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)
Consider the two situations that assume that someone searched before hand:

1. You search and find a question (or two, or three) that is complaining about a review audit. Each of these questions is still open.
2. You search and find a question (or two, or three) that is complaining about a review audit. It is closed as a duplicate of another post about that particular queue. That is closed as a duplicate of the 'how should you review that queue' post.

In which situation does the person who searched first get more information about what the answers will be *before* the question is asked? If you selected #2, you are probably right. As much as we love giving the same answer again and again (you clicked no action needed on a question that wasn't even close to being grammatically correct), the goal is to give the next person who searches first the answer. Duplicates serve this purpose.

That's all assuming that the person searches first... This is Stack Overflow (and we know how often people search first on the main site, why expect meta to be different?)