yuttadhammo who could have made the last few votes to get them in as he had many student users on site.

Ven. Yuttadhammo and Lanka are great and I love them both but I think that in this site there is a great issue on moderating.. I can write it in details on the future but this site is certainly a dead site because of a specific person's(I am not giving his name, yet) ego and other personal issues. It is a sad thing really because such a big and wonderful community's site mustn't be in this situation because of a person's specific qualities and mental issues.

In my experience there is some merit to what Suminda says.  It's serious enough that at least one of example calls into question whether the SO network wide discrimination policy was not given proper attention.

I don't believe this post makes a case for much specifically, so I can't endorse it strongly.  However I comment here to lend another voice that has noticed a pattern, and to offer detail and specifics as helpful in the example I mention if there is interest in hearing it.

Please note, it is difficult to reconstruct the example I mention from history because there were many edits and deletions by mods and others as it ran its course.  However, I did a write up at the time in my notes so it would be easier to reconstruct the context at a later date.  I would be glad to discuss everything transparently and provide full context if at least one independent mod would find it useful to participate.  Without at least one independent party from SO listening, it can be impractical to make a case against a mod in there own backyard.

Last comment - I meant no suggestion here that other mods are biased or part of any problem.  Only that having a mod from another site or from SO could avoid any potential conflict of interest.  And for the record, I don't know Suminda and have no history with him or others involved. I have no vested interest in any outcome.

@whitneyland If you want to say something, please do -- e.g. about moderation or about a moderator, and/or a suggestion to improve the site. If you do that by posting a new topic on Meta, then all moderators are notified automatically (that a new meta-topic has started). Also the site keeps a history of all edits -- see e.g. here -- if you want to discuss the edit history of a specific topic.

Your opinions about ChrisW is 100% right. Thank you. It is possible that your opinions can change in time, which is ok. but this article(about ChrisW) is really valuable and really represents the truth. But it seems like this site works this way, so it's not a big deal, but it is good to know the facts.

100% agree with this (including Dhammadathu). We are here to share the experiences of buddhism. And its a main thing that buddha didnt wrote any book. So there are lots of mis interpretations. When I'm worried of answering (as I don't want down votes from someone who didn't realize what I said) I added a comment and guided the questioner on some direction. Now these moderators have started deleting those as well.

I find what you are doing to the site troublesome.

I think I do very little to the site. Most of my activity (including editing other people's posts) is as a user, not as a moderator.
Users (the community) have told me e.g. here and here that they don't want much moderation and so I don't give them much. As one recent example, I posted this comment instead of deleting the answer.
After the "Moderation policies for Questions" were defined, there were a few further topics about moderation of questions (e.g. here and here), but no consensus (i.e. a vote from several users) that the existing policy be changed (and so the status quo continues).
In this question, which I think is what triggered this current meta-topic, Lanka closed the question. I didn't choose to close it (especially given that Dhammadhatu had proven able to answer it), nevertheless I also found Lanka's decision justifiable and and I didn't want to contradict him. My experience with teams makes me inclined to feel that often any decision is better than no decision, so if and when Lanka makes a good decision then I'd need good/compelling reason to undo it (and I didn't have that reason). After you edited the question, after other users voted to reopen it, then I had good reason to vote too, to reopen it, and I did.
I feel I'm hardly "doing" anything "to the site" at all, except participating as a user and (as you said) "justifying the status quo" on Meta.
In this comment you wrote that it should have been reopened sooner (or that it should never have been closed). Be careful what you wish for: the site cannot please everyone, we already had helpful users leave for various reasons. If you did enact a policy that no question is ever closed, then whatever quality standards (and benefit) we have now might deteriorate further.
A close-improve-reopen cycle is normal, built-in to the StackExchange system -- it's how the system works, it's what SE's experience (with other SE sites) tells us does work. If you find the site helpful you should consider allowing it to continue to function as it's designed to.

You are not flexible, you only selectively listen to some people

I try to listen to everyone, and to obey a "quorum" of users. This topic for example was me trying to define a consensus between four users (including me), i.e. everyone who chose to participate in the topic.
If it's only you and me disagreeing, and I do nothing but allow the status quo to continue, I don't think that's necessarily me "failing to benefit the site at large". That's just you and me, having sightly different opinions on a boundary-case.

you more often try to reserve status quo than take a different action

I think that's true.

