1

this question Source localization on a laptop has been self (auto ?) vandalized by it's author.

What would you consider the appropriate action ?

I have been thinking of editing back to the last valid version, but that seems problematic :

  • the OP could edit again (endless edit war)
  • the OP might never accept an answer, leaving (one more) orphan question
  • the OP might have a valid reason to delete the question for personal reasons

So I would actually be inclined to delete the question as it is now probably lost as a valid question.

What are your feelings ?

edit

As I was writing, @Zoe has edited it back

/edit

5

When something is posted anywhere in the SE network, the poster grants SE a non-revokable license (CC BY-SA 3). The appropriate action to take is roll back and tell the poster not to vandalize their own posts. Should they not listen and decide to vandalize it again (whether a rollback or a new edit), mod flag the post instead of ending up in a rollback war.

There's no specific need to mod flag the post the first time it's been vandalized, but if the user rolls back/re-vandalizes it. See this post on meta.SE:

There's not really any reason to flag a one-time occurrence, though. Vandalism of multiple posts, or continued rollbacks on the same post, will be automatically flagged for moderator attention by the Community user and action will be taken.

The terms of service also cover the licensing:

You agree that any and all content, [...] you provide to the public Network (collectively, "Subscriber Content"), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC-BY-SA), and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by you as reasonably necessary to, [...]


If it's an attempt to delete, it's also a good idea to leave a comment telling the OP vandalizing the post is not the correct way to delete it. The exception here is if it's a question with upvoted answers; it can't be deleted by OP.

  • So what would be the mean by which the OP could have the post deleted ? Should he-she vote to close ? – audionuma May 14 '18 at 14:29
  • Some times the vandalism is because OP wants to delete the post after posting. If it's a question, OP wanting to delete it does not give grounds to close and/or delete it if the question is otherwise valid. if it's an answer, it can be deleted at any time (questions can't be deleted if it has one or more upvoted answers) – Zoe May 14 '18 at 14:30
  • @audionuma - the post doesn't belong to the user, they licensed it. If it is useful content it will not be deleted, especially if others have added to it. What they are allowed to do is request that their posts be disassociated from their account if they don't want to be associated with the post. – AJ Henderson May 15 '18 at 2:08
  • 1
    Ultimately though, the big thing is hand it off to mods as soon as possible. Don't worry about getting in to a rollback war. Mods can take corrective actions such as locking the post or blocking users from making edits if needed. We can also assist with account deletion or getting posts annonymyized if there is a concern there. – AJ Henderson May 15 '18 at 2:17
0

It looks like an accidental edit - phone in pocket in edit mode, toddler got hold of the phone/laptop.

I'd say it should be restored to last valid state. If he wanted it deleted it would probably say so.

  • Hello. Not sure about it. The edit history shows that the OP has come twice to vandalize it. – audionuma May 14 '18 at 6:37
  • Ah, missed that - yeah that looks strange. Still doesn't look intentional to me, I mean he commented and did several other valid edits. – Michael Hansen Buur May 14 '18 at 6:58
  • @MichaelHansenBuur The OP reverted it twice and rejected fix proposals, and have been warned. Doing it again just shows it is intentional, whether or not the stuff up to that point have been constructive or not. – Zoe May 14 '18 at 13:04
  • Yeah, you're probably right. Weird thing to do. – Michael Hansen Buur May 15 '18 at 6:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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