-2

Now, as I am not one to engage in callout culture, I'll address the problem as opposed to the user.

  • Excessive, unconstructive flagging gets the privilege suspended.
  • Down-voting costs you rep.
  • serial voting can get you suspended.

But voting to close cost you nothing, is not seen as being misused or abused, and does not cost anything in rep there is no requirement to maintain it, and is therefore open to abuse and misuse.

Shouldn't we have something in place to handle misusing or abusing the close-vote privilege?

If a user is not actively contributing in any way other than close-voting, commenting, and the occasional down-vote, isn't this user making the site less welcoming, less useful, and less constructive?

We've seen posts closed for simple reasons like not being familiar with the maritime industry, blue collar work, and even office work not related to IT, and there is a notable pattern to it all.

SHOULD THERE BE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE MISUSING, OVERUSING OR ABUSING THE CLOSURE VOTES?

RE: the comments.

How do we define close-vote abuse?

Perhaps the same way we define flagging abuse or serial down-voting.

Some ideas would be a combination of any or all of the following:

  • X% of close votes that do not result in the closure of a question
  • X% of close votes that are overturned with a reopen
  • X days since posting something to the site other than a comment, close or down vote.
| |
  • 2
    abusing the close-vote privilege - In order to answer this question effectively we need that to be better defined about what you consider abusive behavior – IDrinkandIKnowThings Nov 5 '18 at 15:13
  • 5
    "If a user is not actively contributing in any way other than close-voting, commenting, and the occasional down-vote, isn't this user making the site less welcoming, less useful, and less constructive?" - in my opinion it is indeed making the site less welcoming, useful and constructive. But honestly, most folks don't know that a small group of users are doing this. They only see the end result - lots of abruptly closed questions. Only folks who look deeper realize who is doing most of the voting to close. – Joe Strazzere Nov 5 '18 at 15:24
  • Does close voting cost you rep? – Joe Strazzere Nov 5 '18 at 15:33
  • 1
    @JoeStrazzere - But those are reputation earned privileges. If using those privileges is abuse then i am guilty too. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Nov 5 '18 at 15:36
  • 2
    @IDrinkandIKnowThings using them isn't abusive in of itself, using them to excess is - in the same way that a single downvote of a users question isn't abuse but serially downvoting them is – motosubatsu Nov 5 '18 at 15:42
  • 8
    Then this question should be more clear about what is abusive because as described here I feel like i am liable to be eventually told I am part of the problem too. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Nov 5 '18 at 15:47
  • 1
    @IDrinkandIKnowThings I tried to clarify, if you want to edit to improve, go ahead. I know that I'm not always the most articulate. – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 15:49
  • 9
    What you're describing isn't abuse. It's just use – Richard Nov 5 '18 at 17:40
  • 4
    @IDrinkandIKnowThings - I understand the privileges. And I didn't say using them is abuse. Neither did the OP. Flagging is a privilege too. Excessive flagging is not. Commenting is a privilege too. Abusive commenting is not. – Joe Strazzere Nov 5 '18 at 17:49
  • 2
    I VTC every so often, but first I actually read the question, not just a word or two in it. – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:48
8

They are not abusing their privilege, they are using it. In their eyes the questions deserve to be closed. They do not set out to piss off people by closing their questions.

We shouldn't automate anything like this - it should be handled by a moderator with a friendly chat. A good metric to start with is amount of questions closed that were reopened with no edit.

