This is an example of incorrect handling
I feel people are taking the idea that an OP should be able to improve their off-topic questions too far. To the point where they're only allowed to improve an off-topic question and that they're not allowed to post a new one.
This should not be behavior we want on Code Review.
This post which has been otherwise well received shouldn't be closed as a duplicate. And since the other question has already been closed nothing needed to happen here.
I think the origin of the idea that users are allowed to edit any off-topic post into shape comes from Mat's answer here. However I feel we've completely 180ed from the original sentiment.
And then the question collects its 5th close vote, and sits there
collecting dust in a broken state, and OP can't salvage their post
without invalidating the answer.
[...]
Every closed, deleted, downvoted question you ask takes you closer to an automatic question ban.
And the only way to recover from bad standing, is to edit and
improve your existing posts.
How should this have been handled?
Every time I see people moderate content on our site it fills me with shame to be a part of Code Review. I see: (Yes I'm hijacking the answer a bit)
Drive by down votes where if the user isn't fluent in English the question seems to deserve a down vote. I think this is horrible behavior as the user has posted a question in English as well as they can, sure it can be hard to read, but they put more effort into making Code Review high quality than the 'curator' ever will.
Three or more people harass questions, it's common for people to post comments and think that'll magically fix everything. If I were a new user it would overwhelm me, and make me think the site is filled with angry toxic people that only derive joy from telling people they're a failure. (I'm actually speaking from nearly every experience I've had on SO. Yes I think we're that bad now.)
Low quality comments, I read comments on posts I come across and see that most of them now are only stating what our rules are. There is no guidance, there is no here's where I think you've made a boo boo. Nothing, just cold hard insensitive 'rules'.
I get it saying what our rules are is good and all, we want our users to know we're not spouting nonsense. But when I read these comments I can't find any actionable way to improve the OPs question, and if I can't what hope does our poor OP have?
LCC is our 'catch all' close reason, I don't ever recall this close reason being correctly used. Most of the time people use it if there's problems with the text, which it isn't for. And combined with the previous problems I've never seen any explanation of what's wrong with the question. Every time I see this close reason all I see is us saying a big "F you OP".
Roboreviewing, a while back I downvoted and VTC close a perfectly on-topic question. It was a little hard to read, but otherwise there was nothing off-topic about it, and somehow it went through the review queues and came out closed. (WHAT?!)
Ever since I've never looked at reviews in the same light, almost every question I see closed that I don't agree with comes with a user posting a comment saying the post is off-topic linking to some meta post, and not providing any examples on how the post is off-topic. And then the next thing is it's closed.
What I'm trying to get to is that I can't see why any OP would want to fix their post as in every way possible it seems we're trying not to help them and just want a medium to vent our frustrations away. But not only that if they still for some bizarre reason want to fix their posts then there is normally nothing of substance in the comments the OP can go off. Comments have now just devolved to an unironic "how to draw an owl" meme.
And now this masterpiece is just another checkbox to tick on ways Code Review has failed its users.
To me this is just another example of roboreviews. Surely someone should have actually thought about whether the question should be closed for a -5 target that's off-topic. And thought, "maybe this isn't a good idea".
And so we should stop having robots in our review queues.
Can we have the review queue tests that inhibit roboreviews added to Code Review?
How to handle the situation now
I say leave everything to be automagic. Now that this has the meta effect with added scrutiny I can't see the question getting any worse.
If the question is closed I'll hammer it open. If I don't see it, starting a reopen review, flagging for a moderator or pinging me to hammer it open should also minimize damage.
