This question Is U.S. Representative Steve King a white supremacist and a white nationalist? has been edited. Why is the question still "on hold"?


The re-open process has already started. The question has been placed in the review queue and two people have already voted to re-open the question after your edit. If three more reviewers agree the edit brought the question to shape it will be re-opened.

  • Is this vote to close reason "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." primarily opinion-based? What is the standard used at Politics SE to prove such a wild accusation? Or, is no proof required; the only requirement being the opinion of the user who makes the accusation provided by Politics SE as VTC reason? How is the difference between pre-edit/post-edit determined? Jan 17 '19 at 7:10
  • 3
    Yes, it's opinion based. All the close reasons are. That is why we require five votes, and offer review and appeal processes. The system is certainly not perfect and it will never be. But it works, and it has been working for years for the vast majority of users. If it doesn't for you I'd love to hear your ideas to improve it. Through well-thought Meta feature requests. But please stop with it the constant complaining. It won't get you anywhere.
    – yannis Mod
    Jan 17 '19 at 7:18
  • "If it doesn't for you I'd love to hear your ideas to improve it. But please stop with the constant complaining." The last two sentences of your comment are diametrically opposed. Jan 17 '19 at 7:19
  • 9
    @guest271314 They are not at all opposed. The problem is that you've never come up with ideas to improve it other than "people should never use this close reason", i.e. complaining. If you had actual actionable ideas I don't doubt they would be listened to. Jan 17 '19 at 10:27
  • @ChrisHayes The two sentences are exactly opposed. That reason itself should not be available. It is a wild accusation which labels a user without any substantive evidence other than the opinion of another user. Neither you nor any other user or moderator at SE can prove that wild accusation. Stop using it. Users can use that reason to censor what they perceive to be their political opponents, without any objective or subjective proof at all; just an unsubstantiated allegation. Actionable idea: Remove that wild accusation from your system as a reason for voting to close a question. Jan 17 '19 at 15:42
  • 8
    @guest271314 Repeating exactly the behavior which I just told you is a problem is not remotely convincing. If you're not going to actually listen to the feedback people give you, please stop spamming meta with your problems. Jan 17 '19 at 20:17

You must log in to answer this question.

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