-4
$\begingroup$

I had a similar question a few days ago. There I was banned from review queues, because I seem to disagree on close votes to much. I promised to never review again, but I made a little experiment and visited again the close votes.

I just voted to not close a question, when it was (in my opinion) not fair to close. And because I am not a fan of closing question anyways, I skipped the really bad questions.

Now I am banned again from review queues. But what have I done wrong?

If you do not want an other opinion on closing a question. Then don't ask for it. That is what I wrote in my last 'rant'.

I really do not get it. When there is no appreciation of an other opinion then to close these questions, then why does it take 5 votes?

It seems it is 100% clear which questions deserve to be answered and which not. I think the one who answers the question should decide which questions he answers.

(I know that there is this meta-post on bad audits, but no one is ever going to read this, when I post there. Also it does not really fit anyways, because I did not fail an audit. At least it did not tell me. If the system is automatic, then it should be fixed. And if a human is behind it after all, I have a pretty good idea who.)

$\endgroup$
18
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand, if you refused to cast closed vote even for really bad questions, then why visit the closed vote review queue at all? $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    Apr 28, 2019 at 15:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why did you choose to Leave Open low-quality questions like 1, 2 and 3? These are simply taken from your review actions here. $\endgroup$
    – TheSimpliFire Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 15:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TheSimpliFire All of these questions have two or three answers. In an ideal world every one who asks a question shows his own effort. But sometimes you simply do not know how, or you know that what you tried is wrong or bad. So why write it down? If you can answer a question you should not close it. $\endgroup$
    – Cornman
    Apr 28, 2019 at 15:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar Because I think, that most closed questions do not deserve to be closed. $\endgroup$
    – Cornman
    Apr 28, 2019 at 15:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And the most really bad questions can be edited with MathJax. Only questions, that do not make any sense, or can not be answered, deserve to be closed (in my opinion). $\endgroup$
    – Cornman
    Apr 28, 2019 at 15:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TheSimpliFire Your comment is based on the false presumption that everyone shares your personal opinion of "low quality question", how to best use the site, etc - all highly subjective matters. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Apr 28, 2019 at 16:58
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You should cast the close votes according to the question as is now, but not according to what it could becomes. If it is bad, just vote to close. Vote to reopen uif it is edited to an acceptable standard. $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar As for your first comment, why don't you ask the same question to all the reviewers who robotically vote to close everything? Keep in mind that their are diverse views in the community on these highly subjective matters. "Popularity" of any particular view wxes and wanes over the years. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar You have not, and I cannpt read your mind (nor should I have to). $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have not done I lot of things in the comment thread too, so what? @BillDubuque $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar Your should strive to be more understanding of those whose opinions differ from yours - that's what. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque My first comment is to ask for clarification why someone would leave open a question that is "really bad". That is orthogonal to "strive to be more understanding of those whose opinions differ from yours". $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar Keep in mind, that not everyone who asks here, is familiar with MathJax. So why should not take the community care of these 'low quality' questions. Also most of these questions still have great answers. So why close them in the first place. I liked to edit questions, but then people from the community started harrassing me for failing audits and now these banns... $\endgroup$
    – Cornman
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Cornman The problem is that we have a different definition of a "really bad" question. To me, a question without mathjax is not a question that is "really bad". $\endgroup$
    – Arctic Char
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar For me a 'really bad' questions, is a question which can not be answered on MSE. Like 'What is the best breakfast to study math?' or 'What is the best book to learn topology?'. For me a question without mathjax is not really bad either. It is a questions which should be edited. Even when it is cryptic, like 'what is the integral of x^2 in the interval of [1,3]' would not be a bad question in my opinion. I would edit it and leave it open, because the question is clear. It might not be an interesting question, but that should not be considered anyways, when voting to close. $\endgroup$
    – Cornman
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

I'm the human behind your review ban.

You were consistently voting to leave open posts that were in clear violation of community standards. Review isn't asking for your opinion on whether closing a question for insufficient context is fair, it is asking you to close questions that have insufficient context.

Put another way, a police officer who consistently sees someone breaking the law and does nothing will not be a police officer for long, regardless of his views. The review queue is a space for enforcement, not activism.

