Here is the problem addressed by the subject feature:

A post is in the moderation queue. The moderator has only two choices with respect to allowing the post to be published: reject it; or accept it.

This is fine for posts that are clearly acceptable. And it is fine for posts which are garbage, utterly off topic, far too abusive, or spam.

However, sometimes, a post is a real contribution, but it needs a few edits. For example, in the SQLite forum, there were often posts from a great contributor which were on-point, technically helpful, and mostly well written. But this contributor suffered from something that caused him to interject little snide asides or other inappropriate and irrelevant nastiness. If his posts had been in the moderation queue, I would have elided small portions and added an explanatory header that served to remind him and others of the forum standards and the fact that editing had been done.

Unfortunately, there is presently no way to do that. The alternative is to approve a post, then quickly edit it. This seems to leave needless clutter, and makes the delete-worthy content one click away, via the "Edited from ##.#" link.

What I would prefer is a 3rd pre-publishing option, "Edit".

Thanks for your attention and a great multi-purpose tool.

As someone who have been the victim of what I think is abusive moderation in these Fossil forums, I can

1. relate to what Larry is saying (but from the poster's view-point), and
   
2. I can tell you I strongly resented what I felt was censorship.
   
3. felt disenfranchised

FWIW...

I suppose this does suffer from the "don't change history" approach of fossil in general.

That is one of the two (IMO) cruxes with that hypothetical feature, which would have been done long ago were it possible to implement without recreating the incoming artifact from scratch. It really would be simple enough to do but poses a troubling ethical problem...

... one could not entirely trust that any given post was the work of the named author

Even if the post were clearly marked as edited, there would be no record of who really said what. It would, in the case of a conflict, be the admin's word against the moderated user's, potentially putting both of them in an uncomfortable situation.

Maybe we can have the best of the two worlds:

• allow moderators to edit a post before approving it
• upon hitting "Approve" (or even better, "Approve with edits"), do save the original as well (i.e., save unedited then edited)
• in the web interface, show the original only to users with ModForum capability (implicitely also to AdminForum users).

I was about to say something similar about editing and having the original post as well.

But I think it would need to be still visible to everybody, to avoid the "Conflict" and the "Words of one against the other" issue mentioned by Stephan.

So in other word, we could have the exact same end result as now, but the moderator would not have to rush to edit after the original Approval. At the end, the original stay accessible, but not in the front page of the thread.

in the web interface, show the original only to users with ModForum capability (implicitely also to AdminForum users).

The original poster should arguably also be able to see it so that they have an accurate record of what they sent (as distinct from what they recall having sent).

That said... if the saved original is not an immutable artifact, it's not part of the persistent history and could easily, perhaps "conveniently," be "lost." If the copy is transient, rather than an immutable and permanent, it's potentially still editable by a superuser so may still boil down to a case of one person's word vs. another.

If the saved copy were an immutable artifact, it could be seen by anyone who clones the forum - there are no secrets in the history.

there are no secrets in the history

I'm not enamored with the hiding (nonexistent) feature. More concerning is the approval, then a delay when editing and a thoughtful response is needed. I may be taking the short-term appearance of disapproved post portions too seriously. It's just that I remember thinking "This kind of [waste product] should be gone.

Right now, a moderated out post is invisible. There's:

• No appeal.
• No feedback.
• No accountability.
• No aggregated report of moderation.
• Nothing...

It's not a good feeling. Especially when one disagrees.

Also reminded me of all those grand discussions about anonymous and free speech, etc...
Just to have one's non-anonymous speech just outright silently dismissed, felt unfair (and ironic)

No appeal.

While that's true, what would you expect the appeal process to look like? If the original post wasn't wanted on a given Fossil /forum instance, a continuing argument about it isn't likely to fare better.

No feedback.

That's true, and it's mainly because most rejections are due to spam, and we don't want to feed the spammers. Silent rejection slows down their evolution by depriving them of the feedback they need to make "better" spam, being more successful at greasing past moderation.

I've proposed that moderators have an option to send a reply to the rejected poster in cases where we think we're talking to a human, but as ever, someone has to write the code.

