Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 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 propose to let users vote on closing activities of moderators and other users with closevoting power.

Like this:

Too many SE sites are leading to increased answer time

closed as exact duplicate by Michael Mrozek, waiwai933, Arjan, YOU, Yi Jiang 6 hours ago

This question covers exactly the same ground as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question.

Make it like this:

closed as exact duplicate by Michael Mrozek, waiwai933, Arjan, YOU, Yi Jiang 6 hours ago fair/unfair close? [agree] [disagree]

This question covers exactly the same ground as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question.

Then the system will gather statistics and automatically grant more closing powers to those users who enjoy support of the community and revoke those powers from those mostly casting contradictory votes.

It would seem that granting the same powers to everybody has not resulted in balance but in public disorder. Perhaps it is reflective of American lifestyle (everybody has the right and means to shoot anybody), but it's not the best way to run a society by far.

What I'm trying to say is that while granting powers to everybody in advance is generous, the maturity to wheel these powers in a fair way must be proven. By introducing community feedback this assessment process can be automatized.

share|improve this question
Can you substantiate the claim that granting powers to more people is turning SO into the wild west? – Robert Harvey Apr 22 '11 at 17:53
Also, is the question you linked illustrative of the problem, or is it just a random question? – Robert Harvey Apr 22 '11 at 17:54
Just a random question, didn't read through it so can't assess where it's developed. – user136634 Apr 22 '11 at 17:57
Just to make sure I understand, your proposal here is less about reversing bad closures (perhaps not even caring so much about it), but for identifying users who are making bad closures after they hit 3000 reputation? – Grace Note Apr 22 '11 at 18:10
Are you asking for guidance to help 3k users?… – random Apr 22 '11 at 18:12
@Grace Note: Yes. It's about identifying users whose closing votes can be motivated by bad judgment, personal dislike of the matter addressed, antipathy for the questioner, in short, whose votes tend to be subjective and unjustified. – user136634 Apr 22 '11 at 18:21
@Grace Note: "perhaps not even caring so much about it" - you are not correct. If I didn't care about that, I wouldn't have made this kind of proposal in the first place. – user136634 Apr 22 '11 at 18:22
The parenthetical statement, I meant the proposal specifically, not you. You wouldn't have brought up this proposal if you didn't think there were wrongful closes in the first place, but we already have a system for reversing wrongful closes that thusly makes such a suggestion redundant with our already community approval system for reversing closure. That's all. – Grace Note Apr 22 '11 at 18:24
I live in America, and I wasn't aware that we had the right to shoot anyone just because we wanted to. Beyond that, we already require a consensus of 5 people. That seems sufficient to check back renegade close voters. You can also vote to re-open, if you disagree with the decision to close. I just can't understand how this is a problem. – Cody Gray Apr 23 '11 at 8:46

This already exists.

If you disagree with a close and have a reputation of at least 3000, you can vote to reopen questions.

If you don't have the 3000 beans, but you do have 15 of them, you can flag for moderator attention stating clearly the reason why it should be reopened.

You can also leave a comment on the question itself saying why it was wrong to be closed and people passing by will see this out in the open and cast along with you in agreement should they share it.

Or post on Meta a claim for it to be open. (Or the child metas of relevance.)

Otherwise, move along, the clean up crew has washed this gutter.

share|improve this answer
You can also flag for moderator attention and ask that the question be reopened. Or post on Meta. Lots of remedies already exist. – Robert Harvey Apr 22 '11 at 17:55
That's if you have a high reputation what about just starting contributes? Many with a high reputation have answered most of the questions anyway, see the problem. Not to be disrespectful, I'm having trouble committing any more opinions to Meta. I'd rather keep them to myself than allow the full array of rejection. – JustinKaz Apr 22 '11 at 17:56
@Justin: Flagging for moderator attention is available to everyone with 15 rep or above. – Robert Harvey Apr 22 '11 at 17:57
Yes, but will they listen? If the moderators decide to close a answer they should stick with it. "A house divided against itself can not stand." He's just asking for the community to weigh in. If the moderator staff sees enough people want it in (maybe with high reputation) they can at their discretion open it. But If I flag, which I only try to use when absolutely necessary because flagging has painful effects on most website (like Facebook), what's to say you would ignore it. I believe he is justified in his request. It depends if your site is a community based site or a service provider. – JustinKaz Apr 22 '11 at 18:01
@Justin We can't ignore flags. We have to address them. It may mean disagreement, but we don't ignore any. We're always happy to listen if a strong case can be provided. We all know that closing can be done in error, that's why we have a reopen facility in the first place. People will get a lot more progress to reopen things if they can provide solid cases to define the wrongness of the closure, than sitting around whining that they can't do anything. If you don't have the power to get things done yourself, convince the people who do have that power. – Grace Note Apr 22 '11 at 18:04
@Justin: The example the OP gave was closed by five community members, not by moderator action. The moderators are pretty even-handed with respect to reopening questions that are unjustly closed, and this kind of thing is relatively rare anyway. Every moderator flag is given due consideration. – Robert Harvey Apr 22 '11 at 18:05
@Justin: a moderator probably shouldn't pay any attention to your flag... That is, if you just write, "I think this needs open". Flagging - and commenting - is your opportunity to make a compelling argument for why the question was wrongly closed. – Shog9 Apr 22 '11 at 18:05
I know but a flag should be in those rare cases where someone is doing wrong to the community. Not just made a bad decision and closed a valid question (as an example). Make sense? – JustinKaz Apr 22 '11 at 18:06
You misunderstood me. My point is not on questions (close/reopen), my point is with people who cast closing votes. With a mass of questions, close votes and vote feedback it is quite possible to assess moderator skills of the users. – user136634 Apr 22 '11 at 18:06
Ok, I'm really conserened that I don't fully understand the sights policies and motivations. Anyone know where I can acquire some insight here? – JustinKaz Apr 22 '11 at 18:07
@Justin I suggest starting with the faq tag on Meta Stack Overflow, as well as the FAQ itself. Then, if you have questions about specific policies, search for them, and if there hasn't been a question asked about it, we will probably be happy to field it for you. I would also recommend visiting the chat. – Grace Note Apr 22 '11 at 18:08
Ok, I'll see what I can find. I like supporting open sites, so If I understand more of the sites goals, purposes, ideas, and beliefs, I can be a better help. – JustinKaz Apr 22 '11 at 18:09

You must log in to answer this question.