Is my desire to "vote to close" a valid reason to flag a post for moderator attention?

I don't have the reputation required. So is it okay to request "vote to close" by proxy before I can vote to close? Or does my reputation (lack of) just indicate I shouldn't take part in that function?


3 Answers 3


IMO, it depends on the context. what is the justification to close it.

If it really is something obvious and non-contestable that it doesn't belong, then I don't mind stepping in to close it early. However, if it is subjective and the user simply wants it closed, I'll instead wipe the moderator flag and move on.

As an illustration, a few minutes ago I went through the SO flags; I only acted on about half of them - the half that were actual, real problems.

If the numbers got big, maybe we'd need some kind of internal moderation rep counter... i.e. does the user have a history of casting bad moderator flags ("crying wolf"). Then, maybe that isn't a great idea... I don't know.

  • In my particular case it was an obvious dupe question. Non-contestable, yes, but not egregious. So, I probably wouldn't (after thinking through this thread) bother the moderators with it and just let the voting process run its course. Jul 29, 2009 at 20:46
  • 4
    Actually, oddly enough obvious, non-contestable dups I'm happy to step in over. IMO, the sooner they close the better - otherwise it gets into a tricky "should we merge it or just leave them both" scenario. This only applies for very good matches though - not "kinda the same in a certain light if you're in a good mood". Jul 29, 2009 at 20:57
  • I guess that makes sense, too. Without walking in your shoes, I don't know how much of a pain it is to be paged each time there is some small problem (that is going to take care of itself anyway). Or if I am going to be one of those 300 people that calls the electric company every time the electricity goes out for a few minutes. Jul 29, 2009 at 21:11

The problem with this is you are alerting a moderator who has the power to close with a single vote. You aren't really voting by proxy. You are making an attempt (if not intentional) at getting a more powerful user to close it without going through the traditional 5 votes to close.

  • 3
    What TXI is trying to say is: Leave a comment expressing your desire to have it closed, where five people have to be influenced by your rhetoric, instead of just one.
    – Eric
    Jul 29, 2009 at 19:05
  • Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I wasn't looking for a "more powerful" vote. Just to attract the attention of someone who can vote to take quicker action. I forgot moderators have uber-vote powers. So, yeah... definitely not appropriate. Jul 29, 2009 at 19:15
  • 2
    Come to think of it, I guess that's what the down-vote is for, too. Not only to show my dissatisfaction, but it might also attract the attention of anyone who may be glancing in from the outside. The system works nicely. Jul 29, 2009 at 19:24

I would say no. I know it's done, and probably will continue to be done, but that doesn't seem to me to be the reason for that feature. If there's something seriously offensive that needs immediate attention, or you're noticing an edit/comment war, that would be a good use of flagging a moderator. But, the vote to close system is designed around having the people with enough reputation do the work. It takes some time to get a question closed, but generally I believe it happens quickly enough.

  • I guess I was looking for a "wave my arms wildly to close" before I can "vote to close." But I see how that doesn't make sense in the bigger picture (except maybe to use the comment system, where appropriate). Jul 29, 2009 at 19:18
  • Certainly if you know it's a dupe I would add a comment to the dupe in question. Jul 29, 2009 at 19:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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