On March 17th, user @SanchoRodriguez answered the question Why is Janeway an Admiral and not Picard? with this answer (direct link only visible to 10K users).

Picard was the first 6 star admiral in Starfleet history - a position thrust upon him during the final Borg conflict (As initiated by the Borg Blitzkrieg and total assimilation of Romulus, Vulcan, Cardassia prime, Kronos, and Ferenginar). The scattered remnants of those societies became full members of Starfleet in short order to mount a final defense. The conflict was won when, knowing that his unparalleled knowledge of starfleet strategic information and former status as Locutus of Borg gave him special significance to the Borg, Picard surrendered himself to the Borg willingly... ...With a Borg logic bomb installed in his remaining Borg implants. Within a matter of months, every Borg in the galaxy ceased to function as the virus spread. Picard's sacrifice, and the resulting peace between nearly all the races in the quadrant cements him as one of the most venerated figures in all of history. However, since that all happened after the events of Voyager, it hasn't been documented yet.

Shortly afterwards the answer was marked for deletion by two users; @K-H-W and @DarthMelkor, then power-deleted by a community moderator (i.e. me).

After discussing the situation here, this is a clarification on the question, why was this answer deleted?


1 Answer 1



I had several issues with this answer right out of the gate.

  • It appears to be a work of fan-fiction.

  • The question is seeking a "canonical" answer.

  • The question already has an accepted high-quality answer.


I spotted this answer as soon as it was posted. I made a comment on the post encouraging the poster to provide a citation.

The original poster of the question posted a meta question asking about what should happen with answers that are purely fan-fictional, which I responded to.

After some 24 hours, the question had received 10 downvotes along with delete flags from two well regarded high-rep community members; @K-H-W and @DarthMelkor

Taking into account the general low quality of the answer, the delete flags, the downvotes and the fact that poster had made no effort to justify their assertions or improve the answer in any way, I decided to press the delete button.

I then updated the meta question to highlight that the answer had been deleted (and why)

UPDATE : In light of receiving several community flags (and reflecting a substantial numbers of downvotes) I've decided to delete the answer in question, if for no better reason than for the sake of the poster.

I also posted a comment encouraging @SanchoRodríguez to add some citation to improve the general quality and explaining that if it was improved, it would be reopened:

This seems to be attracting downvotes like a magnet. For your own sake, I'm deleting this one. I'll happily re-open if you can provide any sourcing for it.

  • 2
    Makes sense to me.
    – AncientSwordRage Mod
    Mar 23, 2015 at 9:10
  • 7
    I think, in light of this accusation, that it's really important to see that the moderator acted in response to community flags and citizen votes to delete, rather than acting unilaterally.
    – BESW
    Mar 23, 2015 at 9:17
  • 2
    @BESW Calling it unilateral is counter to reality. It takes 3 delete votes to delete something, Richard's vote was the 3rd. The only difference between this and 3 normal users voting to delete is that Richard's vote means only a mod can undelete the post.
    – user1027
    Mar 23, 2015 at 13:09
  • I think it's also significant that the user was given 24 hours to provide support for the answer, but yet failed to do so. That seems a reasonable request and a very reasonable time period in which to react to it.
    – user8719
    Mar 24, 2015 at 17:03
  • 2
    @DarthMelkor - yep. This case is missing ALL 4 of the the hallmarks of unilateral moderator abusive action - (1) it was NOT a binding vote; (2) it was in line with fairly obvious community consensus, (3) it was done AFTER attempts to solicit improvements and (4) it came after a sufficient pause. (and this is coming from someone infamous for being extremely allergic to unilateral actions by moderators) Mar 24, 2015 at 22:52
  • 3
    For what it's worth, Richard wouldn't have had to cast the delete vote at all if I wasn't sitting on the fence hoping that OP would give some Star Trek book citation, due to NOT being very familiar with (non-)canon. Otherwise I'd have supplied the 3rd delete vote. Mar 24, 2015 at 22:54
  • 2
    @DarthMelkor Except those of us who access the site daily are extremely abnormal (a quick Data.SE query indicates ~700 visited in the past day, about 9 times that visited in the past month). This particular user hasn't been back in 9 days, so they haven't necessarily even seen the warning, much less the deletion. A day is not a reasonable amount of time.
    – user1027
    Mar 25, 2015 at 5:12
  • 3
    On an unrelated note (to the rest of the comments), I'm just delighted to have been called a "well regarded high-rep community member" :)
    – K-H-W
    Mar 27, 2015 at 19:32
  • 3
    @K-H-W - It's nothing less than you deserve :-) Kudos.
    – Valorum
    Mar 27, 2015 at 21:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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