Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Possible Duplicate:
Publicise flag counts on closed questions

Currently, when a moderator follows up on community flags and acts upon a question, the close message will look something like this:

closed as not constructive by Kev♦ Sep 11 '11 at 11:21

Which frequently leads to angry complaints about unilateral action. How can the mod override the community's will like that! If not for the mod's decision, my question would have survived! etc. etc.

However, on Meta, it is often mentioned that when casting an unilateral close vote, mods usually follow up on community flags from users who don't have the reputation to vote to close yet.

If this is the case, why not show the flaggers' names as well to make it clear it wasn't necessarily an actively unilateral decision on a mod's behalf? After all, in this specific scenario (users flag with a specific close reason), it doesn't seem like flagging details need to be kept a secret.

closed as not constructive by Kev♦ (flagged by peter1923, mega_hax0r, SeriousProgrammer) Sep 11 '11 at 11:21

or as @Daniel Fischer suggests, show the number only:

closed as not constructive by Kev♦ (flagged by 4 users) Sep 11 '11 at 11:21

or a mix:

closed as not constructive by Kev♦ (flagged by peter1923, mega_hax0r, and 3 other users) Sep 11 '11 at 11:21

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Pëkka, Shadow Wizard, Bill the Lizard Dec 16 '12 at 14:50

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

I dunno, seems kinda clutter-y. It also doesn't help that an infinite number of users can flag a question before it gets closed, so you could potentially end up with a list of names a mile long. – a cat Dec 16 '12 at 13:39
Plus you'll give more fuel to ranters in the event that a Q really is closed single-handedly. – Mat Dec 16 '12 at 13:41
Perhaps the flag count alone would suffice? You won't get enough flags to make flagged by 123 users cluttery. – Daniel Fischer Dec 16 '12 at 13:41
Also, I'm pretty sure flags are anonymous... not positive, but I believe that's the case. – mikeTheLiar Dec 16 '12 at 13:49
@mike they are treated as anonymous at the moment, but the information who cast the flag is still available internally. – Pëkka Dec 16 '12 at 13:50
@mikeTheLiar moderators can see who flagged, with the exception of spam and offensive flags. – Mad Scientist Dec 16 '12 at 13:51
@Yannis I'd say dupe - voting to close! – Pëkka Dec 16 '12 at 14:06

Flags are part private, we moderators generally don't reveal who exactly flagged and why. I think it would be dangerous and confusing to mix private and public flags. Seeing that the user name is revealed by flagging could mislead users into thinking that flags are not private at all.

The privacy of flags is important, and creating confusion around that might lead to users not flagging in more delicate situations.

share|improve this answer
If privacy is a concern, show the numbers only. That'd work as well – Pëkka Dec 16 '12 at 13:54
@Pekka Anyone who won't take your word for the fact that a bunch of users flagged the post probably won't be convinced by an unverifiable number. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 16 '12 at 14:33
@Asad but that's not the point. Many people get angry and start Meta rants because they get the impression it's a unilateral decision in the first place. – Pëkka Dec 16 '12 at 14:36
@Pekka Fair enough, I guess showing the number would nip some of those Meta rants in the bud. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 16 '12 at 14:43

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