| |
  • 3
    How do you know what their motives are? That's part of the problem, since they don't contribute to the discussion at all, we don't know. – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 16:57
  • 2
    @RichardU there aren't discussions around site topicality for them to contribute to; just many meta posts about how terrible they are for the site. That's not really a way to start a constructive discussion (and why my answer here is about site scope, not the VtC side of things). – enderland Nov 5 '18 at 16:57
  • @RichardU It is because I don't know that I don't assume their motives. They can - at most - be called careless (especially with dupe votes), but I wouldn't go as far as say they're deliberately abusing it. Anyway the meat of my answer is the second paragraph, the first being my opinion. – rath Nov 5 '18 at 17:00
  • @enderland I would argue that what is not constructive is the act of VTC while providing no edits, no feedback, no help, and no improvement. – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 17:02
  • @RichardU I think that's actually a very important (and different) question than what your question here reads like. I'll edit to clarify that piece of it. – enderland Nov 5 '18 at 17:02
  • @RichardU - Users are welcome to cast their votes without offering specific feedback. Many people prefer to do so in order to avoid the inevitable argument that comes from putting your head above the parapet. – Richard Nov 5 '18 at 17:38
  • I think they're abusing it, I don't see how you know their motivations unless they're an alter ego of yours, and they haven't responded to direct mention, because if they're directly mentioned the post gets deleted poste-haste. – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:11
  • @Richard people are also welcome to flag and to vote, but there are bulwarks against abuse of those, why not bulwarks against abusing close votes? Or, are you saying that close votes can't be abused. – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 20:47
  • 1
    @RichardU flagging with poor results (too many declines) leads to blocks, but that's generally not abuse. (Usually it's people misunderstanding what flagging is for.) Targeted voting is an abuse that is corrected, but "overusing" votes in a non-targeted way isn't abuse and isn't prevented. You are arguing that people "overuse" close votes, but you have not made a case for "abuse" and I think you'd get a better response if you didn't make that accusation. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 20:51
  • @MonicaCellio what constitutes a 'better response'? – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:53
  • @Kilisi I meant that people -- maybe even the maligned close-voters -- are more likely to engage in a conversation if it doesn't start with accusations of wrong-doing. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 20:57
  • @MonicaCellio do you think that close votes CAN be abused? – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 20:59
  • 1
    @MonicaCellio another question: If flagging with poor results leads to blocks, shouldn't poor close votes (15 posts VTC, none of them closed, for example) lead to a block? – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 21:00
  • 4
    My impression is that the questions that get closed and reopened are ones where people disagree about scope, not ones where five people acted in bad faith. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 21:07
  • 4
    "Misuse" is probably a better word in that case, @RichardU. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 21:29
8

Before we talk about "close vote abuse" the more appropriate conversation is around scope and topicality.

For example, the implication here is by titling this "abuse" that most of the closures are unwarranted. What is more tangible is talking about a few different topics:

  1. What types of questions commonly closed as "off topic" seem on topic? Should those questions be on topic or off topic?
    • An easy way to narrow this is to search via close reason in the Data Explorer and focus on a specific reason at a time
  2. Narrow in on a bunch of questions, asking the following questions:
    • Is this off topic in how it's written (not in "hidden meaning" - most of us higher rep users can read a question for it's "true question" but this is not something most
    • Am I reading a question in this that is different than what is explicitly written?
    • Is the question as written beneficial to non-OP readers in the future?
    • Is there key information missing?
    • What would the OP need to clarify before a quality answer can be written?
  3. What do you internally feel as the scope of Workplace is? Is this shared by others? What differences exist?

These questions are actionable. Talking about limiting close vote abuse is a symptom of those (and other related) questions.

Basically the tldr of this is the fundamental disagreement regarding any "close vote abuse" is different understandings of site scope.

SHOULD THERE BE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE ABUSING THE CLOSURE VOTES?

Putting on my moderator hat for a short while longer, to address specifically what I would want to see in order to take action here as a moderator is a clear site topicality which is being repeatedly violated by the same user.

Simply casting close votes more frequently or regularly is not abuse, just as someone casting flags much more frequently isn't abuse. Nor is someone casting up/reopen votes.

The closest analogy here is likely flagging. We as moderators would not contact a user who flags an immense amount unless flags were being used consistently in violation of the existing guidance on flags.

This would be the case even if that user primarily interacted with the site via flagging and not through other means.

What this means, is, practically speaking no one can commit a "crime" unless it's actually a crime.

Talking about "abusing" has a few implicit assumptions:

  1. The close votes are invalid
  2. Users shouldn't be casting them for some reason (in your case, because they are primarily contributing through close votes)

Because of all this, what is the underlying question here boils down to:

  • Are the questions being voted to close actually off topic?
    • There is a tangential question here around "what site privileges should be exclusively available based on reputation and not site activity?" which is related but not the fundamental underlying question here from my perspective

If yes, then there could be close vote abuse taking place, because questions are clearly on topic and being voted to close.

But if the answer is "maybe" or "no" or "sometimes" then a discussion around close vote abuse becomes less meaningful.