My initial job was to understand the status quo, i.e. learn everything that everyone had written on Meta
My next job (as an experienced Stack Exchange user) was to explain the status quo, e.g. to explain to users of this site how other Stack Exchange sites work (how they're governed and moderated, how they're used, what they're for, what they're not for, what people can and can't do, what's normal)
My next job was to define what the status quo ought to be for this site (by discussing that and reaching various consensus with quorums of users)
Now I think my job is to help implement the status quo (e.g. to moderate or not moderate more-or-less as agreed in the various moderation policies), and to continue to explain the status quo (e.g. moderation policies) to people who find them questionable

I also try to support users' rights to do things they're allowed to do, and to protect them from things I'm supposed to protect them from (abuse, low-quality posts, hostility), etc.
My doing that includes supporting other moderators (i.e. their responsibility to make decisions about moderation).
Sometimes I disagree with other moderators; if or when that happens you won't see it (because that will happen in a private chat room), so don't be surprised if it seems as if we always tend to agree.

Also risking of decremental user experience (not being flexible) as not all Buddhists are from english speaking countries.

I hope I'm not seen as hostile to non-English-speaking users. I often edit posts, that I understand and which are written in slightly imperfect English, because I hope that "perfect English" is easier for everyone (especially non-English users) to understand. I imagine someone trying to read the post using Google Translate, which isn't good at translating any mis-spelled words etc.
In this question I didn't really understand the question well enough to edit it. I thought the question was too short. Actually, like Lanka, I thought it was missing the actual question (that it was statements rather than a question).
I also thought that it was a basic question. There are already 200 topics on th subject of rebirth and anatman -- I wasn't sure that we needed another, nor how to answer it.

Perhaps this can be deleted since high reputation users can see it any way if it needs revisiting.

I don't really want to censor you. If you want to self-censor (i.e. stop complaining) that's OK with me, but this kind of thing is more-or-less on-topic for Meta (although time-consuming and possibly a duplicate of previous topics like this one or this one). The ideal would be for us to reach some consensus, agreement, understanding, or at least agree to disagree.
Meta is for all users not just high-reputation users (though I hope I try extra hard to accommodate high-reputation users, partly because they've proven valuable to the site and partly because they should have acquired enough experience with the site to know what they're talking about).

I am hoping others will chime in when improvements can be made or not in agreement.

Another reason to leave this topic open, then. Or a "chat" room is another way to discuss things.

I disagree. Chris could have banned me for being rude but he didn't and  I'm grateful. I'm sorry to say this Suminda but I think you have actually dipslayed some of those behaviours yourself. I have brushed up against you a couple of times because I have found your views to be very rigid and lacking empathy.

This site is certainly a dead site. And I little bit mentioned about it as a comment under the question

In this question, which I think is what triggered this current meta-topic, Lanka closed the question. I didn't choose to close it (especially given that Dhammadhatu had proven able to answer it), nevertheless I also found Lanka's decision justifiable and and I didn't want to contradict him. My experience with teams makes me inclined to feel that often any decision is better than no decision, so if and when Lanka makes a good decision then I'd need good/compelling reason to undo it (and I didn't have that reason). After you edited the question, after other users voted to reopen it, then I had good reason to vote too, to reopen it, and I did.

Once the questions was edited and @Lanka was seaming to reopen after edits you brought the argument to keep it closed what ever justification you had, is not done, in this kind of circumstances. It was also evident the user's English was not be best. This would have created a barrier. It should have been edited in the 1st place than put on hold.

I try to listen to everyone

You seem to listen to selected group. In the example you had given are from the people you tend to listen.
Can you say the same for suggestions by me, MatthewMartin, Theravada, Uuu, Sankha Kulathantille, soulsings, Ahmed, Saptha Visuddhi (Not limited to Meta discussion and comments.)
Also you cannot generalise one instance which you did this to all instances, especially users you tent to listen to. This also comes to the issue you listen to select group of users and this reinforces it.

The ideal would be for us to reach some consensus, agreement, understanding,

Well what I want is:

do what is equitable and fair
set personal standards higher than you preach

duplicate of previous topics like this one or this one).

