I'm calling it a Closehammer rather than an Onholdhammer because... well, just look at how odd Onholdhammer looks.
I'm proposing that trusted users be given the ability to instantly place a question On Hold unilaterally.
Now I'd like you to read the following and reconsider undoing your downvote...
A trusted user would be defined strictly, the emphasis of this trust being based not solely on the user's reputation but on their moderation activity. The following attributes could be used in this measure of trustworthiness:
- A good track history of successful close and delete votes
- A good track history of moderator flags
- The user actively uses flags
- A high percentage of these flags are marked helpful
- User has a history of being active on the website
- User has a history of being active on the website's meta
In addition, I would suggest that in order to use this power, the trusted user would have to add a comment (wait, let me explain before you go recast that downvote!) to explain why this extraordinary action was taken. This also will allow the user to cast a non-binding close vote--If you don't leave a reason, it is a regular vote. If you do, instaclose.
I can already hear the choruses of "asdfasdfasdfasdfsadfasdf" coming... But understand that these users are the least likely to pull this kind of BS move. And if you do, that's great! Because we can ban you from using the closehammer, as obviously you don't care about what you're doing.
Rationale for this proposal:
Let's not waste lots of time and effort closing stuff that is obviously unsalvageable.
Why this is not a duplicate:
Note the proposed duplicate is already status-completed. This proposal also doesn't consider reputation as an indication of trust, is about instant closure not increased weight... it's not a match at all.
After some consideration, I think it should be named the Haltenhammer.