3

Someone suggested me to put up a new meta post talk about reopening these questions,

Angel Jebril AS [on hold]

Why is Dajjal not mentioned in the Quran? [on hold]

But, this(Does meta need to explain every closed question?) question discourages it I guess. Yes there is no need to put such meta posts, if moderators explain well enough the reason of closing. Anyways, when I edit something or flag something, do moderators get to see those all or are they just left unseen and do they see those all. Because we don't know what the moderators see. And I doubt because of this line....

This morning I spent a solid two hours clearing out a whole mess of flags, comments, and suspending users for inflammatory and nonconstructive remarks.

said in here Why Sectarianism is Ruining Your Site

Asking this because I edited and voted to reopen those questions, but no response.

  • 2
    Reopen votes can be seen not only by moderators, but also by anybody with sufficient reputation to see the reopen queue. If a post is not reopened, it means the other people who saw the vote/flag disagreed and do not feel that the post should be reopened. – Daniel Mar 8 '15 at 16:12
  • people can see that you edited it. They concluded that the edits were not good enough to merit reopening – Daniel Mar 9 '15 at 1:47
  • !fine. I get that. – servant-of-Wiser Mar 9 '15 at 1:50
3

First off, the meta question you linked to doesn't discourage arguing to reopen a question so much as discouraging floods of "Why was this question deleted?"-style questions which show no actual effort to understand why, rather they just demand someone explain it to them (and, in my experience, argue with whoever actually does take the time to explain it).

Questions can be closed and deleted by anyone in the community (who have earned the privilege), but they can also be undeleted and reopened by the same; if you feel that a closure or deletion is unwarranted, meta is an excellent place to present your arguments.

In other words:

  • Demanding that a question be reopened because you disagree with the closure = BAD
  • Presenting an argument that the site is better off if a question is reopened = GOOD

If you know why a post was closed, and disagree with that reason, feel free to make a sound argument against the closure; the community may be swayed to agree with you and work to reopen the question. Of course, the community may also not agree with you and decide to keep it closed (communities can be funny like that).


As for the actual question you asked, regarding what moderators do and do not see:

First, you need to recognize that as a community-moderated site, all users are considered moderators, with the power they wield directly correlated to their reputation. Diamond moderators are a special case with extra powers, but they are generally needed to handle exceptional circumstances when the community itself is unable to.

Similarly, the Stack Exchange framework decides who sees what based on who is expected to be able to handle it. For example, casting a reopen vote (or editing a closed question) will automatically push a post into the review queue; this is available to all users on the site who have the ability to reopen posts. However, acting on any given item in the queue (as compared to leaving it for others in the community who are more knowledgeable about the topic) is entirely a personal (and subjective) decision

If high-reputation users who actually have the power (and expertise) to curate the site but can't be bothered to actually review the review queue and use that power, that's a community problem. Sure, diamond moderators are part of the community like any other (and can also review the review queue), but whether they choose to cast their own (binding) vote on anything is again a personal (and subjective) decision.

Flagging a post for moderator attention will (obviously) bring it directly to the attention of the diamond moderators. However, this normally shouldn't be used for issues that the community is expected to handle themselves (e.g. closing/reopening, deleting); diamond votes are powerful and binding, and expecting them to do most (or all) basic curation tasks is akin to calling in an air-strike to handle a mosquito. Diamond moderators are human exception handlers; they are expected to handle situations that the community cannot handle.

If there's a clear case of community-fail (i.e. the community should be handling something itself but for whatever reason isn't) then yes, involving diamond moderators is perfectly reasonable: Presenting such a case is a perfect use for meta. And just like the community, diamond moderators can be swayed to agree with a well-presented argument. But again, they can also not.

But if it is (or at least appears to be) a situation that the community should be able to handle and no attempt was made to actually engage the community to handle it first, or to explain why this should be treated as an exceptional circumstance, don't be surprised if such a flag is rejected.

You must log in to answer this question.

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