user22057: Recently I have been seeing comments on questions signed "Community ♦". This seems to be a new thing (at least on SE Biology) and I am unsure how to react to them if, for example I feel I can give better advice on making a question acceptable.
A recent example can be found in a question relating to molluscs and cephalopods and the content of the comment was:

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

The diamond obviously indicates they are from a moderator (or have moderator status) but their content seems boilerplate. It seems unlikely that they have been autogenerated, so I assume a moderator has chosen them from a list. However other comments appear with the moderator’s handle. Is this a device to anonymize them so that the moderator is spared from wasting time responding to replies to routine requests for further details? And how would I refer to them and politely expand on them?

user27148: This is a new SE-wide feature: Review queue workflows - Final release
The comments are generated from any user making a choice to share feedback with OP when using the Review queues for first questions/answers, close votes, etc. The posting "user" is the diamond-bot "Community" but no moderator has to do anything for them to appear.
There have been a lot of problems with this new "feature", as you can see on the main meta, including that us moderators couldn't even delete them (this was since fixed), and that some of the comments mention stuff that doesn't apply outside SO like demanding that users provide "code" and are incredibly confusing when they show up on sites about biology, bicycles, and Latin.
The purpose of these comments is intended to provide feedback semi-automatically on the sorts of things we close questions for, without users needing to stick their necks out and attract the wrath of OP for asking them to improve their question. However, it seems the implementation has been a bit shoddy. There was a chance for community feedback (at least for those who monitor the main Meta) but I think at that point a lot of the planned design was unclear and the issues were not anticipated.

22057: <p>Recently I have been seeing comments on questions signed &quot;Community ♦&quot;. This seems to be a new thing (at least on SE Biology) and I am unsure how to react to them if, for example I feel I can give better advice on making a question acceptable.</p>
<p>A recent example can be found in a question <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/104386/who-discovered-that-cephalopods-are-mollusks">relating to molluscs and cephalopods</a> and the content of the comment was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The diamond obviously indicates they are from a moderator (or have moderator status) but their content seems boilerplate. It seems unlikely that they have been autogenerated, so I assume a moderator has chosen them from a list. However other comments appear with the moderator’s handle. Is this a device to anonymize them so that the moderator is spared from wasting time responding to replies to routine requests for further details? And how would I refer to them and politely expand on them?</p>
 27148: <p>This is a new SE-wide feature: <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/369013/401068">Review queue workflows - Final release</a></p>
<p>The comments are generated from any user making a choice to share feedback with OP when using the Review queues for first questions/answers, close votes, etc. The posting &quot;user&quot; is the diamond-bot &quot;Community&quot; but no moderator has to do anything for them to appear.</p>
<p>There have been <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/369148/401068">a lot of problems</a> with this new &quot;feature&quot;, as you can see on the main meta, including that us moderators couldn't even delete them (this was since fixed), and that some of the comments mention stuff that doesn't apply outside SO like demanding that users provide &quot;code&quot; and are incredibly confusing when they show up on sites about biology, bicycles, and Latin.</p>
<p>The purpose of these comments is intended to provide feedback semi-automatically on the sorts of things we close questions for, without users needing to stick their necks out and attract the wrath of OP for asking them to improve their question. However, it seems the implementation has been a bit shoddy. There was a chance for community feedback (at least for those who monitor the main Meta) but I think at that point a lot of the planned design was unclear and the issues were not anticipated.</p>
