We should close all questions about fields as "too localized"!

If you've gotta ask, you'll never know.

Once again, the list of reasons for closure votes is immutable, but "not a real question" is among the easiest to decipher. In my interpretation, it also subsumes questions that are too broad (paradoxically, some of them also fall under the idiosyncratic "too localized"). By the way, I don't think there is an obligation to "spell out what is wrong with a question" if it is obvious from the context (the text of the question, the comments, the reason for the closure, history of similar questions where reasons were given) that the question doesn't pass the FAQ test. Furthermore, I may be misremembering, but I was under the impression that controversial closures were typically classified as "subjective and argumentative" and "off topic".

Edit: Oh wow, there are eight reasons? I thought I counted seven. I even went to the trouble of looking up what the corresponding word for dichotomy was for the case n=7.

With all due respect, I want them closed and don't really care all that much about consistency. The vote-to-close dialog presents a false heptachotomy.

With all due respect, you are nonetheless accountable for your actions. Objecting that the close dialog presents a false choice does not absolve you of your responsibility to give some indication of why you think a question should be closed. If none of the eight reasons for closure fits the bill, you can leave a comment, in which you can communicate any one of 256^600 possible messages. It is not acceptable (and should not be acceptable) to just pick a random reason because you vaguely feel that the question should be closed. If you strongly feel that the question should be closed, you should at least leave a comment giving some indication of why you feel that way. If you don't think you can write and stand behind such a comment, don't vote to close.

Harry cut it out. Accusing someone of being a sock puppet with no evidence is not ok.

+1

each question should be considered on its own merits.

I agree with a version of this, but not the strict interpretation. This user asked nine questions, four of which have been deleted as spam, one of which had the body text "I have been anorexic for the past 5 months and it has been affecting my studies. What should I do?" The remaining five are responsible for 12 of the 13 current spam/offensive flags. At this point I think people are perfectly entitled to treat all the users question as suspect. This user would have to ask a pretty good question with little room for interpretation to convince me that s/he's not just fishing around for something that sounds just legitimate enough to not be shut down.

... seemed to have morphed into a way to avoid spelling out precisely what is wrong with a particular question.

That's too bad. Unless the reason for closure is crystal clear, I wish people would always leave (or vote up) a comment explaining in some detail what is wrong, and perhaps how it could be fixed. Unfortunately, different people have different opinions about what is crystal clear and most people are kind of lazy. I think that discussing individual questions on meta is a decent solution. In this case, AgCl started this thread, which had the effect of holding up to the light the actions of people who closed these questions.

One of my questions were closed here quite a while ago, which was about Godel's theorem, and I believe it was closed mainly because ...

@AgCl: When you see a question that has been closed (or looks like it's going to be closed) with insufficient explanation, regardless of whether it's your question, always consider the option of starting a thread on meta and linking to it in the comment thread of the question. Even if you then completely disappear, the action of starting a thread draws eyes and brains to the question. I think such threads are extremely healthy for MO. They usually generate an informed consensus quickly, and they keep high rep users accountable for their actions. For MO to run smoothly, it's important that many people have a say, but it's also important to exert some pressure for them to behave responsibly. It's very hard to exert that pressure in an automated way ... human action is needed.

... should have been suspended as a matter of policy

I agree, but there is no benefit to suspending a user with no rep. Setting up a new user is trivial (as it should be), and blatant trolls will have no qualms about creating many users, so immediately suspending an obvious troll just means that we'll gave a less persistent identity to deal with.

In my opinion, those are both bad choices. If you use the phrase to mean "raise the question", some pedants will silently dismiss you as a dunce, while others will complain loudly, thus distracting everyone else from whatever you wanted to say. If you complain about others' "misuse", you come across as an annoying pedant. And if you use the phrase to mean "assume the conclusion", almost no one will understand you.

I only take issue with the last part, which is not true if we only use the phrase formally in the company of mathematicians or logicians..

Edit: From the modern usage section:

Using the term in this way is considered incorrect by most usage commentators.

I assume that you don't mean begging the question.

You did indeed choose very poor examples to illustrate your point. I completely agree with the need for a well-defined procedure for closing; but no procedure, no matter how well thought out, will be effective in the extreme cases. As far as I am concerned, any user with history of poor questions who hasn't demonstrated even basic understanding of the rules, as in the case under discussion, should have been suspended as a matter of policy. That would eliminate the necessity to determine whether any subsequent question is "spam", "not a real question", etc by vote.

Sadly, the options to close list does not presently include "taking the mickey" otherwise I would have selected that. However, "not a real question" seemed a reasonable approximation, because asking questions without due care is not a habit I wish to see encouraged on MO, even if it is done in good faith. (Which, in the present case, I now doubt.)

Edit: And regarding your post about Goedel's theorem, read the comments, which explain why we voted to close as subjective and argumentative.

As far as closing questions, it is always based on personal taste, as evinced by the large number of discussions we've had on meta (and the number of times we've simply agreed to disagree).

In summary, closing questions should not be arbitrary or based on personal tastes, and this message should be conveyed to the users wherever possible.

Then I guess we should stop using the SE engine...