After the discussion in Should I add the self-study tag to a question that is copy-pasted from a book? it seems the status quo is to not add the tag without the author consent.

I'm facing an edit like that right now. If I were to deny it (I won't, I'm skipping, that would be leakage on my part), what reason should I present?

  • spam or vandalism
  • no improvement whatsoever
  • clearly conflicts with author's intent
  • attempt to reply
  • causes harm
| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see that as the status quo at all. My answer saying that adding self-study is fine in some circumstances is currently the most upvoted one. The second most upvoted one is Silverfish'es answer who also wrote that it's okay (in particular circumstances). There is not a single answer claiming that it's never okay (even though some people said it in the comments). $\endgroup$ – amoeba Oct 17 '16 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba It's surely far from consensus, but it's still the status quo imo, as it's based on endorsement from previous threads at meta. $\endgroup$ – Firebug Oct 17 '16 at 23:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Heh? Which other threads? All other threads on Meta that I saw unequivocally say that it is sometimes allowed to add [self-study]. I cited some of these older threads in my answer. In the previous thread you wrote yourself that it was a "consensus". $\endgroup$ – amoeba Oct 17 '16 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba That's semantics, really, I don't overthink my posts, I have better things to invest my time. Fact is, self-study even mentions we shouldn't add the tag if there's minimal possibility of doubt, that's the status quo I meant. $\endgroup$ – Firebug Oct 17 '16 at 23:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Well, there is a clear disagreement about this issue even among the moderators (e.g. Glen_b and Scortchi hold opposite opinions), and self-study wiki disagrees with the most upvoted mod answer on Meta (whuber's one), so I am not sure one can talk any about "consensus" or "status quo" here. That's all. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Oct 17 '16 at 23:55

I usually type a custom message for the editor telling them to leave a comment for the OP. Here is some example text:

It is best not to add the tag, but to ask the OP to do it so that they will be familiar w/ our policies.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ So you don't reject the edit? $\endgroup$ – Firebug Oct 17 '16 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ No I do reject the edit, @Firebug. I just type a custom message for the reason. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Oct 17 '16 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ So causes harm motif? Sorry for my ignorance on this one, I'm not really sure where the message on that prompt ends in. $\endgroup$ – Firebug Oct 17 '16 at 23:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Firebug, I don't know if the list of reasons looks different for you. For me, the last option at the bottom has a text field to supply my own reason. That is the one I use. If it doesn't show up for you, then I suppose I might use clearly conflicts with author's intent, I dunno, causes harm is probably just as defensible. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Oct 18 '16 at 0:17
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I thought the textbox was associated with the causes harm motif, will test anytime a suggested edit appears. Thanks for the input gung! $\endgroup$ – Firebug Oct 18 '16 at 15:19
  • $\begingroup$ Confirmed, if I try to type in the textbox causes harm is automatically selected. You probably have more moderation privileges, or actually yours look like mine. Could you confirm please? $\endgroup$ – Firebug Oct 18 '16 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ I'll have to wait until I get a suggested edit to review, @Firebug. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Oct 18 '16 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I can also confirm that the textbox is associated with "causes harm" option @Firebug; this option sounds like an okay choice though. "Causes harm" is rather unspecific, that's why there is a text field to describe how exactly the suggested edit would cause harm. $\endgroup$ – amoeba Oct 19 '16 at 0:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, I saw another suggested edit, @Firebug. It does say causes harm by the textbox. $\endgroup$ – gung - Reinstate Monica Oct 19 '16 at 1:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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