-2
$\begingroup$

the FAQ says a question is closed after 5 close votes. however on my question it says only that kaveh closed it. was there 5 other close votes? are they not reported? I think I have seen on other posts that multiple ppl voted to close the question & they are listed. is everyone who voted to close a question listed?

also it says "Closed questions may be opened by casting reopen votes in the same manner. However, you may only vote to close or reopen a question once." it is not clear to me how to vote on a closed question as this sentence refers to. its apparently not the main voting control because when I click on that it says I cant vote on my own question. is the FAQ indicating that only those with the reputation/privilege of voting on closing questions can also vote to unclose it?

it also says "Closed questions cannot be answered, but are eligible for improvement (and eventual re-opening) through editing, voting, and commenting." how does this occur? I want to improve my closed question for eventual re-opening but am not sure how to do that.

thx for any info.

https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/faq#close

$\endgroup$
18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I haven't been on the site much lately, but I just read your closed question and a few back-and-forths you've had with Kaveh on the main site and on meta. I would like to say that I agree with @Kaveh's position 100%. Your post behavior, especially on meta, is borderline spam, and your closed question on main is clearly off topic. I did upvote an answer you gave about Santhanam's log-star extension of the time hierarchy theorem, so I believe you have a lot to contribute to the site. However, in case you thought Kaveh just had a problem with you, that isn't true. Kaveh was correct. $\endgroup$ Jan 15 '12 at 15:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ if you guys dont accept a simple/legitimate/straightfwd question on TCS main site, Ill certainly try to figure out why that happened on the meta site. there is no description on the main site why my post is "clearly off topic" as you just wrote [but certainly lots of incomprehensible negative insinuations on the meta site] and its easy for me to find other questions on the main site on here with high votes that are far less on topic. $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 15 '12 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ yes I do believe I have something to contribute but I cant do much if a question Ive worked on for many wks [arguably even years], incl substantial empirical research behind it, is knee-jerk closed by a single moderator who didnt seem to understand it at all, still doesnt, and has put no specific reason for its closing on the post. Im mainly opposed to the overzealous, facile closing of the question. if the question is open and gets no responses & further negative votes, thats certainly a possible outcome. $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 15 '12 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ thx for voting up my other response re new results on santhanams extension & I would upvote your comment here but I cant agree with it overall [think its not a fair/accurate portrayal of what has transpired] & therefore wont upvote it. $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 15 '12 at 17:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @vzn: I can understand that it may be frustrating if your question gets closed, but your behaviour here on meta does not really help. $\endgroup$ Jan 15 '12 at 17:55
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @vzn: If you are sure that you have a legitimate, on-topic question on research-level TCS, and nevertheless your question was closed, usually it simply means that your question was not clear enough. You can always try to improve your question by editing it. Remember that you have to work hard to make people read your question, understand it, and take it seriously; simple thing like the lack of capital letters may be a good enough reason for many people to ignore your post. $\endgroup$ Jan 15 '12 at 18:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "your behavior on meta does not really help". help who? if the moderators want to be unquestioned, then no it does not help. help me? no, it does not appear to help me either in getting a specific suggestion on how to improve the post. it does not appear that my behavior here on meta has any effect on whether the question will be opened or closed or given further review. yes I would love to completely ignore meta entirely & probably would be doing so right now if the question was left open. as for lack of capitalized sentences, sorry, I think thats a poor criteria for rejecting the question. $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 15 '12 at 21:06
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @vzn, I have tried to help you understand the scope of this site and what questions will get closed. If you insist on using the site for purposes outside the scope after understanding this (which seems to be the case) there is not much I can do to help you. ps 1: I warn you that if you continue to spam the meta posts I will flag your post/comment as spam and as a result you will get -100 rep points which will get your rep below the level required for posting on meta. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jan 16 '12 at 4:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ps 2: The site is not run by moderators but the community. The reputation required for close/reopen votes is set high enough to make sure new users cannot dominate the site and change it to something it didn't meant to be. You should not expect us to change it so that it fits what you want. Five high rep user can vote to reopen your question. If you want to argue about closure of a particular question you can post a new meta question to ask for an explanation (but in this case I think you have already understood it) and see if you can find high rep users to vote to reopen your question. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jan 16 '12 at 4:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ nope, sorry! I still dont understand exactly why you closed my technical question & nobody has posted an explanation here on meta or on the question. moderators do not seem interested at all in helping me improve the question for posting. there seems to be multiple vague reasons but none that are fixable by me. guess thats how it stands. is there a list of questions that have been fixed somewhere (ie reopened after closing) that I can study? or maybe it is a very rare occurrence on this site & the moderators just arent really interested in that case even though the software supports it.... $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 16 '12 at 19:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @vzn, we have told you several times that what you want to do is outside the scope of cstheory. You have expressed your point and we have heard it. That's all you could do, stop spamming old meta posts, it is not going to help you. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jan 16 '12 at 23:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I haven't removed any of your comments on this post. You continued to post irrelevant comments on other meta posts, therefore as I warned you I have flagged your irrelevant answers/comments on other meta posts as spam, and the system has removed them. You can post a single meta question asking for reopening of your question and express your opinion there but if you continue to spam other meta posts I am going to suspend your account. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jan 17 '12 at 0:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "I still dont understand exactly why you closed my technical question." — Okay, let me give this a shot. First, you did not explicitly ask a specific question that has a concrete answer. (Among other things, that would require a question mark.) It's not clear whether your intended question was "What is known about grammar-based compression of Turing machine transition sequences?" or "Any suggestions how I would prove or disprove these conjectures?" or "Isn't this a cool idea?". The first of these questions would be in scope, in my opinion, but not the other two. $\endgroup$
    – Jeffε
    Jan 21 '12 at 12:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Second, your question included details that are part of the standard background of any research-level theoretical computer scientist. We all know exactly what the pumping lemma and Ogden's lemma are; your telling us what they are suggests (perhaps incorrectly) that you don't have a research-level question in mind. Third, the motivation for your question appears to be an attack on the P vs NP question. That automatically makes us suspicious, because almost everyone who claims to be working directly on the P vs NP question is a crank. $\endgroup$
    – Jeffε
    Jan 21 '12 at 12:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ agree that mentioning P vs NP in my question was in retrospect a mistake, if the overall goal was merely to avoid its facile closing here. could write more but think moderator(s) do not condone further attn to subj at this time. however maybe will hang around to see if circumstances/dynamics chg $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 23 '12 at 17:16
7
$\begingroup$