2 different instances cannot be duplicates. Say a person commits theft and repeats, these are 2 different crimes, not a duplicate of the previous.
Final takeaway from this what are your personal weaknesses? Have you identified them correctly? How are you going to improve on them? You do not have to post the answer for this here, but time will tell is there is an improvement.

you wrote that it should have been reopened sooner (or that it should never have been closed). Be careful what you wish for: the site cannot please everyone, we already had helpful users leave for various reasons. If you did enact a policy that no question is ever closed, then whatever quality standards (and benefit) we have now might deteriorate further.

I am not saying no questions should be closed. I am saying if when there is 1 or more answers, when there are different viewpoints, better option is to keep if open and try to accommodate, if duplicate transfer the answers to the other question and marked as duplicate without stub hangin, if the answers are also low quality delete all or in some cases lock all if deleting is not appropriate. If not do what is fair and equitable in the situation.
Please stop saying I said this and that when I have not!!!

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Sorry you find this (or find me) troublesome, Suminda.
You say that part of the problem is that I "pay no attention", and "disagree (for show of power)", and lack empathy ... and I think you're saying that I post too much on Meta. So I feel some doubt about whether my posting more on Meta now and here might do any good, and is what you want of me?
Is there something you want me to post, on Meta, or in chat? Any question[s] you want to ask me?
Are there old "decisions" that you'd like to see reversed? Or do you have any new policy to propose?
Would you like to read my version/view of the "history how ChrisW came to Mod position" (or would that be just more "ego" and "agenda")? Would you like me to try to explain (again) what I think my role as moderator is; maybe what I think my "strengths" and "weaknesses" might be as moderator?
I've posted about 200 times on Meta. Do you really disagree with "Most content on Meta"? Or is it just a few specific topics that are bothering you, that aren't resolved to your satisfaction?
I'm also worried that this ("ad hominem") type of conversation could occasion some negative feelings with other people (users or moderators). For that reason I could forget, ignore, not reply to, and and/or delete this topic, if that's appropriate; but is it something that you want to talk about, with me? Or, with other users? Or other moderators, Lanka (and me) for example; or, from the Stack Exchange team?

Your concerns about fairness are valid. However you say you could delete this topic if you decided to, but you should absolutely not be allowed to do so. The concerns are important, but if action to delete is necessary it should be done by peers, even if by your request, with your abstention. I'm surprised you don't see that course would be most beneficial to you.  Otherwise it leaves possible exposure to the appearance of impropriety with no way to ever prove it was done with good intentions.

You're right: it is normal, and pretty well a rule, to abstain from e.g. deleting complaints about oneself.

It doesn't take much consideration to conclude this post should be dismissed, even for a person new to the community.  I think it's sufficient to see that:
1) The accusations made are serious, while the evidence provided is weak.  In fact we can prove the premises wrong quite simply.  To take one example:

Statement: Total lack of empathy in moderation issues.
Disproof: I have had one issue moderated by Chris with empathy
therefore your accusation of "total" lack of empathy is false.
Consider: "all swans are white". One black swan is enough to refute this thus disproof by counter example. For more see formal explanation.

2) The tone is vindictive, not mindful, not right speech. I don't mean to suggest you are a bad person or not to be trusted, rather it seems appropriate to let this state of mind pass before productive discussion can continue.
edit: Over time through other means I've come to agree with aspects of the original post as mentioned in other comments.  For clarity, I have not changed my opinion on this answer.  There's a high bar for this type of post and whenever necessary, they should be made without emotion and with concrete and specific points.
I believe that it should be handled independently and objectively with the better detail and cogency, or probably not allowed to stand at all, unless it can move past simple opinions toward a more proper environment and more open airing.

In 2019 this site is certainly a joke because of a "person". Either this site's administration has to fix the situation or someone else would talk the situation with details(maybe very soon) that would instantly clean the site.

@Murathan1 and whiteyland -- I don't understand your recent comment. Would you talk about the situation (with details)? Would you do that here (using comments and/or public chat and/or in a new meta-topic), or would you prefer to use a private chat room (whether with me or with another moderator)?

Sorry you find this (or find me) troublesome, Suminda.

I find what you are doing to the site troublesome. When new users come to the site they need to learn the ropes. E.g. other also feel the new user experiance is not ideal: Wouldn't it be better to use a soft approach with newbies on this SE?
Also when users see double standards they might silently leave.
Also you have to find a way to be fair to the sites users where you do not do the same mistakes (and also be adamant not to correct them) when you have made the type of mistakes you generally moderate when another user does the same or you had happened in the past. The users should feel the mods are leading by example than there are 2 standards.

