Abuse of moderator fiat vote

Question

Not so long ago, the question https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/q/25438/15334 has been asked. As originally written, and even after revisions, I would consider it somewhat problematic (and probably best answered in the negative, if at all), but perhaps it could have been salvaged through editing into something acceptable.

For those who don’t know, close and reopen votes by moderators are final and binding; if a moderator casts a vote (from now on, a fiat vote), the action is taken and the voting process is skipped. A moderator can only ever cast a fiat vote, and not a regular vote; this feature has been requested and denied. Because of that, I think moderators should ordinarily recuse themselves and refrain from casting close/reopen votes entirely (or cast votes only when there is already only one left to take the action), so that closures are not subject to whims of a single moderator; fiat votes should be used extremely rarely, only when normal community processes fail (so for example, after a Meta discussion has been held). That threshold is not evident here.

Six minutes after the question was posted, Chenmunka cast a fiat vote to close the question as unfocused. An hour later, the asker edited it and submitted it to the re-open queue. Now, closing by fiat so quickly was already extremely poor form, but another hour later, Chenmunka cast a fiat vote denying re-opening. Unfortunately, this is not even a first for this particular moderator: I see their name in review queue histories all the time, blithely casting fiat votes, though so far nothing as egregious as this.

The asker deleted the edited question and re-posted it as Towards people who were there, what programs did you use to develop applications for the IBM 5150?. Re-posting a question to bypass a close decision is also poor form, but I would rather not fault a newbie for it too much; nevertheless I did point this out in the comments (and also the original moderation decision). Apparently a lively discussion about the latter has taken place afterwards, but I was unable to read it while it was ongoing. This is not a good look for the moderation either; I can only guess that the comments were not particularly flattering.

Only later did I notice that re-posting the question was in fact under a request from… guess whom:

You have edited the question into a completely different question about a completely different OS. This is considered to be vandalism on SE. You should ask a different question in another post.

But this rationale is nonsense. Prompting the asker to edit the question to address its flaws is exactly what closing questions is for. The claimed flaw was that the question is too broad, so the asker narrowed it down, exactly as they should.

Now that we’re in this mess, what should be done about it?

Answer 1

I would consider it somewhat problematic (and probably best answered in the negative, if at all),

This is really a very friendly way to put it. But ...

but perhaps it could have been salvaged through editing into something acceptable.

Simply NO, as the very core of that question is asking for opinions. Language choice, and even more about what is perceived as 'standard' is always a matter of opinion.

All answers given so far literally start or include "I used", "I created", "I " (that one made me smile), a list of opinions about tools (Wordstar) and languages. So exactly the kind of answers not fitting.

[Insert why that particular question is onjective unanswerable in addition to asking only for opinions] In addition this very question is unanswerable even today with, as there is still no hard data (*1). Sure, Projects like Tiobe Index numbers, but they do in no way tell anything about real world usage. Same goes for index numbers based on projects on Github and so on. They are all biased in one way or another. So if we cant't even have a reliabel overview with today's tools and data, how much less looking back onto a an era before any mainstream on a new machine was even formed?

For those who don’t know, close and reopen votes by moderators are final and binding;

Yes, that's a critical point and IMHO a flaw of the SE design. Moderators should have the opportunity to simply vote like as a regular user.

Then again, they do need a way to close of questions right away if deemed plain unfit.

And that is the case here.

I think moderators should ordinarily recuse themselves and refrain from casting close/reopen votes entirely

Which, AFAICT, they do. Yes. this whole thing puts a burden on them which I think is unfair, but so far I consider it as handled in an acceptable way.

(or cast votes only when there is already only one left to take the action),

Not really. Tactical voting is never a great idea.

Unfortunately, this is not even a first for this particular moderator: I see their name in review queue histories all the time, blithely casting fiat votes, though so far nothing as egregious as this.

Well, that's their job. I for one can not see anything justifying such harsh accusatory wording in this case. I also can not see any obvious overuse of moderator voting for Chenmunka. Sure, I may not always agree, but that's a different point.

In addition having the histories is already the good part of the system, as it gives transparency and creates liability. Quite different to moderator intervention in comments, where perfectly fine comments get deleted to promote particular interests. All without any (obvious) trace. If at all, then this power needs to be constrained. But that's a different story.

Re-posting a question to bypass a close decision is also poor form, but I would rather not fault a newbie for it too much; nevertheless I did point this out in the comments

Being new entitles to a lenient handling, but not to rule bending.

(and also the original moderation decision).