When one of the moderators casts a close/reopen vote, the question is closed/reopened immediately. Kaveh is one of the moderators. See this for the list of moderators.

You need at least 250 reputation points to cast a close or reopen vote to your own questions. See this.

You can edit your own question by clicking the “edit” link below the question. After editing, you can ask moderators to take a look at the question for reopening by flagging the question and selecting “it needs ♦ moderator attention.”

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thx for info. the moderators here seem to have privileges not listed on the pages you cite, true? is there a description of that? I dont see anything on the pages you cited that the moderators have special powers to close questions eg case of single moderator unilaterally close question. also one of the pages says you can click on a link on a question to view close votes & see "close reasons" but it looks like maybe that link disappears after the question is closed? $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 14 '12 at 22:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ also kaveh is currently at 6145 which is not the 10K cited in one of the links for moderator tools. not following that $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 14 '12 at 22:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ on further research Tsuyoshi's response seems incorrect. this page says that 3K rep is required to cast a close or reopen vote. the 250 is to view close votes. $\endgroup$
    – vzn
    Jan 15 '12 at 3:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @vzn: (1) Moderators and “moderator tools” are different. Moderators can access “moderator tools” and other tools regardless of their reputation points. (2) 3,000 is for voting close/reopen votes to questions posted by other users. The page about viewing close votes (which I linked to) states that “You may also cast a close or reopen vote on your questions.” $\endgroup$ Jan 15 '12 at 5:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Moderators have super-awesome powers, including but not limited to erasing every trace of your existence on the internet - I kid, I kid :) $\endgroup$ Jan 18 '12 at 0:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Suresh: I was suspecting that possibility! $\endgroup$ Jan 19 '12 at 2:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .