1

This question has been marked as "unclear what you're asking for". Even a cursory glance at the question indicated that OP is trying to handle a difficult colleague.

Seems the sort of thing we would normally handle here in the workplace, yet I cannot vote to have it re-opened.

4

Oh, that's a migration. They can be weird.

I unlocked it so you (or anybody else) can edit and vote now.

The community almost immediately deleted it instead. As I explained in a comment there, I undeleted it to allow people to fix and reopen it if possible. If that doesn't happen we can always delete it later, but the OP has already gotten bounced around a lot here so let's not make that worse just yet.

  • Unfortunately the question was immediately deleted. I'm not sure how people did that so quickly. – David K Feb 28 '18 at 21:05
  • @DavidK see my update. – Monica Cellio Feb 28 '18 at 21:33
  • @DavidK There are 2 questions in that post. 1. How to respond to "this" behavior? 2. How to legally define "jealousy"? The 2nd one is explicitly off-topic, we don't define legal terms here. The first one is a clear question, but it is hard to see how it relates to the first paragraph. OP's example 2+2=4 and all that is also quite confusing. I know it is not the real conversation that happened, but sounds like OP just stated the obvious, and the colleague countered it in the follow-up email. I am sure the actual issue is more complex than that so any advice we give here wouldn't be too helpful. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 1:31
  • 2
    Also, OP posted a follow-up question where she is being tossed back to Law.SE anyway, so I doubt she is going to come back to the original question and clarify the above. Since the question got unlocked, I thought it was best to delete it to prevent causing her further misery when she has already lost her job. Providing us clarifications so that we can improve and reopen her question is most certainly not her highest concern at the moment, which is totally understandable. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 1:34
  • @MonicaCellio I just went to try and edit the question, but it says it is still locked. – David K Mar 1 '18 at 13:15
  • @DavidK Right, the net effect of undeleting the question was that it got reverted to the "migration rejected" state. Monica or one of the other mods has to redo the post unlocking, if someone wants to edit it. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 14:34
  • 1
    Sheesh; I did not expect undeleting a question that was unlocked when it was deleted to lock it again. I've unlocked it again @DavidK. If this causes trouble again I'll clear the migration history. – Monica Cellio Mar 1 '18 at 15:22
  • I have edited the question to remove the irrelevant rants about the colleague and focus on what I see as the only practically answerable issue in the post. I have cast a reopen vote as well. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 16:12
  • And it was deleted again before it could be reopened. – David K Mar 1 '18 at 17:07
  • @DavidK it had three reopen votes, one of the delete-voters was Masked Man who then edited it, and one was one of the three voters the first time. Taking all that into account, I've undeleted, cleared migration history, and reopened. – Monica Cellio Mar 1 '18 at 17:12
  • @Monica The edits subsequent to mine add a lot of assumptions which are not inferred from the original question. I am not so sure that should be encouraged. We should not be plastering our interpretation of the situation on someone else's question. However, I don't want to start a rollback war, so decided to comment here instead. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 17:17
  • @MaskedMan the edits look to me to be consistent with the OP's original, but without the problematic legal aspects and unclarity. For a question that would otherwise be closed and deleted, I'm willing to grant some extra slack on edits so long as they don't go against the OP's apparent intent. The OP gets notified on edits and is free to further edit. – Monica Cellio Mar 1 '18 at 17:20
  • @MaskedMan I just reworked the question, using the original version as a baseline. I extrapolated a bit to emphasize why I think the OP is upset with the behavior (or why anyone would be), but I don't think I made any leaps that significantly alter the premise of the question. – David K Mar 1 '18 at 17:33
  • 1
    As I said before, those rants against the colleague are both unsubstantiated and unnecessary to the question. Also that 2+2=4 example is confusing and makes no sense, since if the disagreement was over a matter so obvious, then it wouldn't really be that big of an issue. I made an edit in good faith despite having voted to both close and delete the question previously, and cast a reopen vote as well. My edit and reopen votes were among the factors that led to its eventual undeletion, as Monica says above. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 17:41
  • 1
    I did not cast that reopen vote for a version of that question half filled with unnecessary rants against a colleague, so I feel cheated by this whole episode of making a mod misuse her privilege to push the crap past the radar, and then reverting the question back to more or less that same version that got closed and deleted. – Masked Man Mar 1 '18 at 17:43
3

The reason you cannot vote to reopen is because it was a migrated question. If a migrated question is closed at the new site, then it is considered a rejected migration. This is explained in this Meta FAQ post:

A question can also be rejected by the target community after it has already been migrated if it gets closed (except as a duplicate) or deleted on the target site. When a question which was already migrated gets rejected later, the entire process of the migration is reversed, except the original question will remain closed as off-topic. All the answers are returned to the origin site and undeleted* and are subsequently deleted on the target site. Also, the rejected question on the target site will be locked, then automatically deleted 30 days later.

As for why this particular question was closed, there are a couple reasons. First is that the original version of the question was asking for a legal definition, which is explicitly off-topic here. It likely received one or two close votes for that reason. Second is that the question was poorly written, so it isn't clear to everyone what exactly the OP wants to achieve. Yes, the difficult colleague is obvious, but the desired outcome is not, particularly when reading the original version.

The normal procedure for a poorly written question is to close it, edit it into shape, and then vote to reopen once it has been fixed. Unfortunately since this is a migrated question, there is no option to edit and reopen. If it had been posted on our site originally, it may have been saved.

  • in its current state, its the kind of question i'd like to see addressed here, the only solution is for the OP to repost huh? sadly seems events have accelerated for her... – bharal Feb 28 '18 at 20:23
1

How many times is this thing going to get undeleted? Why are we even here?

1

Update After the question got unlocked (twice), undeleted (twice) and reopened, it was edited to reintroduce the unsubstantiated and unnecessary complaints against the colleague, which I had edited out. As a result, I no longer stand by the reopen vote, but unfortunately I cannot vote to close it again.

I will vote to delete the question again if that option becomes available.


I have edited the question and cast a reopen vote.

I removed the negative description of the colleague (difficult person, jealousy, hostile) which was contributing nothing constructive to the post. Asking us to legally define jealousy is explicitly off-topic here, so I removed that as well.

  • thankyou, I edited the question to - i think - emphasise the issue a little more, feel free to edit if you think this puts the question back into closing territory – bharal Mar 1 '18 at 16:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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