From my perspective, while there are users who are much more active in closing questions, the answer to the scope is unequivocally "maybe" at best at this point.

| |
  • Well, then that means that the answer to my question is "no". – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 20:46
  • @RichardU in some ways, this is a much broader Meta.SE question too than just focused on Workplace. – enderland Nov 5 '18 at 21:02
  • If you want to edit my question, I'd appreciate it. It seems to be being interpreted as being hostile. I don't know why, as that is not my intent. – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 21:04
  • While I don't necessarily disagree with some points, I think that on the other hand, there is also some burden of proof on the close-voting side to explain why something is off-topic. I know that leaving comments when vtc is optional, and that is fine, but when no one hardly ever seems to leave comments then there's a bit of a structural problem. – Martin Tournoij Nov 5 '18 at 23:32
  • @enderland Unfortunately for the time being at least there's no point in raising anything on meta.se. So it sounds like we're on our own. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 13:33
2

Is there a procedure for dealing with close-vote abuse?

There is no formal procedure that I can detect.

SHOULD THERE BE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE ABUSING THE CLOSURE VOTES?

Unless I see the details of such a procedure, I can't comment. As @IDrinkandIKnowThings correctly points out, you cannot to come up with any "procedure" without clearly defining the specific characteristics of abusive behavior.

I think it would be far simpler to aggressively vote to reopen all cases where you feel a question has been closed incorrectly (either by an "abuser" or whenever you feel the closure wasn't warranted).

If enough folks vote to reopen often enough, then perhaps the questions won't be closed so much in the future. Perhaps not, but at least the end result could be fewer closed questions at any one point in time.

| |
  • 1
    I would say that casting a reopen vote is indeed the best way to counter people abusing or misusing close votes. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Nov 5 '18 at 19:02
  • 2
    @IDrinkandIKnowThings best or not is a moot point, it's the ONLY way we have – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 22:02
0

I was going to write this a comment on Enderland's answer but it's too big (apologies for mangling the format here!)

What types of questions commonly closed as "off topic" seem on topic? Should those questions be on topic or off topic? An easy way to narrow this is to search via close reason in the Data Explorer and focus on a specific reason at a time

I haven't had the time to do an analysis via DE yet.. but at least anecdotally I've seen many questions closed as "Unclear" when that actually translated to "I don't understand this/I don't know the answer" This question is a prime example - it got closed and we managed to argue to get it re-opened.

Same thing happened here, yes it got re-opened but clearly the "Unclear" vote was unwarranted.

Similarly for "Company specific.." reasons - this got closed because a moderator misunderstood the question (due to it being UK specific) - yet similar questions from a US perspective don't get closed.

And again this got closed as company-specific when it's nothing of the sort.

Here's one where the "Specific choice.." was used inappropriately.

Narrow in on a bunch of questions, asking the following questions: Is this off topic in how it's written (not in "hidden meaning" - most of us higher rep users can read a question for it's "true question" but this is not something most

If we're going to rely on "exact words" then why not replace us all with bots? I mean isn't the whole point of high-rep users that they are the community members who are "better" at reading and answering questions? If a user (high rep or not) can understand a question and write a suitable answer, making it clear what their answer addresses and this is then helpful to the OP and potentially to others then I really can't see how that is a bad thing.

Is the question as written beneficial to non-OP readers in the future?

I think it is unfair to always require an asker to carry that burden - personally I happen to think that if my answer helps just one person then it's worthwhile. But then hey, I'm a weirdo like that.

More generally there is plenty of scope for someone writing an answer to respond both to the specific situation in the OP's question and also provide a rounded answer that will help people in similar situations - very little (if anything) in the human experience is truly unique.

Is there key information missing?

Sometimes you can't even start to answer, quite often however you can at least provide an answer to most of it and thus engage the asker in the process and tease out the other information (example), or you can provide something that covers the most likely scenarios (and hope the OP is actually in one of those) and, yes, risk not 100% answering the OP's question - but in the process actually provide more useful information for future googlers - example

What do you internally feel as the scope of Workplace is? Is this shared by others? What differences exist?

