What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

When voting, doesn't a minimum number of votes required for action have to reached? For example, five votes must be cast to reopen closed questions.

Wouldn't this mean a maximum of nine votes could be cast before reaching a consensus?

I'm confused by this reopen vote in which three reopen and three leave closed votes were cast; however, the question remains closed.

reopen-vote

question-closed

share|improve this question
    
There's actually 4 reopen votes on the question. So one of them came from outside the review queue. –  Mysticial Oct 25 '12 at 3:33
    
The question remains closed, because it was closed to begin with. 5 people voted to close the question. Then, someone voted to re-open (outside of review), which put the question in the re-open queue. Then three reviewers voted to re-open, and three voted to keep it closed. –  Yannis Oct 25 '12 at 3:37
    
Cool, that makes sense. It's assuredly on the edge, but seemed concrete with some tangible questions. Mostly I was just curious how this appears as a tie, and how majority votes worked. I'll accept either of these as an answer or delete my question. Thanks! –  Jason Sturges Oct 25 '12 at 3:45

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

Wouldn't this mean a maximum of nine votes could be cast before reaching a consensus?

Not at all. If the re-open votes queue is anything like the close votes queue, then the question gets kicked out of the queue when three people have voted to leave it closed, period. It doesn't matter how many re-open votes have been cast. It could be three, two, one, or none.

Questions are only ever re-opened when they get five re-open votes. The question got four, so it's still closed. If it gets one more, it will be re-opened. However, noting from the other post linked, all of those votes are now aging away since the question has already been kicked out of the queue (if they weren't aging already).

share|improve this answer
2  
This is correct. This behavior exists specifically to avoid the "tie" issue - it's impossible to completely stonewall re-opening (or closing) via dissenting responses in /review. –  Shog9 Oct 25 '12 at 4:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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