I wouldn't consider putting the boot in a great help to move that point.

Apparently a lively discussion about the latter has taken place afterwards, but I was unable to read it while it was ongoing. This is not a good look for the moderation either; I can only guess that the comments were not particularly flattering.

Which again highlights the problem with comment manipulation by mods without transparency and liability. Still, I can see the reasoning, as that discussion was provoked by an unnecessary side comment.

You have edited the question into a completely different question about a completely different OS. This is considered to be vandalism on SE. You should ask a different question in another post.

But this rationale is nonsense. Prompting the asker to edit the question to address its flaws is exactly what closing questions is for. The claimed flaw was that the question is too broad, so the asker narrowed it down, exactly as they should.

Sure about that? Editing in itself is not a neutral process of improving/clarifying the question. It can be as well creating a moving target (like to invalidate answers given to the question as it was asked), or turn it into a different question, which is what happened here.

Looking at the question log, it seems that the OP was retargeting the question way past editing for clarification, which the desired process after (or in expectation of) closing is, but rather creating a new one. Which is what was criticised by the mod - and which should, as mentioned lead to opening a new one. That the new one isn't a better fit for RC.SE does not mater.

Now that we’re in this mess, what should be done about it?

Can't see any mess. It was a moderator action not only within its abilities, but as well in accordance with how RC.SE should be maintained. It was an obvious case, not needing any further process.

And on a more general note:

Moderators have the job to keep the site in working order, which foremost means keeping content in line with topic and rules. They are necessary, as pure peer governance does not work as one would wish. SE format is about being focused on solvable issues.

Anyone wanting a free for all format should maybe look for some forum site. They can be quite useful,helpful and knowledgeable - some well patronized by the very same people as RC.SE - and without the restrictions of RC.SE (*2).

Thus, if we have moderators, we as well need not only to trust them, even if we don't like particular decisions, but also accept their ruling.

---

*1 - . IMHO everything should be written in Assembly, but even I wouldn't believe that Assembly is more widely used than PHP or SQL. It rather shows where people have more questions about, more problems with, or are more proud about telling about their little achievements.

*2 - Or better, they may come with a different set of limitations. Like about guns ... old timers will know :))

Answer 2

The original question was closeworthy:

What OSs and Programs were used to write code in the 80s?

If we were transported back to the 80s and were working on a program for MS-DOS, what OS would we, the programmers, be using? I know we would most likely be using 8086 assembly, Basic, and C, but what OSs, IDEs, and Compilers would be the norm for the time?

ms-dos programming 8086

I'm sure you can see how to improve this. For one, the titular question is different to the question in the body.

The point of closing questions is so they can be improved and re-opened. The closure here was correct, albeit unilateral. This is what moderators are supposed to do:

@Jared: that's my point - they shouldn't even think of it in terms of voting. If a moderator is certain that a question should be closed, then he should just close it. A moderator who would cast one vote when he could cast 5 shouldn't vote at all. @Koper: They aren't normal users, and can't pretend to be. – Shog9 Mar 5, 2010 at 19:22

@Monica: If you think a post should be closed, close it. If you just want to suggest that a post should be closed, leave a comment - and then close it. If you aren't really sure if a post should be closed, but feel there are problems with it that should be addressed, leave a comment pointing out the problems and suggesting improvements, and don't mention closing. – Shog9 Jul 30, 2012 at 19:11

I'm not a fan of this either. (I still stand by the comments I wrote in 2017, if you're interested.) However, it is how moderators on Stack Exchange sites are expected to behave, and the system effectively requires we behave like this.

The question was later edited:

What were the most commonly used programs when writing software for the IBM 5150?

If we were transported back to the early 80s and were working on a program for the IBM 5150, what software would we be using? Specifically for writing assembler, what IDEs, Text editors, and Compilers would be the norm for the time?

Put simply, what was the gold standard of the time, the industry standard software, you go into an interview for a position working with assembler, what software is a no-brainer for them to expect you to be familiar with?

for example, going into the field today, if you're going to be using C as the main language they will expect you to be versed in GNU GCC.

ms-dos programming 8086

This question is better. The tags still don't match the question, but the title and body match each other. I wouldn't have voted to re-open it. Two users voted to keep it closed, with the stated reasons:

GCC today? Not really. For most professional development it'll be Microsoft C packages. Also, what industry standard could exist in an industry still in formative stage? Sorry, but that question is not only way too broad, it also tries to form a retroactive setting. – Raffzahn

I don't understand the "retroactive setting" argument, but thinking a question is too broad is a valid reason for voting to leave closed.