Personally.. I think the scope is to help people with workplace situations. I think (hope) that's shared by others, but I know that many here do not.

| |
  • Personally.. I think the scope is to help people with workplace situations. I think (hope) that's shared by others, but I know that many here do not. "Great! Can you help me with this report I have to do? I'm running a little behind, it'd be great for some expert input!" This is intended to be tongue in cheek and point out how even this isn't a clearly shared scope understanding as I instantly could think of examples you probably would disagree belong on Workplace but fit the stated scope. – enderland Nov 5 '18 at 18:20
  • @enderland I have given out my private email for things such as this. But that's just me. – Old_Lamplighter Nov 5 '18 at 19:51
  • This is a good answer and provides a lot of well articulated food for thought. Thanks. – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:45
  • @enderland If there's a more appropriate SE site for helping with their report I'd direct them to it. Or I'd help them in chat, or over e-mail as I've done more than once for other users in the past. I'm here to share my knowledge and help people. Exactly as per the much vaunted CoC. Except all too often I spend more time arguing for the chance to help people then I do actually helping them. This isn't aimed at you, I'm just really having a difficult time understanding the bizarre disconnect between what the SE network claims to want and what they actually support to exist. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 13:43
0

SHOULD THERE BE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE ABUSING THE CLOSURE VOTES?

Yes there should. Anything that is open to abuse should be mitigated against.

Just saying that it isn't being abused is just wasted air. We can see it is being abused. On main all the time, but I even have a meta post tagged 'Discussion' with 3 VTC on it for 'being unclear what you're asking'

Ignoring it is detrimental and frustrating to some.

Rationalising all around the point without any attempt to address a problem directly means little.

My suggestion is that someone actually investigates the possibility of abuse taking place instead of just denying it outright. Once a problem is pinpointed then resolutions can be worked out appropriately.

Talk of personal attacks and community attacks are meaningless, our whole site has been attacked several times in meta by disgruntled OP's. Personal attacks happen as well, I've had a few.

I've posted more in meta in the last few days then in all my time here, not because I'm particularly frustrated or even care that much. But because I prefer being part of solutions, not problems. And I don't believe denying a problem exists makes it so.

| |
  • 7
    First somebody's got to define "abuse". Can't look for data without requirements. Also, "abuse" generally means either malice or blatant disregard for norms, not just disagreeing, so please describe how the community should look for that. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 20:53
  • 1
    @MonicaCellio who? Moanadale suggested one way, and was ignored. So who does the defining? You? Or shall we just decide it's undefinable? Is a meta post tagged 'Discussion' with 3 VTC on it for 'being unclear what you're asking' a sign of abuse, or disagreement? – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:55
  • 1
    Were those VTC made by new users who don't know what VTC is and thought it was to signal disagreement, or experienced users who know full well? – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:59
  • 5
    Somebody who thinks there's abuse must have a definition of "abuse" in mind. Moanadale's seems to be "voted to close a lot of my questions" and doesn't dispute that they should have been closed. If you like Richard's definition you can probably use SEDE to validate or falsify the claim. Burden of research is gonna have to be on the folks who think there's a problem. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 20:59
  • 1
    I like my definition as indicative that there is a problem, do you see any issue with my definition outlined in the comment above? – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 21:01
  • @MonicaCellio Re: "Burden of research", with all due respect I did some preliminary "research" into the question in my 2nd answer on this thread. And not a single TWP mod has cared to weigh in on that so I for one am not feeling particularly inclined to spend time doing more in-depth research when the form book suggests it's just preaching to the tumbleweeds. Absurdly the only mod to even acknowledge it and engage was from a different site! [cont] – motosubatsu Nov 14 '18 at 16:52
  • The fact remains that open/close votes are the only aspect of community moderation that has no "safeguard", either an automated one like Up/Down or the ability to flag. Time and again the mantra is that if we perceive a potential issue with another user's actions we are to "flag it to the mods", but on this one aspect of the site we are provided no mechanism to do so. It's like Queen Victoria striking lesbianism from the anti-homosexuality legislation "because she didn't believe it was possible". – motosubatsu Nov 14 '18 at 16:54
0

If a user is not actively contributing in any way other than close-voting, commenting, and the occasional down-vote, isn't this user making the site less welcoming, less useful, and less constructive?

Absolutely!

