Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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

I've noticed this behavior a few times recently, probably as a means of either avoiding further rep hits (from asking really bad questions) or to obscure who is asking inane questions. I realize editing of closed posts is explicitly allowed on purpose, but can we freeze out this particular edit?

share|improve this question
Just to allow for unlimited punishment? That's kind of harsh. – user27414 Nov 9 '09 at 19:18
I don't really care that much one way or another... but I agree with Jon - your rationale seems a bit weak. If you really want to "punish" people asking bad questions, then flag them as offensive or spam... – Shog9 Nov 9 '09 at 19:24
@Shog9: Let's not go spam flag happy unless it really is spam. In fact, ditto offensive. I'm not saying don't flag -- flag when you should! But only flag appropriately. If something is blatantly offensive, flag it such. If it is truly spam, flag it such. But don't flag non-offensive, non-spam stuff just to penalize someone. (Even if he/she may actually deserve it.) – John Rudy Nov 9 '09 at 19:31
Noise is a problem, but there is no flag as noise except for comments. Perhaps there should be ... ? – John Rudy Nov 9 '09 at 20:36
AFAIK, Moderators do see and respond to offensive/spam flags. Of course, if enough people flag as spam/offensive, the post is automatically removed and the author penalized... Personally, I don't use either one much, but it's always an option (and an option for many users who lack the rep to just delete a question). – Shog9 Nov 9 '09 at 20:46
Doesn't need to be unlimited punishment -- stop counting downvotes when it's closed. I think perhaps the problem is that sometimes closed posts are reopened, and (usually) closed posts are definitely staying closed. Ones that are permanently closed IMO should be locked from edit. – Joe Nov 10 '09 at 1:15
@Joe: In the most egregious cases, diamond mods can already separately lock and/or close a post. Granted, this does not seem to be a power they take lightly, but they are capable of doing so. I think the idea of not counting DVs against rep once a question is closed is neat, but my pushback question to you: What happens if the question gets reopened? (And should we count upvotes during its closure?) – John Rudy Nov 10 '09 at 14:48
I guess what I'm saying is ... This just seems to add extra complexity for little real benefit. – John Rudy Nov 10 '09 at 14:49

Totally against this. One, lack of wikification may be why the post was closed; there are cases where a post might get reopened upon being made wiki.

Two, for questions which are deservedly closed, and will remain closed, converting to wiki might be a "way out" for the poster to avoid taking potentially very harsh rep hits. I think that's very fair to the poster. If the question is closed and sitting at a negative score, the community is already informing them that the question is invalid for some reason; forcing them to take further rep hits is redundant at best.

share|improve this answer
"lack of wikification may be why the post was closed; there are cases where a post might get reopened upon being made wiki." So this behavior is a tactic to support the wiki-police? – Adam Davis Nov 9 '09 at 19:37
@Adam: i suspect this behavior exists because no one bothered to disable it. As the OP notes, all other edits are allowed on closed questions. Though it does still seem to be more likely that semi-NPR / NaRQ posts will get re-opened if they're marked CW... – Shog9 Nov 9 '09 at 20:55
NPR/NaRQ? Never thought I'd need to ask about an acronym around these parts ... but I do. – John Rudy Nov 9 '09 at 22:48
Initialisms/abbreviations. Acronyms you can say as words, well, NaRQ would be. NPR = National Public Radio. But in this context, Not Programming Related. NaRQ = Backstabber. But on SO, Not a Real Question. – random Nov 10 '09 at 0:16
Thank you. (Yes, I always use them interchangeably; I know that annoys some ... ) – John Rudy Nov 10 '09 at 14:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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