You have edited the question into a completely different question about a completely different OS. This is considered to be vandalism on SE. You should ask a different question in another post. – Chenmunka ♦

Chenmunka is correct about SE policy, and the body has changed in a way that wouldn't be allowed; the body wasn't simply narrowed. However, considering the scope of the old title as well, the question as a whole was narrowed in scope. As such, I think Chenmunka has made a mistake; it would've been fine for the question not to have been reposted.

I might've made the same mistake as well: to me, IBM 5150 sounds like a mainframe, not something that ran MS-DOS. A quick check of Wikipedia shows it's the model number of the original IBM PC; I'm just an ignoramus. (When I don't have time to do this kind of research, I usually leave the flags to Chenmunka. Therefore, in practice, I don't make these kinds of mistake.)

I think Chenmunka made a mistake here, and that mistake did involve Epic Mod Hammer Powerz. However, the mistake wasn't a unilateral action; the unilateral action looks absolutely fine, to me. (The biggest mistake – if my assessment of the situation is right – was making the comment asking the user to re-post the question.)

Raffzahn disagrees that this action was a mistake, so it's apparently less cut-and-dried than I think.

Considering that, in the last week, Chenmunka has been the only active diamond moderator (in fact, I'm still officially marked as "not present", at time of writing), I think one mistake is forgivable.

---

Here are the comments from the reposted question about this moderation decision. (I deleted the first four of these.)

+1 It’s poor form to repost a closed question. (Though to be fair, it was also poor form for the mod to close it unilaterally.) – user3840170 2022-10-20 21:08:03Z, License: CC BY-SA 4.0

+1 Opening another question if the first gets closed isn't exactly good sports. The recommended way is to improve upon the issues. Also, this question asks explicit for opinions, which is an automatic reason for closure. About what language to be used is a personal matter - even more if no use case or dedicated requirements are given. Also but not least, why not BASIC- it's the Language IBM intended to be used :)) – Raffzahn 2022-10-20 21:22:36Z, License: CC BY-SA 4.0

+3 I know this is getting pretty meta, but to be fair again, the OP was specifically asked to repost the question by a moderator. All this sounds like a pretty rough welcome for a new user. – Greg Hewgill 2022-10-20 21:51:28Z, License: CC BY-SA 4.0

+2 People, if you have a problem with a moderation decision, bring it up on Retrocomputing Meta. Please. Not in the comments of a different post. I've deleted the discussion. – wizzwizz4 ♦ 2022-10-21 02:34:10Z, License: CC BY-SA 4.0

+1 @wizzwizz4 Fine, opened: <https://retrocomputing.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1151/15334>. – user3840170 2022-10-21 05:17:28Z, License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Answer 3

Apologies for the delay in replying. Personal reasons have kept me away from SE as a whole for a week.

As others have already answered, the original question was not acceptable on the site. Closing questions unilaterally is something that I rarely do, as you rightly suggest, in most cases the community should decide.

Editing a question to make it on-topic is clearly a good thing to do, whether the edit is by the OP or by someone else. However, changing the question so radically, just about every criterion in the question was changed, does count as vandalism. There are SE sites where such an action, even by the OP, will result in account suspension or even deletion. As the OP in this case is new to the site, I simply pointed out that the edit was unacceptable and kept the question closed. I considered rolling back but thought that this too may be overly aggressive for a new user.

I pointed out that asking a new question was the correct action. This was not intended to suggest reposting but merely to indicate that a new question is preferable to a wholesale edit. This could have been better worded to make it clearer, that was an error on my part.

I had intended to keep an eye on the site, so that if the question were reposted, I would then mark the original as a duplicate of the new. That way, keeping a trail of how the question came to be. The question, in its new form, was one I would happily leave to the community to close or not as it sees fit.

Anyway, moderators need to be kept on their toes by having their actions challenged occassionally. I'll try to make myself clearer in future.

Answer 4

There is no mess, except that created by the user who asked a terribly broad question. The subsequent edits did very little to resolve that issue, there's little indication that future edits would improve it, thus rightly the question was close-voted. The fact that a moderator did it in one with their close-hammer is not an abuse of power, but a proper and correct use of that power to get rid of a question that is likely to attract off-topic and/or spammy answers.

The subsequent question is not much better, but it at least gets down to what the user actually wants: recommendations for software to write assembler in. Recommendation questions are off-topic on Stack Exchange for the same reasons as listed above, hence why that question is also closed.

Don't blame moderators for doing their jobs. Blame users for not following the rules.