As enderland said in chat:

What is missing from this whole conversation is the recogniztion that there are two types of people helped here

1) question askers

2) question readers (via google, etc)

Overwhelmingly, a more rigorous VtC and edit/reopen/delete process helps group 2 and hurts group 1

And a lessened VtC rigor hurts group2 and helps group 1

SE however is designed to primarily help group 2 (though, SE has an identity crisis with this)

As things stand a user who does nothing but what you describe is clearly not helping either of those types of person.

| |
  • 5
    This is sort of a misrepresentation of what I said.. – enderland Nov 5 '18 at 19:18
  • 2
    A person who is only doing those things might be making the site less welcoming to individuals asking poor questions, but they're making the site far more welcoming for everyone else – Richard Nov 5 '18 at 22:02
  • 1
    @Richard I'm not going to post details of private conversations I've had as that would be what we call a "dick move", it's a pattern I've seen time and again in chat though and I thought this along with this summed it up quite nicely. Your assertion that "everyone else" feels more welcome is patently wrong, I've never asked a question here precisely because of the harsh response I expect from the community at large. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 16:42
  • 1
    @motosubatsu - Your example seems to be a single user (one with a history of asking poorly-received questions) complaining about his questions being closed. If anything, you're proving my point that these actions make the site less welcoming for those who persistently ask terrible questions. – Richard Nov 6 '18 at 16:50
  • 1
    @Richard They are far from the only one though - and given the fact that the same user has a good record of well received questions on other SE sites it is certainly interesting. You asked for a citation, I gave you one. How about you return the favor and provide a citation as to "everyone else" finding the site "far more welcoming" based on there being one or more users "not actively contributing in any way other than close-voting, commenting, and the occasional down-vote"? – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 16:56
  • 2
    @Richard Additionally you rather neatly support my position that the site is actively trying to be unwelcoming to users who don't immediately ask well-received questions. Precisely the philosophy that lead to the recent "Be Welcoming" initiative across the network and the accompanying blog post – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 17:07
  • 1
    @motosubatsu SE's meant to be unwelcoming toward the act of asking poor questions, but also give a feedback loop which guides users toward learning what makes a good question and asking good quality material. That may occur through (a) ask bad question → it gets closed → learn why → ask better question next time, and/or (b) ask bad question → it gets closed → learn why → edit it → it gets reopened. If we don't teach or reopen that's our failing. If a user never learns or changes behaviour that's theirs, and the site will become unwelcoming to them (and auto-ban them from posting Q's or A's). – doppelgreener Nov 6 '18 at 17:20
  • 4
    @doppelgreener Except what actually happens is (a) ask "bad" question -> the op receives abuse, downvotes -> it gets closed. User leaves, never comes back and tells all their friends about those a##holes on SE. So the "feedback loop" that you mention doesn't work and pretending that it does is becoming increasingly ludicrous. I'm all for working with new users to help them improve, but that's working with them, not giving them the metaphorical finger and giving ourselves a pat on the back for "improving quality" when they don't come back. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 17:21
  • 2
    If we don't teach or reopen that's our failing. Which is exactly my point! And users such as RichardU describes above who are "not actively contributing in any way other than close-voting, commenting, and the occasional down-vote" is exactly that failure writ large. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 17:22
  • 2
    @doppelgreener well for a start feel free to see the examples I posted yesterday in my other answer to this question – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 17:31
  • 2
    @doppelgreener I accept that the responsibility for the failing lies in more than one set of hands. It's not equally distributed though, I'm far from perfect (and would never claim otherwise) but I do what I can, when I can and I'm certainly not acting in the manner RichardU describes, others are. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 17:36
  • 1
    @motosubatsu - And again, to reiterate, some people don't like giving explanation for their close votes precisely because it's new users that are most liable to vent their frustration at the person who is trying to help them. Not everyone wants to be part of a verbal feedback loop – Richard Nov 6 '18 at 17:43
  • 2
    @Richard and some people don't post their reason because their "reason" is actually just rubbish. I have nothing against people not wanting to disclose their reasons, but they can't then claim that the feedback loop is the saviour if they won't participate on it. Personally I have literally never had a user vent their frustration at me in response to my explaining a close vote. [cont]. – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 20:59
  • 2
    On the other hand I have seen people vent about nonsensical close votes with no explanation on multiple occasions and frankly I can understand why. If you remove the feedback loop then then what can already be a harsh teaching method just becomes plain harsh – motosubatsu Nov 6 '18 at 20:59
  • 2
    Got to agree with Motosuba on this, nothing anyone has said except him makes sense backed by what we can actually see. I'm a fairly observant person and will give the benefit of the doubt in grey areas if I can, but I'm not stupid (not totally anyway) and this statement hits it on the nail 'their "reason" is actually just rubbish' – Kilisi Nov 11 '18 at 21:29
-4

Is there a procedure for dealing with close-vote abuse or overuse?

