I am not sure whether the above comment is meant seriously or whether it is just a way, maybe a bit sarcastic, to say that I wrote a rather unclear post on meta.

I have tried to make the post clear when posting it - I have clearly marked the part containing the question. Now I have included link to some comment about this from the past, although I am not sure whether this makes the post clearer.

And maybe the whole problem was that the first sentence of my post contained too many typos to be reasonably readable.

Originally it was: "As far as I know, it is possible to move transfer of a post from a question on answer to the community user."

I have corrected it to: "As far as I know, it is possible to move transfer the ownership of a post from a question or an answer to the community user."

Sorry: "As far as I know, it is possible to transfer the ownership of a post from a question or an answer to the community user."

As I have mentioned also in this room, the reopen request thread is getting quite long.

It has 247 answers. (220 answers if we do not count deleted ones). Maybe at some point around 250 answers a new one could be posted.

I know that if I post it, I would prefer not to get every notification about new answer posted there. (I find unnecessary notification really annoying. I get too many notifications as it is.)

This was the thing which motivated me to ask: What is the recommended procedure to request disassociation from a post?

Speaking about the reopen request thread, not too long ago I have edited the introduction to include the information that there are reopen votes reviews.

"Notice that the first edit after the question was put on-hold pushes the question into reopen review queue, if the edit was done withing 5 days of closure. So does a reopen vote. It is reasonable to wait until the review is finished before posting here. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.)"

I wonder whether in a new version (or even in the current one), the CRUDE chatroom could (should) be mentioned too.

Nothing long, maybe something like: "Another suitable place where closing/reopening and deleting/undeleting posts is the CRUDE chatroom which was created (among other things) for this purpose. For a brief description of the room, see: List of chatrooms."

The recent discussion on meta about dividing the site reminded me of triage review queue.

From the 2015 post Triage and Help & Improvement review queues at sites other than Stack Overflow?

> In short, I'm not yet sure if these queues make sense anywhere else. My gut feeling is that they'd be useful in some form on a few of the biggest sites - Super User, Ask Ubuntu, Mathematics, maybe even Server Fault if they can resist the urge to comment instead of editing... But first we have to make them work on Stack Overflow. If we can't do that... There's really not much point in trying to continue this experiment elsewhere.

Some description of the triage is described here: Help us test question triage!

Probably some sites discussed triage in the past: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers?

My impression after reading a bit from those post is that basic idea is to divide the problematic posts into the ones which can be saved with some editing and the ones that are unsalvageable.

@MartinSleziak That's an excellent point.

@MartinSleziak I made a user for the (now defunct) community blog once. I'm happy to repurpose it, and it can post that thread

and get all the notifications

I'd have no problem with getting the notifications of answer to the reopen thread.

I might even find it helpful. After all I do get a notification of any other new issue raised on meta.

@MartinSleziak I think it is serious. The action is rare and just glancing at the sandbox answers does not reveal anything. They just look like any other cW post.

@MartinSleziak larger operations are not done by a script. The absolute number of votes is not all that important.

@quid Yes, certainly I can imagine that some users might prefer to get the notification. Some users might prefer not to get notification about each new answer - especially when there are many of them.

I agree that for a mod that would be not much of a difference - since every new post on meta appears in the mod inbox. (AFAIK it is a separate inbox and the notification is only displayed when on that particular site, but still it is a notification.)

In any case, even if it might not be needed now, at some point it might be useful that the information how to get post removed from users' account is available on meta. (And thanks for posting an answer!)

We will se when somebody posts a new reopen request thread. But I think the current one is already large enough.

I know that if it was me who posts it, I would at least consider disassociating the question from my account. (247 answers in 3 years is perhaps not that many notification - if we consider the rate from current one. But I could live without those notifications.)

@MartinSleziak maybe I should just go ahead.

I have certainly now problem. (In that case I do not have to do it.)

Typo: *no problem.

@quid In case you decide to post the new thread for reopen/undelete requests, I 'll just repeat my question whether it might be useful to explicitly mention also the CRUDE chatroom in the intro, as I have suggested here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/44149037#44149037

Good idea. What about the "duplicate" thread?

@quid You mean whether it should be mentioned in the intro, too?

Yes.

I am not sure about that. They do not seem that closely related. (One is for closing, the other one is for reopening.)

So personally, I would not add link to the duplicate thread. But if you think it might be useful to mention it there, certainly go ahead.

As far as I can tell, probably the most important difference to know is that chat flag are shown to all 10k+ users in chat.

That is spam/offensive flags. Flags for moderators are different.

But IIRC again they are shown to any mod in chat, not just to moderators from the specific site.

There is a section on flags in: A guide to moderating chat.

Maybe somebody here will be able to say more about chat flags.

I have seen this:

> If you mark it as valid, the number of flags on the message is incremented (and decremented if you mark it as invalid). If it reaches 6, then the message is deleted and the user is suspended from chat for 30 minutes or more.

And also this:

> If a sufficient portion of the users who see and respond to the flag deem it valid, then the message will be removed and the author will be given a very short suspension. Moderator responses are binding: Any moderator who reviews the flag will instantly mark it as valid or invalid, with the corresponding results.

But I still do not know how many users are needed for the flag to become invalid.