12

There's been a very unpopular sacking of a very popular moderator on Stack Exchange, and it seems that "about 35 moderators have either resigned in protest or gone on strike in relation to the chain of events".

Was this the reason for the recent loss of at least one EL&U moderator?

  • 4
    Wait did we lose a ELU moderator this week? Who? – Laurel Oct 4 at 18:35
  • There is a list of users and mods that have resigned or been fired at SO "Firing Mods and... – Cascabel Oct 4 at 19:00
  • 1
    I see MetaEd is no longer on the list. He was elected in 2016, I believe the last election when we also got tchrist. But he hasn’t been active in a while and I doubt his departure is due to the event brouhaha. – Dan Bron Oct 4 at 19:14
  • @Laurel I recalled MetaEd from the last mod elections but I wasn't sure whether there were any others who stepped away. I'm pretty sure MetaEd was still a mod the last time I saw anything from him prior to me posting this question. The mods might feel that they are in a difficult position. As a casual user, I am glad that we still have the remaining EL&U mods. Some communities have been left without any. – Lawrence Oct 5 at 10:15
  • 7
    If any mods are reading this - thank you for your efforts in this community. Regardless whether the hierarchy appreciates you and your work, we of the community certainly do. – Lawrence Oct 5 at 10:22
  • 6
    @Lawrence I've seen zero participation from EL&U mods during the storm. The only voices have been from Colleen (who's changed her username in sign of protest) and J.R. both ELL mods. The mods on EL&U have done and said nothing about Monica Cellio, have said nothing about the appropriacy of the singular they, have said nothing about invasive ads, have said nothing about anything . They's not even signed the moderators' formal letter to SE. Free world and free will but I will not be congratulating any of them. – Mari-Lou A Oct 7 at 6:17
  • 5
    @Mari-LouA The storm seems to be entirely of the management’s making. While the issue appears cut and dried in Monica’s favour morally, it might not be so simple for those not directly involved. At least one or two mods from other communities who resigned in protest requested and were granted reinstatement not long afterwards. That hints at the complexity of balancing support for Monica with support for the rank and file. ... – Lawrence Oct 7 at 6:53
  • 4
    How does any of that justify the non-participation in any of the discussions? I'm not suggesting in the slightest that any of the mods should have added their name on the meta post which you linked in your post. I'm saying where were they when the other SE moderators composed a formal letter to the management. If you don't know what I am talking about, pop round to meta and see for yourself. The carefully worded composition, as I understood it, took a number of days. I checked again, and I do not see not one EL&U mod's name in the signatures. – Mari-Lou A Oct 7 at 6:58
  • 2
    ... In the last EL&U elections, tchrist and MetaEd were the runaway favourites, but I was a front-runner among the rest. Had I been voted in as a mod, I’m pretty sure I’d be supporting Monica now, but I can’t say it would have been by resigning or via activism. The whole mess has been trying for all involved, I think, and with this piled on top of all the other messes that went before, I’m thankful that mods like Kit, Matt and tchrist haven’t just pulled up stumps. This isn’t a zero-sum game; we can show appreciation for our mods while we are barracking for Monica. – Lawrence Oct 7 at 6:58
  • I will not be posting a link to the aforementioned letter on Meta.SE because users, and especially the mods, can find it for themselves. – Mari-Lou A Oct 7 at 6:59
  • (Apologies for the gap between the two parts of my comment. It was too long to fit into a single comment box, and my phone silently deleted the part I cut and tried to paste.) – Lawrence Oct 7 at 7:04
  • 5
    @Mari-LouA There were more discussions than the ones you have seen. The situation is more complicated than it seems from the public statements. I assure you that the EL&U mods have discussed what has happened (and what continues to happen) and how we feel about it, and we've made collective decisions based on what we feel is best for our community. – Kit Z. Fox Oct 7 at 13:20
  • 4
    @KitZ.Fox If I make snap judgements but I try not to, it's because I don't see anything that suggests the EL&U mods discussed these issues, the firing of Monica Cellio, LGBTQ rights, the correct use of pronouns, invasive ads, copyright licence etc, etc. nor any evidence that they continue to discuss what the future of SE might have in store. In the meantime, has anyone signed the moderators' letter since I last asked? – Mari-Lou A Oct 7 at 13:27
  • 3
    No, and I didn't know it had been posted either. The shortest answer to why you haven't seen those discussions here is that Meta.SE is the best place to discuss what is happening and what we would like to see happen. – Kit Z. Fox Oct 7 at 14:03
12

