I want to request the admins to show the identity of close voters.


Reason number 1: If you are so sure about your judgement at least show up your profile.

Reason number 2: Blocking does not exist here, so you won't block users that close questions for good reasons.

Reason number 3: Close voting sometimes is wrong. Let's face it: We are humans with virtues and flaws. Noone is perfect and I'm sure you know sometimes close voting is wrong for many reasons. It happened before I joined this website.

Reason number 4 : Some people seem to rush for medals,And they dont care if the question fits or not the rules.

Proof: Here is my question. Someone close voted here without a clear reason and in WorldBuilding you can ask about things smaller than a town and bigger than a planet. Well that's everything and I ask this because I think we need this change to save creativity and time.

How strong could a dirty mercenary army be?

| |
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Closevoting is public. Once the question is put on hold you can see the usernames of the people who voted to close and the reason the majority chose. So "Reason number 1" is already implemented. "Reason number 2" doesn't seem to make any sense. What do you mean with "so you won't block the trusty close voters"? "Reason number 3" is valid, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue of public close voting. Not everyone can see the close reasons on the questions of other people. What do you mean with "Someone close voted here without a clear reason"? $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jun 5 '17 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ Because how can that question be off topic? It fits the rules. $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Jun 5 '17 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ The issue here isn't anonymity. Even if we know who's voting to close your question (I probably even have the rep to see who it is), it doesn't help because we still don't know why they voted that way. And the issue of not explaining close votes has already been discussed, here and elsewhere. Either way, your question is currently open, so as far as you should be concerned the system works. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Jun 5 '17 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ If you have questions about why something was closed or close voted you can always ask here on Meta. $\endgroup$ – apaul Jun 6 '17 at 0:20
  • $\begingroup$ Also see: worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4927/… I think that may have something to do with the closevotes on your question. $\endgroup$ – apaul Jun 6 '17 at 0:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It looks like you added the note about close voters in your original draft, before anyone could have voted to close. Probably best to avoid those kind of "meta" notes on posts to the main site. $\endgroup$ – apaul Jun 6 '17 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ It has been voted-to-be-closed by three people because it's story based. See Why is my question too story based and how do I get it reopened? which I think is explanation enough for why it's being voted as such. $\endgroup$ – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Jun 6 '17 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Draco18s we have loads of questions about warfare and tactics​, we even have a few related tags. How is this question different than all of those? $\endgroup$ – apaul Jun 7 '17 at 0:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @apaul34208 I haven't voted to close, so I can't tell you what the thoughts are of the people who have. I am merely supplying the information that is visible to me. $\endgroup$ – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Jun 7 '17 at 1:42

What would you do with this information if you had it?

If the question garners enough votes to be put on hold, the identities of the voters are shown. If it doesn't, why do you care? It didn't work.

Close voters who wish to identify themselves can do so. Many do, via comments, but they aren't obligated to. If you want to talk about the status of a question (closed, open, getting close/reopen votes that you disagree with...), you can do so on meta. You don't need to directly contact the voters to reverse something you disagree with.

| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can moderators see who's voted to close before a question is closed? Just wondering if there's any way to moderate close vote abuse, as in targeting users regardless of question quality. $\endgroup$ – apaul Jun 6 '17 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ sadly,medals are way more important for some people $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Oct 17 '17 at 2:08

To answer your request first:

There is no way for the 'admins' (further called Moderators or Mods) to tell you who close-votes something.

Even if there were it would be morally wrong to do so by them.

Now let's address your reasons:

Reason number 1: In order to cast close-votes a person first needs to earn 3000 rep - while it is possible to reach this number by sheer tenacity and just spamming bad questions, most people that have enough rep for close-votes have proven to show fair and valid judgement.

Also if a question gets put-on-hold (not even closed yet, see that?!), the reason it was put on hold for, as well as the users that voted to put it on hold, are listed in the notice.

Reason number 2: No you cannot block users from answering your questions. But the system can block users from doing so based on certain metrics. We recently had a user that was prevented from posting any new questions for example.

You can though block users on the chat, if you don't want to see/talk to them.

And if that is not enough, mods have & use the ability to give users absolute timeouts if their behaviour necessitates such.

The system behind this site is structured to allow everyone to contribute; blocking out certain people based on the mood of a single person would be counter-intuitive to the Q&A format on here as well. Would you prevent people from finding your questions, thus creating duplicates and getting them closed for no reason they can see?

Reason number 3: Close-voting something is not wrong it is part of the system these sites are built on. Close-voting for no apparent reason can be considered bad behaviour at most, but even then it takes 5 votes to put a question on hold, and then it can be reopened pretty quickly if anyone deems this unfair/unbased.

Regarding your proof: The reason given for the only close-vote on your question states that the voter thinks your question too story based. This is perfectly valid judgement for them, thus they voted.

Reading through it I assume them to judge so based on the fact that you write that your king wants them to smell really bad (paraphrased) and the fact that you're hand-waving their super-immune-systems so you can justify your pestilence-squad.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ One small thing: the user you mentioned (and I think we are talking about the same one here) was banned from asking questions. He could still post answers, so it might be good to edit that to say he "was prevented from making any new questions for example". Unless you are not referring to the timed penalty box, which really prevents you from posting anything and reduces you to 1 reputation so you could not even post on Meta. But those are issued by mods, not by the system, if I remember correctly. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jun 5 '17 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus thanks, I was unsure so I kept it general. $\endgroup$ – dot_Sp0T Jun 5 '17 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ Actually that user was question banned and put in the penalty box a couple times now, so either form would have been accurate... $\endgroup$ – apaul Jun 6 '17 at 0:38
  • $\begingroup$ @apaul34208 You are right, but dot said that "the system can block users from doing so based on certain metrics". This implies the automatic question ban, not the manual penalty box. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Jun 6 '17 at 5:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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