0

I have a question about my Server Fault post: Client-side UAC seems to be enough to permit code to be "Run As Administrator" on Windows Server

I'm not clear why this question was closed. The notice says that it is "off-topic". It refers to "demonstrat[ing] reasonable information technology management practices." I don't think this question demonstrates any unreasonable practices. The notice also refers to "unsupported hardware or software platforms or unmaintained environments", but the platforms involved in this question are current and supported. I don't particularly want or need this question to be re-opened, because one of the comments posted before its closure has answered the question. But I would like to be clear about SF policy for future reference and to that end would like more detail about what the matter was with this question, if possible.

1 Answer 1

1

The question was closed by 3 users who have earned enough reputation to be able to vote to close.

The standard close reasons are not (and can not be) a perfect fit for every situation. Sometimes a question is not suitable for the site but none of the standard close reasons quite fit. In these cases, the users who vote to close will often pick the "closest" reason.

I can't speak for the 3 users who voted to close, but based on the comments posted on the question, it looks like the question was based on a misunderstanding of where code was running. To me, that makes it look like the question is asking how to make a server do something it can't really do (enforce a restriction on a local PC), and for that, the chosen close reason is close enough.

There is no policy or general SE guideline for how to handle questions that turn out to be based on mistakes or misunderstandings. I can't find it now, I'm sure there's a question from many years ago about this, but I'm pretty sure there was no consensus at the time. I think most "misunderstanding" questions would end up getting closed because the problem turns out not to be a problem after all.

3
  • Thanks. The question was indeed based on a misunderstanding of where the code was running. One of the answers pointed this out, and from my PoV that was a helpful answer and the matter is closed. What concerns me is that the question might have been closed without my getting that (or any) answer, which leaves me wondering whether this site is intended for use by people who might have a problem based on a misunderstanding. I do my best to run a problem to ground before I post, but residual misunderstanding is always a possibility.
    – JamesD
    Jun 8 at 11:16
  • @JamesD Comments still function on closed answers.
    – Paul
    Jun 9 at 13:07
  • @Paul As you've probably guessed, I'm new on this platform. I didn't realise that it would still be possible to comment on a Closed question. Can you point me at some resource which sets out the basic semantics of question statuses? I thought I had "Read the FAQ", but it seems that there is more to learn here.
    – JamesD
    Jun 11 at 9:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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