Question: Over the weekend, one user appears to have cast close votes on all of the open questions under the [disputed-review-audits](/questions/tagged/disputed-review-audits "show questions tagged 'disputed-review-audits'") tag as duplicates.

I could see this action as being constructive if we are trying to get rid of disputed review audits from meta. On the other hand, I could see blanket actions such as flagging or voting to close all questions under one tag as destructive.

What are our policies regarding this action?

Answer: 
I can not comment on general policy, except that I personally would be against indiscriminate closing of questions in this tag.

That said, I can share reasoning that led me to cast duplicate votes on *some* of these questions.

As far as I can tell, recently we've got a [canonical post](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/276010/839601) on how to review in First Posts and Late Answers queues:

* [How should I get started reviewing Late Answers and First Posts?](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/288505/how-should-i-get-started-reviewing-late-answers-and-first-posts)

Based on that, I went over some prior questions and picked those where it looked like audit failure could be avoided if reviewer was familiar with guidance given in canonical question referred above. My initial plan was to close these as duplicates of that canonical question but after closer inspection I had to change it a bit.

Thing is, many of the questions I checked appeared to be focusing on a particular, specific issue which looked like better addressed in an answer to [another, more specialized question](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/288698/839601), so I picked what looked like a more appropriate duplicate target for these.

---

As for mentioned "more specialized" question that served as a target for closer-matched duplicates, I also voted to close it as a duplicate of general canonical post, since it is covered in there (although as one of *many* different cases and with less attention to details).

Doing this I mostly followed an example of "canonical hierarchy" at MSE where most general guidance on particular topic is "surrounded" by duplicates that serve as convenient dupe-targets for some specific, frequently asked about sub-cases:

* [What is serial voting and how does it affect me?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/126829/165773)

	+ [What can I do if I'm the victim of serial downvoting?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28756/165773)
	+ [How to act when you're being serial upvoted](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/124842/165773)
It depends on the purpose of the disputed-review-audits tag. The description says "*For questions related to specific review audits*". If that description is correct, there is no way it could be a duplicate UNLESS you are posting twice about the same review audit. If the policy is that you should just look for general information about a similar review audit failure, then the description (and other places on the site) should be changed. There are many places on the site that encourage users to post here if they disagree. It is strongly implied that moderators will review your specific case if you post here (as an appeals process of sorts) rather than getting marked as a duplicate.

EDIT: I would also note that there seems to be some inconsistencies on some of how these are handled. Without naming names, some are marking things as duplicates, while others appear to be lenient and reverse these decisions.