No. Two moderators lost their diamonds (MetaEd and Waiwai933) because they have not been active (in moderator terms) for more than 6 months. This is the standard practice, and is completely unrelated to the turmoil elsewhere.

I think I can safely say, the EL&U mod team was sad to see the diamonds go, but we understand that SE need to enforce the rules.

I can't say what caused the two mods to have to reprioritise their mod/life balance, but I hope everything is getting better.

  • 2
    Thanks for filling us in on this. – Lawrence Oct 5 at 16:05
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA The policy itself has been around for more than five years, however SE were not rigorous in enforcing it. They've been active in enforcing it for about two years. I think Simchona was inactive for quite a while longer than 6 months! – Matt E. Эллен Oct 9 at 9:35
  • I deleted my comment as soon as I realized that the policy was already in place in 2014, it was in a comment by WaiWai933. I didn't see your reply otherwise I would have left the comment up. – Mari-Lou A Oct 9 at 13:17
3

It looks like MetaEd is no longer on the list (which was news to me until just now), but I haven't seen any indication that the absence is related to the recent controversy.

While I don't think this particular absence is anything to be worried about specifically, I'm honestly surprised there's been no meta discussion here of the changes and proposed upcoming CoC so far—something that we may need to be worried about.

While Monica was a moderator of Writing.SE (and other sites), and there's been a lot of discussion about that there—as well as about all of its remaining moderators quitting or stepping back in protest, I would have thought the issue of the use of pronouns would have been a hot topic, both in this meta and at ELL's (which has had nothing posted to it the last time I checked).

  • I have been essentially absent from here in over a week, but it's unrelated to any of this. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Oct 5 at 1:16
  • If you look at his profile pages, he hasn't visited in a few months. – Mitch Oct 5 at 14:59
  • 7
    To the extent that the impending revised CoC goes beyond telling moderators what they should not under any circumstances say, and ventures instead to tell them what they must say, I think it's overreaching and asking for trouble. I wouldn't want to be a moderator on those terms. – Sven Yargs Oct 6 at 2:12
  • 1
    @SvenYargs before jumping to conclusions we should wait to actually see what the reformed CoC will be. A draft is expected sometime later today (Monday). – Mari-Lou A Oct 7 at 6:13
  • @SvenYargs There is a contingent that argues avoiding using pronouns at all so that you can write in a gender-neutral way after someone has told you what their pronouns are is a violation of the current CoC. Monica expressing that she was opposed to the CoC being rewritten to explicitly include having to use someone’s pronouns, and saying it in a way some people found hurtful, was the supposed violation she was demodded for – ColleenV Oct 7 at 18:52
  • @ColleenV - Ah. I had understood that some thought it was a violation of the upcoming revised CoC. Okay. Can you help me understand which part of the existing CoC would come into play according to that contingent? – aparente001 Oct 8 at 4:32
  • 2
    @aparente001 They think it’s bigotry to avoid using someone’s pronouns as far as I can tell. – ColleenV Oct 8 at 9:10
  • @ColleenV - I see, thanks. It says, "No bigotry. We don't tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion -- and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don't." Hmm.. – aparente001 Oct 8 at 17:25
  • 1
    You can try to remove various religious/social/etc. views from the pronoun situation and check it against the then-current CoC by considering whether it's ok for you to continue to call me, as a cis male, "they" after you find out I prefer to be called "he" instead of "they." Would continuing to do that be considered a violation of the previous CoC, or do I just need to suck it up and live with being referred to (alone) as "they"? (I don't know the answer to this, but it's an exactly parallel situation AFICS.) – Curt J. Sampson Oct 16 at 2:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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