This question was asked and closed in only $7$ minutes thanks to the unilateral action of a moderator. I find that to be fairly egregious. No comment given despite my asking for a reason either. If such a unilateral action is justifiable, then why not immediately and unilaterally close all questions that are either off-topic or otherwise? This seems like a particular instance of abuse of moderation powers.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Arthur Fischer: If you are going to take such a hard stance on closing questions, then perhaps you should close this one as being too broad, this one for being primarily opinion-based, this one as being primarily opinion-based, etc. Why not close those as well? $\endgroup$ May 28, 2015 at 19:13
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ More requests?? $\endgroup$
    – user642796
    May 28, 2015 at 19:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer Sure, why not close almost all of the top-voted questions on this entire site? Most of them match the criteria for being closed anyway. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2015 at 19:17
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ @Arthur Thanks for being so vigilant and daring to take action. Please don't stop doing that. It benefits the site, even if sometimes your call may eventually be overruled by the community. $\endgroup$
    – Lord_Farin
    May 28, 2015 at 19:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Lord_Farin How is that at all being vigilant? The top-voted questions are extremely easy to access and most of them should be closed if the criteria for closure are adhered to strictly. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2015 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer Here's a request: close this question as off-topic. Certainly deserves it. This one too. Also this one. And this one. Also this one. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2015 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer I could go all day. This one. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2015 at 19:38
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ "then why not immediately and unilaterally close all questions that are either off-topic or otherwise?" For lack of resources. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 28, 2015 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @quid It's absurdly easy to do when a moderator is active. I just linked to numerous questions that should be immediately closed. Will they be? Who knows. It's easy to hawk problems that lack context or otherwise. $\endgroup$ May 28, 2015 at 19:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There are about 600 new questions a day. To even only open and look at each would be considerable work for the mod-team. I am pretty sure some of those questions will be closed. To help, maybe vote on them, too. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 28, 2015 at 19:43
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @FlintLockwood : For the first question you linked (Can I use my power for good). It was closed before. I (and some others) voted to reopen. Sometimes there are split opinions in the sites. If some others think that your question should be reopen, they will vote to reopen. But in my opinion, your question is just too board (and not mathematically interesting). $\endgroup$
    – user99914
    May 28, 2015 at 22:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You wrote in your question on main: For the record, I'm fine if the MSE community votes to close my question--that's how it should be, community action. I just want to point out that the users can vote to reopen, so if enough users consider that question worth reopening, it will eventually happen. $\endgroup$ May 29, 2015 at 14:37

2 Answers 2


It does not take 10 minutes to recognize a poll-type question asking for a collection of trivia from a TV show.

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

From What types of questions should I avoid asking?


Your question is too broad. Not only could there be enough answers to write a book on, such actually exists. (You essentially admit as much in your question.)

In clear-cut cases I fail to see the reason to wait for enough 3K users to happen by the question in order for it to be put on hold. This takes time. Even with the review queues, because posts don't immediately enter the queues. And with this strategy the types of questions that SE is decidedly not geared for accrue numerous answers (and upvotes, because Hot Questions, and all those SO folk are just came by for a lark). This results in a mixed signal; to you, and everyone else.

On the other hand, a moderator can give you virtually immediate feedback that such questions aren't really what Stack Exchange is meant for.

If you're still not content, you're more than welcome to contact SE to lodge a complaint.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am wondering how this fits with "...the community at large handles the closing and re-opening of questionable posts quite well, and I feel that moderators should only use their sledgehammers in cases where timeliness is important, e.g., (con)test questions and objectionable content." Changing opinion and acting differently than priory considered right should be seen more critically for those in positions of responsibility and power, who were elected (e.g., by me) based on a pre-election agenda clearly stated (or so it seemed). $\endgroup$ May 29, 2015 at 19:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @gnometorule: (1) It is not clear to me that this reflects changing opinion. "E.g." is not followed by an exhaustive list, and one may consider timeliness important for the reason given in the answer of avoiding sending the mixed signals that result from it staying open longer. (2) But changing opinion is OK; there is a rationale given here for the moderator action, and if one objects one could point to what is wrong with the action and the rationale. I would hope we elect moderators who change opinions reasonably as they learn more and gain experience, and as the site changes. $\endgroup$ May 29, 2015 at 23:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jonas: it takes serious stretching to claim that what Arthur has been doing (a lot, as I noticed before this already) doesn't contradict the above pre-election statement. I didn't expect it, nor did I expect him to engage in a petty escalating exchange with a grouchy user: I would have thought him beyond that. It's politics: as long as your party agrees with you, not doing what you said you'd do is going to be supported by those of like opinion...and that's the current vast majority of those active on meta as the rest has left or resigned themselves to faits accomplis, as I'll go back to now. $\endgroup$ May 29, 2015 at 23:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @gnometorule "Today I went back and looked at my own nomination from 2013. My reaction was that now I wouldn't vote for that milquetoast loser." chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/19002580#19002580 $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    May 30, 2015 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ @gnometorule You at least ought to consider that the premise(s) could have changed, even if only to assert that you do not think they did (if you should think so, which would be quite debatable but okay). That you do not, makes your entire critique not really substantive. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    May 30, 2015 at 14:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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