Would you like me to try to explain (again) what I think my role as moderator is

My expectation is that it should be fair and equitable to all, not to abuse one's mod powers, make new users feel welcome. I hope you also share this ethos on what a moderator should be.

and I think you're saying that I post too much on Meta.

I did not say this. What I have said is you exhibit traits which are not in the best interest of the users of the site. You are not flexible, you only selectively listen to some people, you more often try to reserve status quote than take a different action, etc.

I'm also worried that this ("ad hominem") type of conversation ...

I am worried too about whose hands this site is in and the experience of new and existing users. You are not doing the right thing. E.g. you said to keep this question closed by someone whose 1st language is not English and possibly needs help to make it proper English is shocking to me. At the expense of the new user you wanted to keep the question closed to preserve the status quo and perhaps to show the new user who the boss is or you are reluctant to change past decision because of ego. Also risking of decremental user experience (not being flexible) as not all Buddhists are from english speaking countries.
Also your traits are personal. So if they are to be criticised they should be at a personal level. The role of moderator inherits these traits depending on who is in the position. So personal traits matter.

For that reason I could forget, ignore, not reply to, and and/or delete this topic, if that's appropriate

Perhaps this can be deleted since high reputation users can see it any way if it needs revisiting. (Does this go for Meta also?) This is if you think you have to do something like deleting it. If not better it stays.

Do you really disagree with "Most content on Meta"?

It is most recent content on meta.

Or, with other users? from the Stack Exchange team?

I am hoping others will chime in when improvements can be made or not in agreement.
Ultimately you need to get good advice and you have to be humble enough to take it.
Also if you are not acting in the best interest of even one single user how ever minor the issue might be, I am hoping others will chime in and press you to make amends. It is always best that many do this than a few. Also it is always best to leave a comment on your disatifaction than silently leaving the site.

Are there old "decisions" that you'd like to see reversed? Or do you have any new policy to propose?

Mainly be fair and equitable and do what you preach. This can be formulated more elaborately.
Always keep in mind for a user especially a new users their initial question and contributions does matter. Many not be familiar with SE/SO model hence they should be educated before anything drastic.

maybe what I think my "strengths" and "weaknesses" might be as moderator?

What is important is that your weaknesses disappear over time. This should be continuous improvement.

Your opinions about ChrisW is 100% right. I had a conversation with him few minutes ago and his behaviour and approach to things really shocked me(sorry my English is bad). At first I thought he was a great moderator but it seems like really "shocking" things are happening in the internet world and as a result we have these "wonderful personalities" as moderators. And these people never leaves their "chairs". It seems like the politicians in the country that I live in. When they sit, they never leave and they generally don't have admirable personalities. Which is fine. If this site works this way, it's ok. I can write all of the crazy things that happening in this site and other sites but unfourtunately I don't have that deep desire to destroy things. Maybe later LOL
Note: To make this site better we need "moderators" instead of "big egos". And there are countless of people here that can do this job way better than Chris.


text:
How do you delete a moderator's answer?
Moderators take liberty to delete answers which they deem "it is not an answer" to a question. There are times when the moderators also do the same. If this is flagged it goes back to the moderator for moderation. Hence how do you report or flag such instances where moderators do not adhere to what they try to enforce?

Except where unreasonable, I don't think moderators will handle flags to their own posts... we do have more than one moderator, after all.

It hink here it is a gross mis-interpretation of the role of the administrator. Of course for any user it is possible to misinterpret a question or even happen to answer and sliding apart the intention of a question. And then one might even harshly criticize this as an "inappropriate" or "low level" answer and ignoring the faithful labor of intended help (which we should always assume if no openly reason is there for the assumption of destructivity or spam). But to connect this with the accidental "moderator" role is likely going to take away the basis for any moderator's engagement at all.

Flag, upvote/downvote, comment on, or edit the post as you would a post by any other user.
Moderators are instructed not to handle flags on their own posts, so your flag will be reviewed by one of the other moderators. This is one of the main reasons we insist that each new public beta site start with three moderators. Therefore you can simply flag the post for moderator attention and be confident that it will be handled by a third party.
Downvotes, comments, and edits are all perfectly acceptable on posts by site moderators as with any other post. Moderators' role is not to be the best answerers or the users who are always right; it is simply to help handle exceptions and resolve disputes. Their posts should not be judged as true or correct based on the diamond next to their name - they should be judged by their content, like all other posts.

