I'm not a huge fan of single word requests, but I don't think they should be closed for the wrong reasons, as this one was. The OP was looking for a word that describes someone with what we used to call a dirty mind, someone who saw double entendres where none were meant.

It was quickly closed as a duplicate of What is a good word to describe someone who is empathetic, quick, and witty in conversation?.


The top answers for the dupe were:

conversationalist, a wit, warm, charisma, gregarious and convivial, etc.

If I were a lawyer telling a male boss I would give him my briefs tonight, and he snickered for the fiftieth time, I would not really find that warm, charismatic, or particularly witty. I'd probably tell him to get his mind out of the gutter.

I don't care as much as some when questions are closed. I do think that in all fairness, though, we should do so for the proper reasons, both for the sake of new users who are often already perplexed by our close reasons, and to avoid the appearance of elitism.

Edited to add: I don't think we are elitist, or that most of our closures are bad (with apologies to phenry.) This could have been closed for a better dupe, for failing to meet the requirements of swr's, etc. Just not a "dupe" which is not a dupe.

  • 2
    Enough reopens have gone through. It is open again.
    – Mitch
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 2:11
  • 4
    I would assume that those who voted to close the question have enough knowledge of English to realize that those two questions are not the same. In other words, they deliberately closed the question for silly reasons, such as they didn't like the OP's picture. Unless SE implements penalties for misuse of votes, this silliness will continue.
    – Masked Man
    Commented Mar 20, 2015 at 16:46
  • 4
    You write the best meta titles. Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 12:16

2 Answers 2


I agree this should be reopened. They seem quite different questions to me. I can't seem to find the reopen button on the SE app, but hopefully I won't need to!


The edit history shows that the original question was vague. The duplicate it was closed at answers the question as originally asked. Subsequent edits clarified the question and it was re-opened. This is how the site is meant to work.

  • The question was edited after this meta question brought attention to it. The edit was at Mar 12 '15 at 20:34, this question was asked at 17:40.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 15:52
  • @ColleenV I don't think it's relevant when the question was edited. The original question is vague and the dupe it was closed as is not a clear error. Vague, badly-asked SWRs get closed; that's site policy. The closing of that question is not an indication that tchrist was misbehaving. Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 15:54
  • 3
    The title was vague, the question was pretty specific The trait denoted by this word is the tendency to rapidly spot--as though unconsciously seeking out--double meanings, especially of the racier sort, in messages whose intent was probably innocuous. I have to agree with medica that the dupe wasn't even close. You have to read the entire question, not just the title when making moderation decisions (in my opinion of course).
    – ColleenV
    Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 15:57
  • @ColleenV You should assume that if I've gone through the trouble of looking up the edit history that I've also read the question. It's not a great SWR and tchrist's dupe is not completely out in left field, in my opinion. And this is, to me, the proof that it wasn't a good SWR: it didn't clearly explain what it wanted. The OP even admitted that the duped answers were plausible but not what they were looking for. Subsequent edits clarified it. Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 16:00
  • 1
    So it shouldn't have been closed as a dupe. It should have been closed for other reasons. Closing incorrectly as a dupe is a problem, because the questions don't get deleted by the same automatic processes that delete questions closed for other reasons under similar circumstances, as well as relating two unrelated questions. Stating that the duplicate answers the question as asked doesn't make it so.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 17:09
  • @ColleenV It's a dupe if the dupe answers answer it. Just because you don't think they do doesn't mean it's completely unbelievable that someone else might think they do. Even the OP acknowledges that; why can't you? Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 17:58
  • 1
    What are you talking about? The OP said: (This was marked as a duplicate of a question seeking a word for someone who is empathetic, quick in conversation, witty, ... Moreover, the responses to that question are entirely off from the sense I'm looking for.) I don't really understand why you're necroing a question from March '15, but I do believe that other people can be wrong and not realize they're wrong. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't point it out so it can be corrected.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 18:45
  • @ColleenV This question is the focus of an accusation that one of the mod candidates might not be fit for mod duty. Hence the need to clarify that the original question was not closed out of malice or incompetence. Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 18:47
  • Ah, I see. Maybe you should explain a bit more clearly in your answer that you aren't actually addressing the OP, whose concern was resolved last year sometime to their apparent satisfaction, but defending a moderator candidate you are partial to. Or maybe you should take that discussion to election chat or the other places where it belongs.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 18:52
  • Actually, I was trying to address why the question was closed. The posted answer doesn't address "why" at all. And frankly, I don't care if an OP thinks they've got an answer to their question; that should never prevent someone from posting a better answer to a question, if they think they've got one. Commented Aug 15, 2016 at 18:55
  • @ColleenV OP was the one making the accusation that Mr.Shiny is referring to, so it was not apparently resolved to her satisfaction. There is discussion in chat about it as well as on the nomination page, as well as here because some thought here was the place where it belonged.
    – Kit Z. Fox Mod
    Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 12:12
  • @Kit I was a little cranky when I commented, but if this answer was intended to clear things up, it did exactly the opposite. This question doesn't have anything to do with a particular person as it is written, and it has an accepted answer. If the question referenced in this discussion is being used to illustrate a different point about how someone does community moderation, I don't see why we should need to revisit this discussion to rebut. It's out of context. As an aside, I would hope a simple mistake wouldn't disqualify someone who is willing to volunteer to moderate.
    – ColleenV
    Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 13:48
  • @ColleenV I visited this question because of the mod election. I investigated the situation because I was curious about how egregious the error must have been. I posted a competing theory for what happened because, based on my investigation, I don't know that a serious problem occurred. I didn't fill this answer with mod election chat because it's not relevant to this question. You asked why the "necro", that's why. Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 15:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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