8

According the the comment reply FAQ, it's possible to @-notify close voters in a very particular set of circumstances:

For questions: The moderator or gold badge holder who closed or reopened the question, provided they were the only one to do so. Users who have closed or reopened a question without a binding close vote (i.e. without a gold tag badge or a moderator vote), and those who bindingly voted, but other users were also involved (e.g. closed by User1, User2, and Moderator) cannot be notified. [emphasis added]

However, here is a question which was closed by two regular users and a moderator, where the moderator involved (me) did receive an @-notification, without having left any comment.

Note that two years ago, a bug report about a missing notification was marked . The answer to that report was used as the basis for the FAQ text.

System working differently from designed? A documentation error? An intentional but undocumented change? The new normal? Inquiring minds, etc.

To clarify, this does work as per the above specification for binding duplicate closures by non-mod gold badge holders (i.e. there's no notification in that case); the notification is only raised for closures by a moderator (including cases where a moderator also happens to possess a gold badge and closes as a duplicate)

Improve this question
10
  • Note: at this moment, the linked question has three reopen votes, so it may be not-closed in the future.
    – rob
    Mar 27, 2020 at 1:03
  • 1
    @Rob This contradicts the highlighted part in the quote. It says when one with a binding vote weren't the only one to cast a close vote, then that one isn't pingable. If SE meant that the other two users aren't pingable, then the highlighted sentence isn't able to explain the clearly.
    – Tom
    Mar 27, 2020 at 11:39
  • @Tom, Sonic made the same observation; to which Shog9 replied, I have no additional information than what an employee has already written. Unrelated additional information: it has been Gold Hammered open.
    – Rob
    Mar 27, 2020 at 11:50
  • @Rob Mhh, Sonic just noted that the FAQ didn't include the limit on pinging a close voter like Shog mention in his answer. That FAQ was then updated to include that (the quote in this question is from that updated FAQ). So, also those descriptions say the same thing, "rob" shouldn't be pingable.
    – Tom
    Mar 27, 2020 at 12:07
  • @Tom, Shog9's advice was ignored; the FAQ was not changed to what he suggested. Definition: Unilateral.
    – Rob
    Mar 27, 2020 at 12:56
  • @Rob I read your linked 2018 answer by Shog9 (and the change to the FAQ made at that time) exactly opposite to your comment here. Also at this time the question has not been reopened; your link goes to a "leave closed" review. In conclusion, there are four lights.
    – rob
    Mar 27, 2020 at 14:24
  • 2
    @AdamLear Are there any news on this topic? Is this a bug or working as intended?
    – Tom
    Apr 3, 2020 at 9:31
  • 2
    @Tom AFAIK nothing has changed there... but I haven't had a chance to dig in. [status-review] means that this is at least somewhere on our radar, though.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Apr 16, 2020 at 23:22
  • @AdamLear Thanks for the update. I thought "status review" actually means a staff member is currently working on it, thanks for the clarification.
    – Tom
    Apr 16, 2020 at 23:30
  • @Tom, see JNat's announcement for details.
    – Rob
    Apr 17, 2020 at 0:47

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.