I think more than anything, here and elsewhere a moderator needs to be level-headed, slow to anger and not given to trends, schemes, and flights of fancy. Their familiarity with the source material needs be as that of an editor of an academic journal -- certainly not unfamiliar but not necessarily a world expert either.

How to flag
If you think it needs to be flagged, then flag it by clicking on the flag link.
When to flag
If you think that an answer is a low quality answer, then you should down-vote it instead of flagging it.
If I look at the answer which I think you're complaining about I think it would be wrong to claim that this is "not an answer".
Perhaps it's not the answer you hoped for, and perhaps it doesn't help you; but that's not a reason to flag it.
"Flagging" is rarely necessary, except for posts from new users who haven't learned how to use the site. The "it is not an answer" flag is usually used for:

Questions (someone posts a new question or a follow-on question as an answer, which should be posted as a new question, or posted as a comment, or perhaps edited into the existing question)
Comments (if someone only posts "this question can't be answered" or "I don't understand this question", then that should be posted as a comment instead of as an answer)
Indecipherable (either completely unintelligible, or obviously completely unrelated to to the question)

Usually downvote instead of flagging
In general if any experienced user post an answer which you simply don't think is helpful, then you should downvote it.

The downvote is for "This answer is not useful"
The flag is for "This is not an answer"

Instead of flagging, perhaps you should simply downvote more?

I see you have made 300 upvotes and 5 downvotes (and 10 flags).
In contrast I've done 700 upvotes and 70 downvotes (and 20 flags), a lot more downvotes than you: the downvotes are where I'm thinking, "this is an answer but not a good answer, I disagree with this answer". Of course, when you downvote you should also ideally post a comment to explain the way in which you think that answer needs to be improved.

Theoretically you can delete any answer (irrespective of author) in the same way, i.e. as follows.

Please see Why and how are some answers deleted? in the Help Center.
There is, also, a faq topic on meta.stackexchange titled How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean? What are the criteria for deletion?.
The answer to that says,

Users with reputation >= 20k (more precisely, the “trusted user” privilege; 4k on beta sites) are not subject to the 48-hour waiting period for deleting closed questions with a score of -3 or lower. They may also delete answers of score -1 or lower. It takes three votes to delete an answer.

Six users with reputation >= 2k (more precisely, the “Edit Questions And Answers” privilege; 1k on beta sites) can cause automatic deletion of a post if they choose "recommend deletion" from within the low quality review queue.

The privilege levels are lower on a beta site, so with 4000+ reputation you are already a "trusted user". So you can vote to delete answers which have a score of -1 or lower (i.e. answers which have more downvotes than upvotes) and/or vote to delete answers which are listed in the 'low quality review' queue.


text:
Can you keep "you" out of hostile comments?
Here's a transcript of comments under this answer:

This answer make sutta conflict themselves although the sutta never conflict in this case. If you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in [Sakkāyasutta][6], Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ][5], which has both sakko and paro. – Bonn 9 hours ago
No. This is unrelated to what i posted. Just because there is external kaya does not mean 'sakkaya ditthi' refers to external kaya. 'Sakkaya' is not found in MN 10 therefore your idea sounds very wrong & mistaken – Dhammadhatu 7 hours ago
If you can not compare between Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta, and MN 10 then mix it together, it means you have not enough skill to describe sakkāya-diṭṭhi. – Bonn 7 hours ago
I just read someone refuting your mistakes on Dhammawheel. If you wish to debate, you should post there & not here. On Dhammawheel, i have never observed once your posts not shown to be wrong. – Dhammadhatu 6 hours ago
No one refuting me in Dhammawheel, they trying to understand what I am describing. They are not like you, don't decide them like that.dhammawheel.com/… – Bonn 6 hours ago
Also, you can debate me. So if you can do, why I can not act like you? – Bonn 6 hours ago
This forum is not for debating. – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago
On DW, someone told you sakkaya is not kayanupassana because sakkaya is dhammanupassana, – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago
Even though your quote still be uneducated debate. I wrote "Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ". Saccapabba is in dhammānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna, not kāyānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna. I wrote right, he read wrong, what I can do? – Bonn 5 hours ago
Also, Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta which I comparing to MN10 is talking about sacca-pabba in dhammānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna. Why he refer to kāyānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna? – Bonn 5 hours ago
So your quote trying to distort my answer. Why? Because you love to debate, not to understand. – Bonn 5 hours ago

I have highlighted:

Phrases where someone comments on "you" instead of on the text
Phrases which are a reply to a comment about you.

