If any user asks for the requirements of any specific thing (like requiring a newer kernel version for installing Android Lollipop), is it off-topic? The user is just asking the requirements, not the actual procedure. It is related to Android, and is a question commonly asked by enthusiasts to further enhance their knowledge about Android. I have read the rules here, and this is no exception, but a similar question was recently marked as off-topic. The question can be found here. If this is off-topic, then please tell me how it is violating the rules and regulations present here. Thanks in advance.

  • 1
    Actually, the referenced question clearly is a development question (porting a ROM). But I see your point: phrased differently (e.g. "I want to increase performance of my device / enable a certain kernel feature; are kernels device specific, or can I take any?"), eldarerathis certainly had not thrown the mod-hammer on it. Though it still might be borderline then, to me it would look like a power-user question which fits this site. But before making that a "global statement", we'd better wait for more opinions. – Izzy Apr 5 '15 at 10:52
  • @Izzy , He is just asking whether a specific kernel is required for installing Android Lollipop on his phone. The message he wanted to convey was : "I am trying to port a Lollipop ROM to my device but I don't know much about kernels. Is there a special requirement for a newer kernel in Android Lollipop? Can I install it with 3.4 kernel? " He is not asking how to develop a kernel or port a Lollipop ROM, but whether doing so requires a specific newer kernel. I am open to opinions, though. I don't want to get into any argument over here. A short and simple doubt is all I wanted to clarify. – rjt.rockx Apr 5 '15 at 11:01
  • 1
    I see that, and that's essentially what I meant (that just a certain phrasing triggered the "development hammer"). And btw, I've just approved your edit; one more approval required, and it should hit the re-open queue. Still, I'm not for a fight but for a consense – so the more voices on this the better. – Izzy Apr 5 '15 at 11:05
  • He just wanted to ask the above mentioned message, but did not know how to phrase it. This has happened with many questions. The thing is, if the user is unable to make an edit, can recognized/trusted moderators converse with him and edit the question themselves? Why should the peer review feature be made a must? What if the user is unable to convey his question at all, and if he doesn't accept an edit just because only he can't understand it? Then, the moderators must discuss and edit it themselves, right? Again, no arguments here. Just expressing my view. – rjt.rockx Apr 5 '15 at 11:07
  • Or is the above mentioned feature already present? – rjt.rockx Apr 5 '15 at 11:08
  • First, every user can always edit his own posts. Second, a mods vote is always binding (takes effect immediately without any peer). Third, if rephrased correctly and passing the re-open review queue, it will be re-opened – I cannot remember any event where a mod overruled that. I pointed what might have led to eldarerathis "mod hammer"; he might even revert this. – Izzy Apr 5 '15 at 11:18
  • Bingo. Precisely the thing I needed to know. So, a moderator can overrule it if he/she chooses to? I mean, does he/she have like 'the supreme power' over any question asked over similar sites? – rjt.rockx Apr 5 '15 at 11:21
  • 1
    That's what they are for :) But as I said: they're normally not using their powers to overrule the community (and I haven't seen that ever on the SE sites I'm active on). They have those powers to be able to act quickly – e.g. take down spam or offense immediately to keep the site clean. You did the right thing bringing it up in Meta to discuss; if the community decides on a way here, the mods will "follow that". And again: mods are human, so eldarerathis might well have just been "a bit quick" – plus I have to admit I might have thrown a "close-vote" on that as well. – Izzy Apr 5 '15 at 11:35
  • I think once in the several years I've moderated here have I re-closed a question the community voted to reopen. Perhaps a couple dozen times I've done the opposite and reopened after a community closure. When something is borderline we do our best to favor the poster. – Matthew Read Apr 5 '15 at 14:45

I reopened the question. I agree with you that it was just a bit unclear but does seem to be about using an old kernel with a new ROM, which is fully within our purview. If the user wants to know how to create a custom ROM based on that it would be of-topic, but we give the benefit of the doubt.

Do note that closure is intended to be a temporary state before either deletion or editing and reopening (which is why it now says "on hold"). Quick closure is generally a good thing since it decreases a post's visibility a bit, so it won't gather downvotes while it's being improved and doesn't gather answers focused on the wrong thing. It is always fully reversible and editing a closed question always nominates it for re-opening.

  • I did not think of it that way. Now, I understand. However, can't such questions be hidden from people who are new to Android Stack Exchange and usually have a lower reputation ? It would prevent spam to some extent and might lower the burden moderators like you have, right? Anyway, thanks for clearing my doubts. – rjt.rockx Apr 8 '15 at 13:56
  • @rjt.rockx currently no one (even mods and SE devs) can't hide specific question (unless using ignored tag, but that's user preference). They can only be closed, locked, or deleted. – Andrew T. Apr 10 '15 at 6:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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