this looks like it has good answers

and this is a useful fact

@XanderHenderson That's a bit apples vs. oranges since gold badge owners have earned that privilege by demonstrating expertise in the tag. I've lost count of the number of questions closed by mods who clearly had no expertise in the tag. In a better designed platform users would not be able to moderate content unless they have demonstrated sufficient expertise.

@XanderHenderson I think that it was rather distant past when the moderators explicitly said that they will only cast the vote if it is the only votes which is missing. Here are some related conversations: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2165/conversation/… chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2165/conversation/…

@MartinSleziak I am certain that I recall quid discussing this since I've had an account here, so I don't think that anything has changed.

@XanderHenderson And did quid really say something along the lines that they only case close votes if they are the final (fifth) vote?

@MartinSleziak Yes, that is my point. I am quite certain that quid has said---recently---that he would not cast a vote unless it was the fifth vote.

I can't find the post, however. :(

Ok, so I remembered it completely wrong then.

My recollection is that it was part of some meta discussion, which also included discussion of the power of a moderator vote-to-delete.

Of course, my recollection could also be completely wrong, I suppose.

@MartinSleziak I indeed don't have an explicit reference where we said that recently, maybe there is, but we do tend to not interfere with not so clear cut cases when they are not controversial enough. (An explicit situation would be this one.)

But to say that we do not cast a vote unless there is one vote left is a bit reductionist. There are clear cut cases where we certainly do (e.g., questions like "PLEASE HELP IT IS DUE TOMORRRROWW"), and when the post is controversial enough (e.g., a close/leave open or delete/undelete war), it is part of the job.

All that said, I don't think it is an abuse of power per se to cast the vote when it is not the final. I believe it is avoided mostly because it is bad dynamics, since it short-circuits an ongoing procedure which would otherwise follow its normal pace.

@BillDubuque For someone so strongly against the gamification aspects of reputation and its effects (explicitly saying it is the "root of most evil in this site"), I find it somewhat odd that you believe gold badges to be reliable indicators of expertise. Regardless, I would appreciate examples of questions closed by mods who clearly had no expertise in the subject.

close 1

@AloizioMacedo Indeed, my understanding is that quid stated that he preferred let the community decide, and would typically refrain from casting a vote before the fifth vote unless it was very clear cut.

It was not an "I would never do this" statement, but more of "I have extra power, I need to think a little harder before using it."

That being said, I think that extra scrutiny ought to be applied when a user wields privileges when it might be to their own advantage, e.g. if they have answered the question they are reopening.

As an aside, this is a standard mentioned in @TylerH's FAQ (see point 15). As I read it, SOCVR discourages users from asking for action on questions in which they are involved; similarly, I think that users should be discouraged from wielding special privileges to reopen questions which they have answered.

@XanderHenderson Yes, we agree. That is precisely why I appended the per se: using the vote itself is not intrinsically problematic. Using it with grounds for conflict of interest is something that is best avoided. "Extra scrutiny ought to be applied [in those cases]" seems a good guideline.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer (85): principal solution of trigonometric equation by Gani on math.SE

@AloizioMacedo I never claimed that gold badges are reliable indicators of expertise. Rather my point was that they demonstrate some expertise, which is (usually) better than nothing. No doubt that there are certainly some FGITW gold badge holders who have very limited expertise since much of the rep was gained by picking cherries.

@AloizioMacedo Alas, I didn't save any links to such mod closures, but I do recall encouraging mods (and others) to strive to defer to those who have more expertise in the field (who can hopefully be better judges of what is appropriate context, how hard it is to get started, etc), Generally - since the dawn of the site - I've been encouraging mods (snd others) to strive to be more moderate in the hope that this will allow us to achieve the best compromises.

Not an answer.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

D13, D14, D15.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

The more you look the worse you see... [1 more close vote]

Delete: DA, DB, DC, DD, DE, DF, DG, DH

@BillDubuque You said that "gold badge owners have earned that privilege by demonstrating expertise in the tag". By any reasonable definition and usage I've ever heard of the term "earn" (particularly when emphasized), I'd assume that the person who claimed that something was earned would think that the process was sufficiently reliable.

Strong agreement with @XanderHenderson In my opinion a gold-badge owner should show restraint when they have answered one (or more) of the question in a disputed duplicate. That goes double when the gold badge has been earned chiefly by answering duplicates in the first place (not pointing Bill, who has earned his gold badges the old-fashioned way).

Anyway, @BillDubuque I cannot "buy" the argument that I should look the other way when dupeanswering FGITWs go about their business simply because the question they are answering came from a confused newbie. I'm all for compromises, when newbies are concerned, but FGITWs must be restrained somehow in the same package. There are several plausible technical ways of achieving that. As they need to be discussed (and hopefully also implemented) network wide, MSE is the logical place for that.

I mean, it is not a compromise, if the FGITWs have it all their way, and the vision of the caretakers is simply thrown away.

Another reason why I am reluctant to give too much power to the hands of gold-badge owners is that it may lead to different tags following different norms. Many years ago I did press forward (in meta) the view that subcommunities could develop their own norms. IIRC my thinking was specifically about judging what kind of effort should be shown. Alas, the site has "developed" to an undesirable direction since, and we do need to have some shared norms also.

Anyway, it does pain me not to use the dupehammer when the FGITWs answer the seventh incarnation of a textbook question on finite fields. Like here. I just think it is more important that I don't give the appearance of a tyrant of that tag protecting his turf. What my motives actually are is not as important as how others might perceive them.

@AloizioMacedo I don't see any "hyperbole" above. Nor do I have any clue what you mean by "wearing down the people". Very strange remarks,