5
$\begingroup$

This question had two close votes with reason "off-topic because ... missing details". I mistook it for a duplicate (of this question) and voted to close it for that reason, unaware that I'm now able to close probability questions as duplicates with a single vote.

The first problem is that the close notice said that three people had voted to close the question as a duplicate, which was not true; the others had voted to close for a different reason, but this was not apparent from the close notice.

I then realized that the question wasn't a duplicate after all and "nominated" it for reopening, and it was immediately reopened. (By the way, this is not what one usually expects when "nominating" something.)

The second problem is that the other two close votes were now gone. That seems like a bug, since they had nothing to do with mine. This would even be undesirable if they'd had the same reason, but especially if they had a different reason I really shouldn't be allowed to "clear" the close votes like that just because I can close questions as duplicates.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Yes, quite a lot has changed since the time you left and came back. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 4, 2015 at 11:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

With a gold-badge in a tag a user since some time has a binding vote (as regards duplicates). The behavior seems the same as it is and was for other binding votes.

The specific issue with clearing votes got discussed here: Gold badge duplicate close and reopen vote invalidates existing votes

This is not a bug.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'm accepting your answer because it's already been discussed elsewhere, but in my view the discussion there focused too much on deliberate misuse (unlikely from gold bage holders) and too little on honest mistakes that unnecessarily destroy information. (Of course I can't judge how much effort it would be to change this.) $\endgroup$
    – joriki
    Commented Jul 4, 2015 at 12:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "unlikely from gold badge holders" citation needed :-) More seriously, yes I think (based on little info though) that it would be some work, and for not that much in return. $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Jul 4, 2015 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ Siding with quid here. I have seen many instances of gold badge holders (ab)using their privilege to reopen obvious duplicates. Seemingly so that they can post essentially the same answer umpteen times. $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Commented Apr 29, 2019 at 6:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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