12:13 AM
13 hours later…
1:27 PM
1:46 PM
@TylerH Again, several moderators have noted in the past that they will generally not vote to close a topic unless that topic already has four votes to close, since, otherwise, the moderator would be exercising the extra power of their vote, and potentially overruling community moderation.
In the example cited above, the question had three reopen votes when the gold-badger voted to reopen. Hence the gold-badger exercised the extra power of their vote.
The real issue, as I see it, is that the gold-badger used their gold badge to reopen a post which they had answered. And even that wasn't what I was originally reacting to, when I read the timeline backwards---my first impression was that the gold-badger reopened the question, then answered it (which truly would have been abusive, I think).
@TylerH The system gives gold-badgers extra privileges, but it expects the gold-badgers not to abuse those privileges. The fact that they have extra powers means that they need to be cognizant of those extra powers, and not use them in a way that is abusive, or could be perceived as abusive.
In the case above, I think that there is a good argument that there is a conflict of interest, i.e. reopening a post which you have answered. The best policy in such a situation would be, in my opinion, to wait for others to vote to reopen (and not cast any vote).
2:05 PM
@ArnaudD. @XanderHenderson Several mods have also made it clear over the years they don't hold any intention of refraining from using their voting power and judgment where they see fit, especially considering they were elected for their judgment. There is no provision in the moderator agreement not to use the powers they are given, either.
@XanderHenderson Yes, abuse is not OK, but making a determination that a question is not a duplicate is not an abuse of that power, even if you have an answer on that question. The system affords you the power to unilaterally reopen questions closed as duplicates where you have an answer. If it were considered a blanket abuse of power to do so, the system would not allow for it.
The crux here is that two experts disagree and have both used their two votes. Neither of them can vote again, so there's no real issue.
Considering that 7 other users (whose scores in the tag are unknown to me) agreed with the gold badge holder who reopened the question (as of yesterday), you'd be hard-pressed to argue abuse of the power.
2:29 PM
@TylerH I disagree. I think that the question is a duplicate. I brought it to the attention of this room in order to have the question re-closed as a duplicate.
Notice the hedge: I think that this is inappropriate... I am not asking for the gold-badger to be sanctioned, and I am on the fence about whether or not it was an abuse. Personally, I don't think that it was an appropriate use of the badge, but the real goal was to bring the duplicate question to the attention of this room.
cv-pls sequences-and-series For the record: this is the question being discussed. Is \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 1 = -\frac{3}{12}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 1 = -\frac{3}{12} true? - Aops Vol. 2 2019-10-05 01:02:11Z
3:10 PM
@XanderHenderson For what it's worth, in SOCVR over on Stack Overflow, we disallow such requests where there's a disagreement between two gold badges, because the community (specifically SMEs) should decide via Meta rather than a tacitly-approved voting ring (even if there is a SME in the room). This is a different site, but the same principle likely applies; this kind of room is OK by the grace of Shog alone. But perhaps Mathematics.SE is OK with more heavy-handed intervention; I don't know.
1 hour later…
4:32 PM
@TylerH Indeed, MSE is not SO. It should also be noted that this room is not a "voting ring"---the point of this room is to make public and transparent efforts to close, reopen, undelete, delete, and edit posts.
As evidence of the fact that this room is not a public voting ring, please note that the question I believe is a duplicate remains open.
2 hours later…
6:52 PM
@XanderHenderson It's a voting ring in that it is a place for concerted efforts to reopen or close questions inorganically (note I did say tacit).
We have dealt with the litigation over this (and similar) issues many times on Stack Overflow with SOCVR. The difference with CRUDE is that it has a different name, that's... about it. (And nowhere near as many rules, I'm sure :-))
4 hours later…
« first day (2834 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1679 days later) »