Yes, upon analysis it appears to have several steps

Ignore it happens

Deny it happens

Defend it happens while still denying it happens

Pass it to limbo to solve while persisting in steps 1, 2 & 3

Stop talking about it, if pressed, blame the victims, claim limbo has already solved it.

| |
  • 2
    I am afraid this representation is quite accurate. – Monoandale Nov 6 '18 at 10:25
-11

This addresses a serious issue with VTC abuse by a few users. I collected some data here, limited to votes for my own questions: enter image description here

If the moderation team has better tools, it would be great to see the same numbers for the whole community, to make a well supported decision.

| |
  • 10
    Amongst the questions that I voted to close, can you identify one or two that you feel I should not have voted to close? – Jim G. Nov 5 '18 at 15:47
  • @JimG. your votes amount to 5% of the total, and you greatly contributed to this community with a five-digit reputation. I am calling out extreme behaviour by others users who contributed much less in proportion, see the list. – Monoandale Nov 5 '18 at 18:31
  • 1
    OK, cool. I just wanted to make sure there's no bad blood. Thanks. – Jim G. Nov 5 '18 at 18:45
  • 11
    Amongst the questions that anybody voted to close, can you identify one or two that you feel should not have been voted to close? – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 18:49
  • 2
    @MonicaCellio I am not making any claims on the quality of my questions. For the scope of this complaint, ALL my questions might be closed. The point I am making is that the VTC mechanism is being abused by few, specific users who contribute little else to this community. – Monoandale Nov 5 '18 at 18:52
  • 10
    If the questions should be closed, how is voting to close abuse? You keep throwing that word around but you haven't substantiated misplaced or malicious use of close votes. And you haven't looked at close votes in general, only the ones you've received. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 18:54
  • 1
    @MonicaCellio - From the OP's perspective all of them. That is the crux of the issue here. – IDrinkandIKnowThings Nov 5 '18 at 19:07
  • 10
    The problem may be... That those questions deserved to be closed and some people have been doing a really good job and voting to close a lot of questions... – Rory Alsop Nov 5 '18 at 19:32
  • "it would be great to see the same numbers for the whole community, to make a well supported decision." Yes, it certainly would be good if individual concerns over data were met with the whole sites data rather than just brushing it off. Do such tools exist, if they do, why the reluctance to even mention it. If VTC is harmless and praiseworthy, tell us who to praise. – Kilisi Nov 5 '18 at 20:17
  • 5
    Stack Exchange Data Explorer. Go wild. There's a tutorial. – Monica Cellio Nov 5 '18 at 20:55
  • 3
    How exhaustive is this data? What questions did you survey, or what was your method and for what period? (For all I know, this could be a survey of all questions gnat has made a close vote on, which would skew the data.) Does this count close votes on questions that were later reopened, or only close votes resulting in a current closure? There are very few total close votes on this table and very few votes from many power users (e.g. a moderator has only 1 close vote on this table) which makes this data look noncomprehensive. Besides: do we have any evidence any close votes were unwarranted? – doppelgreener Nov 6 '18 at 12:07
  • @doppelgreener thanks for your feedback. I tried to start moving the discussion towards numbers, starting with data from my own questions. That table is the beginning, of the discussion, not the end. I expect those who say "everything is OK, no need for this" to come ahead with better data to prove their point. As limited as my analysis is, it's quantitative and supported by data, and it's more than you can say for any of the other POVs presented here. I am appalled by the dismissive attitude of some of the moderators. – Monoandale Nov 6 '18 at 12:57
  • 4
    @Monoandale if you want to make categorically dismissive comments, attack the moderators, and continuously ignore the requests of people to clarify your position and justify your wording, you will continue to feel "appalled." Because SE doesn't start banning people based on a witch-hunt, as much as you want us to. You have yet to even justify how this is "abuse" or explain which questions were improperly closed in spite of this being asked many times of you. You cannot present "data" and then refuse to discuss that data - if you do this, you will feel dismissed and appalled. – enderland Nov 6 '18 at 14:04
  • 2
    I mean, you are effectively saying "my questions were worth closing. But since a few people were more active in closing them it's abuse!" -- if your questions even by your own admission are worth closing I don't see how you can make the argument that abuse is happening. – enderland Nov 6 '18 at 14:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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