I just tried to edit this question about editing etiquette. Well, I could easily enter the editing page, do my edits and check with the preview that everything was OK. But on submission I got the message

Oops! Your edit couldn't be submitted because: 'discussion faq etiquette editing' contains a tag reserved for moderator use

This is somewhat annoying: Why didn't the system tell me in advance, when I hit the edit link, that I can't edit the post anyway? It would be very nice if this could be implemented. By the way, this was already the second time that it happened to me; the first time was when I tried to edit this question after the tag had been added.

So much for the feature-request, let me add the question: For the question about editing etiquette, do you think it's OK that only moderators can edit it? I think yes, since this is really an important faq entry and not a question.


I can see the logic in questions being only editable by moderators, but I think that the locking being done by a tag is a bit low-key! It should be obvious to all (and I didn't know about it until just now) that this is the case, and so the procedure for getting edits in to the entry more formalised.

  • I agree, but what can be done? – Hendrik Vogt Jan 15 '11 at 9:51
  • 1
    @Hendrik: Firstly, which tags are moderator-only? Secondly, avoid these tags unless absolutely necessary. Thirdly, if one of these tags must be used, the question should explicitly say that the question can't be edited by a non-moderator and that any suggestions of changes should be made in the answers/comments. – Andrew Stacey Jan 15 '11 at 21:22
  • @Hendrik: It just occurred to me: what if you edit the question and then remove the problematic tag? – Andrew Stacey Jan 15 '11 at 21:23
  • @Andrew: Ah, writing in the actual question that the tag prevents deletion is a nice "workaround". Good idea! But we don't want to avoid tags like "faq" and "featured", do we? And we can't possible avoid the "status-..." tags, so your "Secondly" doesn't seem to work. Concerning your other comment, I don't dare test it as I can't put the tag back in, but you might also want to look at my question over at meta.SO; maybe you understand better what they're saying there. – Hendrik Vogt Jan 16 '11 at 14:14
  • 1
    @Hendrik: Well, maybe we avoid the tag "faq" until people are happy with it. The intention of that question was for people to be able to edit the question until a consensus was arrived at, then for it to become an unofficial faq entry. Because of the tag behaviour, tagging it "faq" should have happened last instead of first. – Andrew Stacey Jan 16 '11 at 19:02
  • @Andrew: I quite agree. Although for that particular question I'd say that the stage "consensus" was already there. Or do you mean: It would have been quite OK for me to remove it; it can easily be reintroduced? – Hendrik Vogt Jan 16 '11 at 19:05
  • @Hendrik: I've just changed the tag from "faq" to "faq-provisional". It may be that that question is now stable, but there's also the precedent to consider. – Andrew Stacey Jan 16 '11 at 19:08
  • @Hendrik: PS if you could remove the tag (and I think you should do the experiment - now with another post of course) then that makes the locking a bit ludicrous. – Andrew Stacey Jan 16 '11 at 19:09
  • @Andrew: OK, I did the experiment. No way, I can't remove the tag, with or without modifying the answer. – Hendrik Vogt Jan 16 '11 at 19:17
  • @Hendrik: then it makes sense to initially tag these as, say, "faq-provisional". Then to tag them as "faq" when they're stable, and finally if someone comes along later with a suggestion, they should flag for moderator attention. – Andrew Stacey Jan 16 '11 at 19:59
  • @Andrew: Now you can reverse the "faq-provisional" of that question to "faq". – Hendrik Vogt Jan 18 '11 at 9:01

Jeff just left the tag. I tested what it means: It means that, for example, I can edit my above question although it carries the tag. Great!

You must log in to answer this question.

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