So,

Don't you think the discussion would be better without "you"?
Could you try to avoid criticising "you" in future, and stick to the text?

Also what should a moderator do with comments like these?

Pretend to ignore that it seems partially hostile?
Delete everything?
Move it all to chat?
Edit specific comments and delete others?

It's work but moderators are able to edit comments --

See When should moderators edit comments?
But see also Modifying comments which shows that even a small edit can confuse people.

Voted up by agreement :)


text:
Should I edit spam as well as flag it?
If I see spam posted as an answer, I should flag it for moderator attention/deletion.
Should I also edit it, to hide the spammy text?

Removing spam/abusive text before a question/answer is deleted can affect the automated spam/abuse detection (users will not flag it as spam/abusive). See Should Spam posts be edited?.

There are SE people who run a network 'bot which looks for spam.
They advise me that it's enough to flag it, and that it isn't necessary to also edit it.

Is it OK to edit obvious spam to break links?
Should spam posts be edited?

It is in fact preferable to not edit it, since edits open the post up to rollbacks, and rollbacks can undo flagging and delay the time until the spam post gets eliminated.


text:
Are "Where can I buy X" questions allowed?
Can we post questions like, "Where can I get X?", where "X" is something like a cushion, a singing bowl, or a statuette?

"Shopping" questions are discouraged on Stack Exchange, partly because they attract spam, and partly because answers may become obsolete after some years.
On this site we have allowed questions about where to find teachers, groups, retreats, etc.
But perhaps we shouldn't allow questions about where to buy various things. We have already, in the past, had some spam (unsolicited commercial communication).
See also Why are “shopping list” questions bad? on the network meta for all Stack Exchange sites.

Questions like "what is the name of this Buddha or Bodhisattva or Dharma Protector?" referring to statues or pictures is OK. The intention is to identify the statue or picture.
But asking "where can I buy this statue or picture?"  is not allowed under the guidelines.


text:
Posting links in answers
What are the rules or guidelines about posting links -- especially in answers?

"Must"

Don't link to the top-level page (the home page) of a web site.
For example, the following would be an example of a bad link:

You can find an answer to your question on http://example.com

In contrast, this link (to a specific page or topic of a web site) is helpful:

For more on this topic, see http://example.com/specific-topic

Links must be relevant to the OP's specific question.
For example, the following would an example of a bad link (see also Answers vs Advice):

You can find your own answers to every question by following the instructions at http://example.com/meditation

Another example of a bad link (because this kind of link is used to advertise web sites):

By the way, you can also post this or any other question at http://example.com

"Should"

Include the title of the linked page in the hyperlink.
For example, instead of a link like http://example.com/specific-topic post a link like Specific Topic i.e. [Specific Topic](http://example.com/specific-topic)
These (better-formatted) links are easier to read, help to tell the reader (the title of) what is being linked to, and may make it easier to fix the link if the URL changes in future.
For the same reason, instead of a link [like this](http://example.com/specific-topic) we may prefer a link like this: [Specific Topic](http://example.com/specific-topic).
Include a quote from the linked page.
For example:

It says at https://meta.stackoverflow.com/tags/link-only-answers/info that

A link to a potential solution is always welcome, but please add context around the link so your fellow users will have some idea what it is and why it’s there. Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline.

An answer should be more than only a hyperlink.
At a minimum, see also "Include a quote from the linked page" above; or add a sentence to summarise what you're linking to.
Disclose if you're connected with (e.g. if you're the author or administrator of) the site you're linking to.
The following is a simple example of how to comply with this:

For further details, see my article at http://example.com/specific-topic.

See also How to not be a spammer.

Exceptions
There are rare (very few) exceptions to the above guidelines.

You may link to another Stack Exchange site, in a comment.
For example, you might comment, "You can also ask questions about visas on [travel.se]."
Some few questions specifically invite links to web sites.
For example:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Where can one find guidance from a teacher next year in 2018?

You may include some links (or almost anything else) in your user profile; but not in every answer.
See also "Do not use signature, taglines, or greetings" on this page: What kind of behavior is expected of users?

+1 Big emphasis on quoting, a good rule of thumb is asking yourself would this answers content still answer the question if the link lead to a 404 page not found?