This is not a personally stuff. This is an opinion declaration for improving SE.

From help center:

Closing is a democratic voting process where the community identifies questions that duplicate existing content, are unreasonable to answer in their current state, or do not belong on the site.

From the same reference:

Moderator votes are binding. Any place we have voting — close, open, delete, undelete, offensive, migration, etc — that vote will reach the threshold and take effect immediately if a single moderator casts a vote.

I think these are in contrast with each other.

Regardless of their inherent contrast, I would like to refer to another situation.

As you can see, this question has been put on hold by a moderator at 15, July, 2016. (The picture has been taken at 16, July, 2016, 03:30 UTC) enter image description here

But before that time, the question had been voted to be left open by trusted users not once, but twice. (The pictures have been taken at 16, July, 2016, 03:30 UTC) enter image description here enter image description here I think the SE violates its own policy.

So, isn't it better to reduce moderators' authorities in order to being on the site main (perhaps democracy!) policy?

I found the above case accidentally and I cannot give other cases because of site constraints (rep>3k).

  • 3
    I'm not entirely sure why SE gives so much lip service to democracy, but in any case, the moderators are elected, most of the time, and are therefore examples of representative democracy, almost the only kind practiced in the real world these days. – Nathan Tuggy Jul 16 '16 at 3:59
  • You don't say why it isn't off-topic based on the selected close reason. Only that other users click Leave Open without reserve for the sake of clicking that button – random Jul 16 '16 at 4:50
  • 1
    @random 1. It is not matter that if the question really is off-topic or not. 2. I think you shouldn't insult those users (and any other user). – lucas Jul 16 '16 at 4:54
  • 2
    They're not in contrast. Moderators have veto power. That's how you spell vote. – random Jul 16 '16 at 4:56

First off, I know your post has been downvoted, but thanks for being sensible about this instead of ranting - far too many posts like this are just non constructive rants, which yours isn't. Thanks!

Stack Exchange tries to be relatively democratic where it can. That involves giving vote-to-close (and vote-to-delete) powers to anyone with sufficient rep. That enables the community to make a judgement of the question on their own, and ensures there is some agreement behind a closure.

However, what 5 people decide (or more, occasionally, if the post has been through several open-close cycles) is not always correct. That's why we have moderators with binding votes. When the community votes to do something incorrectly, a moderator can come along, correct the situation, and make sure the site runs smoothly.

I should also mention that in many cases of a moderator taking a unilateral vote, while their vote itself is unilateral, the decision behind it will often have been consulted with the site moderation team, which can include the Stack Exchange staff. This is even more the case with controversial moderation decisions, such as those that occur when a moderator appears to override the community. Only one moderator can vote, but the entire team is likely to have had input on the decision to do so.

That's the generality of moderation on Stack Exchange; if you have a problem with how a specific question was dealt with, you can always bring it up on that site's Meta.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you because of your goodwill! I really believe that criticism will help to improvement and that is why I posted this question. I hope you believe that I want to be helpful and I don't want bother anyone. I agree with most of your answer but I would like to add some things (sorry because of my poor English): 1. I personally don't believe in democracy especially in a scientific environment. So, I completely disagree with SE policy about voting (any kind of vote). 2. I posted this question by considering current policy of SE and it doesn't mean that I confirm it. – lucas Jul 16 '16 at 8:15
  • Continue: 3. Who should moderate moderators? 4. Isn’t it better that moderators respect to the trusted users votes? 5. Assuming all of those trusted users are wrong, I think it is better that for closing a question that has been left to be open by trusted users, the closing process is started again rather than using power of a moderator. I.e. that question is closed by trusted users votes (5 votes). – lucas Jul 16 '16 at 8:15
  • 1
    @lucas Democracy where possible is just what SE has decided on - I'm afraid I don't think you're going to make much headway changing that. 3: the Stack Exchange staff moderate the community elected moderators. 4: in general, yes it is, but as a moderator there are situations (there always will be, in a community of humans) where it is better for the overall health of the community to override that decision. 5: it actually does work like that, but a moderator vote is always binding, including in that situation. – ArtOfCode Jul 16 '16 at 8:18
  • 2
    @lucas consider taking a look at What recourse do I have if I believe a moderator has abused his/her privileges? – gnat Jul 16 '16 at 14:24
  • @gnat Well! But as I have mentioned in the question body, I didn't post this question because of personal reasons. I really wanted to give a suggestion for improving the SE. In addition, if I have problem with a moderator (I really have problem with two moderators) I never will post it for Community Team. Because the experience proved me that no one will listen to me. I think there is a law here (and almost everywhere!) that powerful users support each other, high rep users support each other, old users support each other, etc. – lucas Jul 16 '16 at 16:16
  • @gnat Continue: And I am afraid if I post my problem for Community Team, I will be loser. They will say to me: ”Where are your evidences?” And I am sure that you confirm that I cannot collect evidences against powerful users. And if I accidentally find an evidence (like what is in the question), they will say: ”No, you are wrong. That question was really off-topic”. My personal belief is that they never prefer a new and low rep and with low scientific degree user like me against old, high rep and with high scientific degree users like moderators that I have problem with. – lucas Jul 16 '16 at 16:16
  • @lucas: That's a common impression, but I can assure you it's not correct. The Community Team are moderators' direct supervisors, and take complaints against moderators very seriously. I know of mods who have been forced to resign their position for abusing their power or contravening the moderator agreement. Likewise for high-rep users, only it's the moderators who are the supervisors. – ArtOfCode Jul 16 '16 at 16:45
  • @ArtOfCode I have no hope and I will do nothing. Because 1. They certainly will want me evidences that I cannot give. 2. Most stuff here are relative i.e. depend on personal opinions. What does this mean? This means even if I can give evidences (that is impossible!) they will say: in our opinion you are wrong (note the bolded really in the previous comment of mine). This means there is no mathematical proof for my claim. So what does rest? Hopefulness to their fair! And I have been harmed because of my hopefulness before. I emphasis again: this question was a suggestion with goodwill from me – lucas Jul 16 '16 at 17:03
  • @lucas if you think, in good faith, a moderator has done something wrong, you should contact the team. They won't require evidence, just give them a link to the post in question - even if things have been deleted, they can still see them. – ArtOfCode Jul 16 '16 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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