Please see Guidelines for reviewing for more information. In particular,

Reviews should be conducted in line with MSE's community standards. This means you should not (a) ignore rules or guidelines for questions you like, or (b) close questions that you dislike, but do not violate any rules or guidelines. For example, if you consistently vote to leave open questions with insufficient context, your review privileges will be revoked. On the other hand, if you consistently vote to close questions simply for being low level, your review privileges will be revoked.

$\endgroup$
54
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ But some people disagree with the insufficient context nonsense. You're imposing your will and not allowing them to review, silencing their opinion? $\endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Apr 28, 2019 at 16:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I thought that sometimes the community is wrong, and then the moderators need to step in and override their action. No? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:17
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I am just surprised when you say that moderators should behave one way, but you behaved in a completely opposite way when you had a diamond. I'm just trying to frame your criticism to those users who are not versed in the history of the site... $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 17:27
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Cornman "Do not cherry-pick via skip." math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/29765/468350 $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 18:02
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel yes, users with views at the extremal ends of the spectrum are not allowed to use the review queue as a lever to push their own views on the community. (Goes for all other extrema too.) We want something like middle of the road reviewers. Those with unusual views are free to voice them and to express them in other ways, just not in the review queue. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 19:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Either way leaving this tangent behind, a society/community being organized in a democratic way is not at all the same as everybody being free to act in whatever way they please, it's not even overly correlated. @BillDubuque $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 21:10
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque if one does not follow the rules of the community the right to vote can be taken away. Yet again, reviews and eve votes to close more generally are not votes in a democratic sense. One is supposed to provided an evaluation. A moderately fitting analogy would be reviewing a paper for a journal. The reviewer has some leeway but they are bound by editorial policy. If somebody disagrees with that policy they can say so, obviously, but they should not use their status as reviewer to undercut it. In such a case an editor might decide not to solicit that reviewers opinion anymore. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 21:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: I'm confused. I am not a moderator? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 28, 2019 at 23:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque It's ironic that you bring up USA in this context. Many other countries do not implement felony disenfranchisement. $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 29, 2019 at 5:07
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque Most of the friction I have with you does not come from our differences of opinion. Your, should I say "pompous", rhetoric is what makes it difficult for people around you to take the effort to understand why your opinion is what it is. Remember, debate club rules don't apply here. To most of us "ad hominem" and "strawman" are meaningless as terms, and lesser breaches of conduct (given also that you seem throw those terms around apparently expecting others to fold) than your overt missives. $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 29, 2019 at 6:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf What are we to take away from your comment about the community being wrong? Is it some shaded jab at Bill's moderator past, or are we to take it at face value? (The implications of taking it at face value are...not nice...) $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Apr 29, 2019 at 8:50
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @user1729: The actual point is that moderators try to keep the community within certain bounds. Yes, we are informed by our "personal opinions", but also by the arguments of the community. My problem with Bill's argumentation is form, as pointed by others here, and specifically that Bill is always agreeing that "action needs to take place", but refuses to discuss when it should take place and how. Adding insult to injury, this so-called libertarian was a pretty tyrannical moderator, and repeatedly overrode community votes based on his own personal opinion. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 29, 2019 at 9:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: Unfortunately, I have neither time nor the inclination to dive into your history on meta at the moment. Suffices to say, however, that you have expressed your views that moderators should not interfere with community decision, and yet singlehandedly reopened closed questions where you thought the closure was "unjustified abuse by the community". In that case, I ask that you extend to the current moderators the same courtesy in letting us use our powers where we think that some community members are misusing theirs. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 29, 2019 at 13:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Bill: Let's not get off topic. The point is the same. You can't claim that moderators should always stay on the sidelines until the last moment and let the community handle all the moderation possible, but at the same time do the opposite. The incongruity between your words and your actions make all your use of debate club terminology absolutely moot. You either feel that you're exempt from the same criticism you passed on everyone else, or you can't see that you should be held to your own standards. And in doing so, you've barred yourself from being part of a constructive conversation. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 29, 2019 at 14:05
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque You are comparing apples to oranges. Only one of has been suspended four or five times on the site - basically for general toxicity. My accusations are a recent thing due to my frustration. Your offensive rhetoric, on the other hand, has been a standing joke since, like forever. Rep-whoring? Only one of us, when accidentally reposting answers, will come up with excuses like "this is an evolved version". (The other one will turn the dupe answer to CW). Only one of us tried to overrule several fellow moderators. Do you really want me to give other math gems and key ideas?? $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 29, 2019 at 17:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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