No accountability.

We moderators are accountable to the forum's owner, who is free to take our mod bits away at any time.

If what you meant was "accountability" to the mob, then you're right. That doesn't exist in Fossil's forum feature, on purpose.

No aggregated report of moderation.

Moderation decisions are recorded in the admin log, but they refer to an RID, which cannot be mapped directly back to the post's text since the email alert copy sent to the moderators doesn't include the RID. You can typically work out which one was meant by timestamps, due to the relatively low volume of posting, but yes, it would be better if we had a reliable way to look up rejected posts, somehow.

As for "aggregated," I'm not sure what you're wanting here. Something under "/stat" that says who rejects the most messages…?

Regardless, I don't see non-mods getting to see either of these things.

all those grand discussions about anonymous and free speech, etc...

Similar arguments are often made about "freedom of the press," but the same oft-repeated responses apply here:

• No one is required to buy and maintain a printing press for every citizen.
• Those who do own presses are not required to publish everything submitted.
• The freedom is not absolute; it does not relieve writers and publishers from the legal consequences of what they print.

If you want "free speech" in the sense you appear to mean, set up a Fossil server, then publish whatever you feel prudent there.

That's true, and it's mainly because most rejections are due to spam, and we don't want to feed the spammers

In my case, it definitely wasn't spam. And as someone with hundreds of messages and years here, felt all the more unjust.

And IMO, wasn't offensive enough (if at all...) that it should have been moderated in the first place.
Or off-topic (if such a thing even ever deserves moderation in this forum, excluding spam of course).

I've seen worse messages, especially from Keith, who was sometimes brutal (but with a very high signal to noise ratio).

In my case, it definitely wasn't spam

I was curious enough about it that I went through my archive of moderator alerts and tried to find out which message you meant, but I gave up when every message I've been notified about from you going back to Halloween has been approved.

Are you speaking of something even older, or are you talking about a forum I'm not getting alerts on, or what?

You aren't under moderation on this forum at all.

I've seen worse messages, especially from Keith,

Yes, and that is one of the reasons that, if I'd had my way, Keith would have been put under moderation; he was not a moderate person. "But Keith got away with it" should never be a valid excuse, high SNR or no.

"But Keith got away with it" should never be a valid excuse, high SNR or no.

FWIW, we had off-list discussions about how to handle that very special case. The short and the long of it is that he was one of a kind, with super-guru-level skills in all things related to relational data, and was given considerable leeway because he continued to share those skills. He did tone it down considerably in his final two-ish years, after being openly requested by an admin to do so.

Ideal, no, but sometimes uncomfortable exceptions have to be made. The sqlite forum certainly has a Keith-shaped hole in it since his passing.

I am in agreement with numerous points in the many posts above, and wish to summarize them:

• Moderators should be able to edit the original post before publishing it.
• The edited post should be the default one displayed.
• The original post should remain as part of the record and visible to anyone who chooses to read it.
  
• A link to the original should be within the post. I suggest styling the link to downplay it: reduce size, reduce contrast with background color.
  
• There should be an indication the post was edited. [1]

I like “Approve with Edits.”

This lets repo owners improve the quality of their repo, implement the forum’s rules, and it can be seen in action.

For logged in users, I think there should be an “Edit” button next to the “Delete” button for a post in the moderation queue.

I’m fine with stopping there. But I’m certain there’s a contingent who want the original post 100% removed, and replaced with the moderator-edited version. Possibly this can be accommodated too with an additional button. [2]

Perhaps “Replace with Edits.”

---

[1] Perhaps with optional stock comments: fix typos, fix spelling, improve grammar, etcetera, with the option to add more, like “reduce snark.”

[2] I believe I read something like this in a TO DO list ticket. It regarded some people accidentally or intentionally submitting information to the forum which they shouldn’t have. (Found it, I see not exactly the same.)

Here’s another TO DO which is related: Diff links on editted (sic) Forum posts, currently the 4th bullet point of #16.

The original post should remain as part of the record and visible to anyone who chooses to read it.

