!freeze

When the review queue close vote interface was enhanced, did moderators have a more influential voice in how that functionality was specified? The nature of the functionality suggests users with first-hand experience of the math review queue designed it.

@RobertFrost I honestly don't know what you are talking about, which inclines me to believe that the answer to your question is "No".

@Xander if you have time today, could I speak with you briefly? But anytime you're available will work.

About 16 hours ago, I saw, and reported on CURED, about another "Is useful?" post at Successfully Crafted the Quantum-Free Magic Door. It was dealt with quite quickly. I cast both a close and a delete vote, before Xander deleted it. Although these posts are a nuisance, and I'm glad it was deleted promptly, I didn't red flag it as I wasn't sure how that would be received. ...

(cont.) I've previously used the "Rude or abusive" flag not only for where the language was rude, but also in a few cases where the text is just nonsense. I consider that to be abusive, as it's meant to just be a waste of time of people reading & dealing with it, although it technically doesn't violate the CoC which is linked to in the flag description. Nonetheless, on the several sites I've used this flag like this, it's never been declined. ...

(cont.) However, with the "useful" posts, the text is usually of an obscure math "fact", so I don't consider that by itself to be abusive. Even though the latest one was more ridiculous, I'm still unsure. Would using the RA flag on these types of posts be considered generally acceptable and, if not, is there anything specific about what the posts should have for that type of flag to be accepted?