Despite promising to stop editing it, the OP has now made his 24th edit to his question


I think it is time to close it.

  • $\begingroup$ Related meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2749/… though that seems to have been inspired by a different poster. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ How is it not CW then? $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 10:59
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts All forms of automatic CW-ification were removed from the system close to two years ago. See the announcing blog post: Putting the Community back in Wiki. $\endgroup$
    – user642796
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @arthur well I'll be... I missed that one. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 20:25

2 Answers 2


The rational for proposing the closure of the question is quite dubious to me.

  1. Closing does nothing to prevent edits. Even more drastically, closing a question, quite literally asks for more edits. Indeed, by now the question is closed as "unclear what your are asking." In this way OP is told:

    Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

    Thus if one takes the processes on this site at least somewhat seriously, OP is now explicitly encourage to perform (further) edits to the question. This seems completely at odds with what appears to be the root-cause of the request, annoyance about too many edits.

  2. Given 1. and the formulation of the meta-post it seems closure is proposed as some kind of reprimand against the poster. However, I do not consider this as a good way to proceed. A question should be closed if and only if it is not suitable for this site, best regardless to most everything else. If there is a problem with the behavior of a user, there are other ways to address it. For the specific type of behavior we recently had a thread: How to discourage excessive self-edits? where some proposals for actions are made. Besides the point of view that it is not a big deal to begin with had a lot of support.
    If there is a problem with the question, it can be closed. I do not know if there is one with the current question, but that OP broke a so-called promise is irrelevant to deciding this. (Tangentially, I feel there was no promise made, and if so it was rather kept in that for many months after it was made indeed no edit happened. Right, after half a year OP made one more edit, and two further months later another one (technically two, but for all practical purposes it is one).

Finally, while the merits of the question may be questionable, at least OP is invested in their post; in doubt I prefer that over users asking yet-another-question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree & am voting to reopen. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2016 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ For the record: it is open again. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Mar 5, 2016 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Well, reading the link you gave me I see: "Some examples of when a post might be locked include: A question or answer where repeated voting or editing is happening in a way which attempts to game, hack, or otherwise abuse the system." $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Mar 6, 2016 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts I do not understand the point you want to make. In my answer on the post I link to I propose locking as a measure against extremely excessive edits too. Here, I argue on the one hand against closure, as it does not even achieve the intended goal and. on the other hand against considering the recent edit(s) as excessive. The criticism related to your post is also not that you propose locking but the specific formulation of the phrase I quote, which I find incoherent or at least misleading, and as a matter of principle that you see fit to propose something you do not understand. $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Mar 6, 2016 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, it wasn't clear to me that you were disavowing a lock, just that you were arguing against closure. I took your comments in the spirit in which you say they were offered, namely that I didn't know what I was talking about, which turned out to be spot on. I'll bow out, since I'm not winning any friends by continuing in the line. Thanks for the clarification. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Mar 6, 2016 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ For the record, the question was deleted by the user who posted it. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2022 at 23:08

From the blog post Arthur linked to in the comments

To handle those rare situations where unusual activity levels may indicate misuse, we’ve added some new moderator flags in these scenarios: they can respond when necessary by closing or locking the post

Maybe a lock will be sufficient rather than closure?

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ A lock is usually for pretty serious situations; I don't think this qualifies. I'll say a little more in an answer to come. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble Mod
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 22:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble Sure thing. I probably don't understand the mechanism of a lock then - I guess was thinking something like a protected question, except only mods/10k users could edit the question/add answers. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Mar 4, 2016 at 0:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The mechanics of locks on posts, as almost all things SE, are explained in detail in a Meta Stack Exchange FAQ post What is a locked post? $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Mar 4, 2016 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ @quid - being a bit of a drive-by contributor these days, I don't tend to research the in-depth mechanisms of SE, but thanks for the pointer. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts Mod
    Commented Mar 5, 2016 at 23:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's fine, but in this case it might make sense not to make proposals on what mechanism to use. "Maybe a lock will be sufficient rather than closure?" just does not make sense when "lock" for a question post is strictly stronger than closure (which it is). $\endgroup$
    – user9072
    Commented Mar 6, 2016 at 2:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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