I could polish this question, but should I? It seems partly Needing More Focus and partly Needing Debugging Details. If the page is worth saving, I can suggest an edit (or someone else can), but I'll wait for confirmation that there is something salvageable about the page.

[ Natty | Sentinel ] boot Locked out of my Xubuntu laptop - Dell Latitude e6530 By: SecurePayload 3.5;

@Zanna Turns out four doesn't work because it has to be odd. Would lowering the rep requirement for VTC be a (good) option? I realize I'm new here, but I feel that (maybe wrongly) lowering the requirement a bit would help some, as more people could review. Just to give a more solid example, if it was lowered to say, 2500, then more people could review, but so long as the VTC requirement was still 5, then there wouldn't be too much risk.

@Someone currently can, at 3k rep but it would mean that @NotTheDr01ds would be able to, I'd be able to in a month or so too, and if the threshold stayed at five, I don't see too much risk, but things would get closed faster. Thoughts?

@cocomac Interesting reading in Catija's first few comments on this answer -- "There's been some (though not a ton) of conversation internally about whether reputation is the best signal that someone should have certain privileges".

I really hope that discussion has continued and perhaps evolved.

@NotTheDr01ds True. I'm not sure what the alternative is for users like me. For example, (not that I do), but if I had 100k rep on Unix & Linux SE, I should probobly be able to VTC here. But I don't. In my (very biased) opionion, I should be able to VTC now. But with a rep of 1.8k and a total of ten questions, it doesn't look amazing on paper. But, for example, if you look at my flagging history, you'd see that very few of my flags are declined, and the vast majority are helpful

@NotTheDr01ds True. VTC based on tags wouldn't work well IMO. I do get the gold-badge rule, but for Vote to Close based on what the question is tagged with wouldn't work well IMO because generally if a question is going to be closed, it is often by a 1 rep user, and if it's blatantly off-topic, chances are they haven't bothered to put the correct tags on

@cocomac And yet gold-badges in a tag do get the ability to close unilaterally. And yes, at least on Super User, it's an issue, since there are some (IMHO) gold-badgers who over-zealously close.

And WSL questions almost always get tagged windows as well, so the gold-badgers there get priority.

@NotTheDr01ds I guess it makes sense that gold-badge people can automatically close, but only 43 total users have gold tag badges, so in terms of getting lower-rep users to be able to moderate more that isn't the most helpful. It would be neat if instead of just 1 vote close, if, for example, I got a bronze (or silver?) badge in a tag, I'd unlock the ability to VTC even if normally I'd have to flag.

Personally, I think deciding if one can VTC based on helpful flags would be better. For example, instead of rep, you unlock VTC if you have more than, say, 500 helpful flags and less than 5% of your flags are declined.

Just thinking maybe make the gold-badge requirement scale based on the tag volume might give more folks privileges. Perhaps not call it a "gold badge", but provide VTC privileges based on activity in a tag rather than site-wide. Just a thought.

@NotTheDr01ds I do like that idea. I'm not sure how well that would work with users that just fail to tag their questions. For example, I've seen a number of (off-topic) questions, where people will just tag it with a random version, and where the rest of the tags are somewhat-but-not-really related to the question, so especially with VTC, you'd have to deal with poor-tagging somehow

@NotTheDr01ds only duplicates, though.

Gold badges are too hard to get on most sites. The plan is to give you the privilege by your showing that you can use it effectively... and rescinding it when you start abusing it. Essentially, instead of giving the ability to close based on reputation, we would tie it to users having raised some number of flags recommending closure be approved and then maintaining a sufficient percentage of votes to close.

@Catija Ah, right - Duplicates only. And yes, like I said, I hope the discussion on that has continued and is moving towards implementation at some point :-). Still not sure that "number of xxx" (flags or anything) is the right answer, at least from my personal perspective, as again, I tend to be very narrowly focused on a particular subject matter (Windows Subsystem for Linux) across several sites.

I typically won't flag something in a tag that I'm not all that familiar with unless it's blatantly obvious. So if the criteria continues to be based on some non-scaled absolute number (regardless of what is being measured), then in the low-volume tags, we might end up in the same situation we're in now - Few people with the specialized SME needed to truly judge whether a particular question is "Needs details"/"Off-topic"/"Duplicate"/Etc.

Which is why we love our Mods :-)

They do tend to jump in and help when a SME presents a good case

Although I haven't counted, the vast majority of my flags are simply because the OP is either using an EOL release, or some random off-topic distro, and those are pretty easy to flag correctly. Generally if they just put the tag, I'll comment before flagging, but if they explicitly say "I'm using Kali", I'll flag.

@Catija I really like that idea. If you can tell us, when would that get released? Six to eight weeks?

@BeastOfCaerbannog Done.

Good edit summary

Good reject summary by NotTheDr01ds

Reject.

@mickmackusa I think it would be good to edit that... remove the last paragraph altogether as it's completely irrelevant (and fortunately the answer makes no attempt to address it).

@cocomac seems like it could be a good idea, especially if based on flags to close rather than all flags

The answer is correct but encourages piracy. What to do?

@cocomac I don't really like that idea - it's not that the rep requirement is too high, rather that reputation gives a very poor indication of whether people have gained an understanding of what should and should not be closed.

@Zanna Fair enough. I think it should be some combination of "% of flags that are declined" and "number (not percent) of helpful flags"

@Someone Please read this rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5384

I do realize we are a different site, but the general idea still stands

@cocomac seems at least a bit better

@Zanna What's your opinion about the answer that encourages piracy? It is an answer to the question (albeit an illegal one with questionable ethics), so NAA isn't correct. Of course, downvote if desired. As a mod, what's the proper way to handle those, where they answer the question, but aren't really legal...

@Zanna I read through that twice, and it seems to mean that just because it is cracked doesn't mean flag it, but if it is specifically about it being cracked (like how to pirate something), then it will get removed as a violation of the ToS? Or am I misunderstanding it?

@cocomac sounds right to me :)

Why is there a feedback button in the footer of MSE?

Unclear

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer, shortened url in answer (119): How to get pretty fonts in Google docs on Linux?‭ by Cesar Peron‭ on askubuntu.com

Opinion based

@Someone agreed!

@Someone thanks a lot for flagging incorrect "this should be a comment, not an answer" type of comments!

those are really misinforming people about how to use the site

Trash this page? askubuntu.com/q/267350/955434

@Zanna :-D

@Zanna I found those comments while reviewing Low Quality posts.

@mickmackusa yeah... no idea what the error was, even, so not useful at all

@Someone a lot of wrong comments get posted from that queue as well

I noticed that you had been posting the appropriate canned comments

I would say "thanks for bothering to actually read stuff in review" but I kind of feel that's setting the bar a bit low haha

I would like to talk with the user who is spamming these comments everywhere. I know who it is, but I'm not sure if I should. As they seem a little offensive.

@Zanna Thanks! :D

@Zanna Haha!

@Someone yeah... I have had difficulty trying to advise that person in the past

I believe we should send an inbox message to the user when one of their comments is deleted by a Mod. But that may result in inbox spam.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, blacklisted website in body, potentially bad asn for hostname in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, +2 more (274): Accounting assignment help‭ by clintstrusberry‭ on askubuntu.com

@SmokeDetector Well, That was fast

@Zanna It's good that they're pretty active in First questions and late answers review queues but they should understand, that an answer which provides a solution to the answer is AN answer. I guess they're just confusing between comments and answers.

hmmm

@Someone I meant "solution to the question"

[ Natty | Sentinel ] command-line Terminal has lost its colours By: The GeniusOne 3.5;

@Natty tp

@Natty @Zanna This question has a lot of duplicate answers. Should I flag as NAA?

Wrong answer has 2 upvotes. Downvote

[ Natty | Sentinel ] 12.04 Connected on wireless but no internet access in Ubuntu 20.04 By: name 3.5;

@Someone that particular one can be flagged, but the others i would leave as they are

@Zanna 3 answers are saying "copy /etc/skel/.bashrc to ~/.bashrc" aren't they duplicate?

this one came first - this one posted later adds something useful

so both can be kept

@Zanna Hmm... OK.

the new one seems likely to be a thanks post - just confirming that the other answer worked

@Zanna Yes, it's just saying that it worked.

@Someone they must have really messed stuff up to get into that situation (the OP I mean)

be nice to your libc, folks

@Zanna Haha, libc is really important.

@Zanna Yes, of course, they've purged a lot of packages.

The answer by FRALEWHALE is completely wrong.

My comment explains the reason for the same.

@Zanna Zanna, there was a libc regression, at some point it got updated to 9.3, but it was later removed

I had to manually downgrade to libc6=2.31-0ubuntu9.2 at some point

So I remember this clearly

Needs detail and clarity

Reopen

It's referenced here - it's the best I could find:

forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?p=2105813

mail-archive.com/ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com/msg5944666.html

@ArturMeinild Thanks for the links.

I couldn't find any better reference - it was a version conflict appearantly

Please consider vote to reopen - user switched to 20.04: askubuntu.com/questions/1388985/…

@ArturMeinild Voted.

@Someone 👍

Duplicate

@ArturMeinild oooh interesting

@ArturMeinild voted

[ Natty | Sentinel ] 20.04 Fuzzy static Noise Screen after awakening from suspend By: mazen amr 5.5;

Is this answer actually different than this?

OT Debian

[ Natty | Sentinel ] 20.04 Fuzzy static Noise Screen after awakening from suspend By: Suzana Silva 5.5;

This question has 4 close votes as no-repro. However it isn't a no-repro. It was mistakenly perceived as such by OP's comment.

I also commented and asked them to post the solution as an answer.

The question will probably be closed soon, so we should keep an eye on it to reopen it. If the OP doesn't post an answer in the next few days, we should post a Community Wiki one.

extremely unclear or needs focus

@BeastOfCaerbannog Voted.

@BeastOfCaerbannog Voted.

@BeastOfCaerbannog It seems OK to me.

@BeastOfCaerbannog Not really.

Thanks for the close votes!

Should be a comment?

@BeastOfCaerbannog so would be already closed if 3 votes were needed

voted to leave open but should still check back

@Zanna Yup.

@Zanna Yes, I'm not pretty sure if we want 3 close votes. 5 close votes seem OK to me. But I don't want to interfere as I'm new to close votes and this whole community (~3months).

@Zanna Thank you!

thanks for spotting it! site seems to be down - I'll go do some housework then hopefully come back

OK :)

The wrong answer - Please downvote; It's completely off-topic for the question; it's wrongly upvoted by 3 people.

@BeastOfCaerbannog closed

@Someone nope

@Zanna OK.

isn't vram video memory??

@Zanna Yes, V-Ram is video memory. The comment is wrong.

However, the answer needs an edit.

thanks

@Zanna Am I the one who flagged that comment? I remember reviewing that post.

the comment was not flagged

the commenter flagged the answer as NAA

Oh! OK.

The answer seems good to me, so +1. Moreover, that answer doesn't deserve a downvote, so to balance things up.

[ Natty | Sentinel ] server Apache not found but exists By: Kai S 5.0;

-1 question; the answer is good

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of body (98): Installing 8.0.28 mysql on Ubuntu 20.04? ✏️‭ by Chris Swinson‭ on askubuntu.com

[ Natty | Sentinel ] 21.04 Error after update Ubuntu updating from 20.10 to Hirsute Hippo (21.04) By: György Márkus 4.0;

[ Natty | Sentinel ] power-management Intel tiger lake CPU not downclocking By: B0bby_L3m0n 6.0;

[ Natty | Sentinel ] 20.04 Ubuntu gray/foggy screen after sleep mode By: Robb Funk 4.0;

@Someone To be honest, I'm the one that brought it up again in Meta, and now I'm not even sure I want it. I think it might be worth a time-limited, experiment, at least.

On the one hand, there's almost certainly a problem with CVRs getting properly completed. The numbers I ran show that at least 70% of CVRs aren't mustering enough votes (either Leave Open or Close, doesn't matter) to complete.

It's really bad (IMHO) when questions like this where the OP said in the comments that it was due to a typo. Or this where the comments show that it was a Windows problem and the OP reposted the question on Super User.

On the other hand, I do worry that WSL questions that are on topic will get wrongly closed more easily with only three-votes needed. And I share terdon's concern on scripting questions getting wrongly closed.

Oh, the second example was manually closed by Zanna, and is now Roomba'd.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in username (2): How do i connect my Linksys Velop MX4200 Extender setup‭ by linksys extender setup‭ on askubuntu.com

Undecided on this edit - Advice requested. Just changes/fixes the MacBook "model identifier" but doesn't correct any of the misspellings. And while it may be accurate the MacBook models use "MacBook4,1" instead of "MacBook 4.1", Google finds almost twice the results for the latter than the former. So it's a very common way of referring to the model, even if it's not the "Model Identifier" that Apple uses.

'Accept and Improve'? Or Reject?