How does the following question model a question that should remain open? (Note, the body of the post is dependent on its title, else, would be utterly meaningless.)

That's it, two sentences in the body.

(Note, the question has since been downvoted and a vote casted for it's closure.)

Shouldn't this question be reopened? math.stackexchange.com/questions/2542583/…

I don't know that why was this question closed under the heading "Unclear what you're asking", I think it's exactly clear to me, also it has a beautiful answer (which is accepted now). I nominated this for reopening, but nothing is happening. That's why flagged this, and I requested to reopen this. It has a very nice answer, and people should know about that.

The flag is marked helpful, but question is still closed.

Hi, @JaideepKhare The better chat room to post a question about reopening is CRUDE: Close, Reopen, Undelete, Delete, Edit. chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2165/crude. How long ago did you nominate the question for reopening? It seems that the question may have already made its way through the "reopen queue" (where posts nominated for reopening will go), and didn't gain enough support for its reopening. But again, I don't know when you voted to reopen it.

@amWhy I thought to post it here since the flag was marked helpful, but there was no progress further. I nominated it for reopening a week ago. I think you're right, it didn't get enough support.

@JaideepKhare Oh, no problem for posting your question; My comment was mainly an "FYI: [CRUDE] is also a place this question can be posted." But you are more than welcome here, or in CRUDE and pretty much most other chats.

@amWhy Thanks! :)

@Jaideep Also, you might want to bookmark the following thread requests for reopen/undeletion votes Vol 2015 - current. If you want to have a question reopened, or undeleted, of course, vote accordingly, when you can, but you can also post an "answer" to the linked thread, posting a link to the question of concern, and why you believe is should be reopened.

Hey there, @kingW3 o/

@amWhy I didn't know about that! Thanks for letting me know. I'll post there, if needed.

@JaideepKhare Glad to help!

Hey, playing a game so didn't see this :P

@amWhy @DanielFischer The question I am replying to concerns a question that popped up in either the close queue, on which I had voted to close. (It was being used as an audit question on which I was presumably "supposed to" have clicked on "leave open." Sorry I failed to mention when first posting. I did, in fact, downvote the question, and voted to close it, so it won't appear in the audit again. It's just frustrating when I encounter the STOP! after having voted in good faith.

@amWhy @DanielFischer The question I am replying to concerns a question that popped up in the close queue, on which I had voted to close. (It was being used as an audit question on which I was presumably "supposed to" have clicked on "leave open." Sorry I failed to mention when first posting. I did, in fact, downvote the question, and voted to close it, so it won't appear in the audit again. It's just frustrating when I encounter the STOP! after having voted in good faith.

@DanielFischer I'm sorry for the double, double post immediately above. I'm not sure how that happened, happened?? I think I was editing the first, to get the second, but somehow both remain.

@amWhy I agree it's not a good audit. Sorry for the frustration. What somewhat redeems the questions is that there is a smidgen of attempt there. It's still astonishing it got to +4.

@amWhy that's not a double, double post.

@quid, Thanks (and it had 5 upvotes when I encountered it!)

Argh. The flood protector ruined my joke.

@quid So I should say "double post" or Post &repeat post? :P

@quid Indeed then I should probably post the post two more times so it's an authentic double double? :)

@amWhy Indeed because a double, double post ought to be posted four times, or maybe it could be two repeated posts. I meant to illustrate it but was blocked from doing it.

@quid How so blocked?

@amWhy yes. Or post another one twice. :-)

There is a rate limit. And maybe it is a bit more stringent if the content is identical.

Test.

@quid Dare me to! :)

@quid :P

@amWhy Well, the audit system isn't very sophisticated mathematically. So if a question has a score of at least +5, no close votes (and I'm not sure if score +5 suffices, or it is also necessary that it has no downvotes), it assumes that it must be a good question. Of course it must be, it would have a lower score and/or close votes otherwise, right? Right? But occasionally, the voters make a not so great question eligible for the audit system. When that happens, don't take it too seriously.

If you think that a question ought to be closed, vote to close it.

@DanielFischer I do understand that. It's just sometimes the "sting" of encountering the STOP!! message can be upsetting. And, as I indicated, I did what I typically do in a case such as this, I downvoted it and voted to close it, so it's life in the audit has come to an end, and I grit my teeth to bear the "I UNDERSTAND" click requirement.

@amWhy I understand that. If you don't want to click the "I understand" button, you can also close the browser tab. (Open the question in question in another tab before you do that.)

@DanielFischer Thanks! That's good to know.