A link to the original should be within the post. I suggest styling the link to downplay it: reduce size, reduce contrast with background color.

Energic -1. The only result of allowing access to the edited post for everybody would be to promote pointless discussion as well as antagonism against moderators.

Moderators, of course, should be able to see the original, but nobody else should.

The original post should remain as part of the record and visible to anyone who chooses to read it.

A link to the original should be within the post. I suggest styling the link to downplay it: reduce size, reduce contrast with background color.

Energic -1. The only result of allowing access to the edited post for everybody would be to promote pointless discussion as well as antagonism against moderators.

Moderators, of course, should be able to see the original, but nobody else should.

Hello Marcelo (and stevel),

Like y’all, and I’d say the OP, I am against ”promoting pointless discussion as well as antagonism against moderators.”

Which is why being able to moderate by editing a post is a good idea.

There’s already the ability to delete or edit a post.

People who hate deleted spam without a trace? Get the names of those who complain! ;-) Few will disagree.

If a forum post has been edited, I think the original poster, and readers, have a right to know. For those who don’t want to delve into the drama, they don’t have to. They can avoid the ~ “intemperate language” originally used, by not clicking the link to the actual first post by the author.

Should every forum post be able to be diff’d. Sounds great logically, but also possibly crazy burdensome to the sql/fossil programmers. But puzzles can be so much fun at times.

With regards to “nobody else should” be able to read the original post which was edited, please read the posts above.

If a forum post has been edited, I think the original poster, and readers, have a right to know.

Unless it's codified somewhere, they don't.

For those who don’t want to delve into the drama, they don’t have to. They can avoid the ~ “intemperate language” originally used, by not clicking the link to the actual first post by the author.

Are you assuming civil conduct in people which wrote the original disruptive message also? If so, you're either incredible naïve or you're approaching trolling discourse.

With regards to “nobody else should” be able to read the original post which was edited, please read the posts above.

I have and I disagree. Why did you assume that I didn't read it?

And I have a gripe with you. If you come to propose questionable ideas, please create a forum user and identify yourself. Not doing so gives more fuel to the idea that you're trolling.

In principle I don't like the idea of being able to publish someone else's work in an edited form. So my suggestion for a 3rd option would be "return to sender with comments". The use could be at the discretion of the moderator - i.e. an otherwise good post with intemperate language would be returned and its up to the original poster to decide whether to edit and resubmit.

As the author of post #12 I disagree with the underlying premise of returning an anonymous post to anonymous. It will be used to gloss over potential points raised in a forum post by conveniently blaming anonymity as the reason it shouldn’t be published.

In principle I don't like the idea of being able to publish someone else's work in an edited form.

1. Then, on your repos, don’t.
   
2. Editing has been de rigueur since people could talk and obvious since people could write/read. There’s a fun game called ”Telephone,” maybe you’ve played it? Quotes are often misquoted. We learn to accept (aka understand) this at an early age.

A forum should not be an echo chamber or considered a peer-reviewed website/journal.

Let the editors of the forum run it how they wish.

State the part(s) which are disagreed with, let that be a part of the record.

State the part(s) which are disagreed with, let that be a part of the record.

Publicly? Always? -1.

The premise that moderators always owe the populace an explanation for their actions is at the very least invasive.

What I would prefer is a 3rd pre-publishing option, "Edit".

FWIW...

After looking into the potential fossil-related pitfalls of this feature, e.g. the ownership of the edited post, my current position is that the simplest, and overall least contentious, alternative is something others have suggested: the ability to reject with a notification to the OP, giving the moderator the opportunity to explain the rejection.

There are still race conditions with that, though. e.g. one mod might be writing a rejection notice while another approves or rejects it, either of which would pull it out from under the moderator who's writing up the notification. Similarly, two or more mods might be writing a rejection notice at the same time. Solvable problems, certainly.

Sidebar: it is actually possible to do such a thing now, indirectly, but only for users who are able to use the manual notification-sending feature (whether that's admins or only the superuser, i don't recall off hand). A user with access to that can send notifications directly to arbitrary users or look up their email address and mail them from their own client.