can we please reconsider a question-specific "Do not close" vote?

I think you're missing the real problems at work here. The question got four votes when it looked lousy. Then it got edited into shape. Then it got a fifth vote. You're asking for a tool to negate one of the previous four votes, but...

...The problem is still that fifth vote.

So you cast your "do not close" vote, it gets the fifth vote anyway, and now the question sits open... With one more vote needed to close. The next day, it gets a sixth vote, and now it's closed. You can tweak the behavior of that "do not close" vote and adjust that timeline a bit, but there's a pretty good chance that if one person piles on with a vote then two people will as well.

So, the two problems here are:

• The four initial votes became obsolete after the edit.
  IF the folks that cast them agree with that assertion, allowing them to retract their votes could account for this without actually increasing the number of votes needed to close legitimately poor questions.

• The final vote closed the question anyway.
  Well, so what? Closed questions can be re-opened! Voting, flagging, posting here on meta, etc. can all get folks' attention - but if voting to re-open bumped the question into a dedicated reopen review queue, that attention might be a bit more focused.

Your per-tag-rep requirement strikes me as unworkable, I'm afraid - while I'm all for making it easier for folks to help moderate areas of the site where they have specific expertise, I think forcing this would end up creating islands where nothing gets moderated at all.

Also... It's easy enough to edit [my-favorite-tag] into a question before voting to close it. You can probably think of a way around that, but this is getting horribly complex already.

can we please reconsider a question-specific "Do not close" vote?

I think you're missing the real problems at work here. The question got four votes when it looked lousy. Then it got edited into shape. Then it got a fifth vote. You're asking for a tool to negate one of the previous four votes, but...

...The problem is still that fifth vote.

So you cast your "do not close" vote, it gets the fifth vote anyway, and now the question sits open... With one more vote needed to close. The next day, it gets a sixth vote, and now it's closed. You can tweak the behavior of that "do not close" vote and adjust that timeline a bit, but there's a pretty good chance that if one person piles on with a vote then two people will as well.

So, the two problems here are:

• The four initial votes became obsolete after the edit.
  IF the folks that cast them agree with that assertion, allowing them to retract their votes could account for this without actually increasing the number of votes needed to close legitimately poor questions.

• The final vote closed the question anyway.
  Well, so what? Closed questions can be re-opened! Voting, flagging, posting here on meta, etc. can all get folks' attention - but if voting to re-open bumped the question into a dedicated reopen review queue, that attention might be a bit more focused.

Your per-tag-rep requirement strikes me as unworkable, I'm afraid - while I'm all for making it easier for folks to help moderate areas of the site where they have specific expertise, I think forcing this would end up creating islands where nothing gets moderated at all.

Also... It's easy enough to edit [my-favorite-tag] into a question before voting to close it. You can probably think of a way around that, but this is getting horribly complex already.

can we please reconsider a question-specific "Do not close" vote?

I think you're missing the real problems at work here. The question got four votes when it looked lousy. Then it got edited into shape. Then it got a fifth vote. You're asking for a tool to negate one of the previous four votes, but...

...The problem is still that fifth vote.

So you cast your "do not close" vote, it gets the fifth vote anyway, and now the question sits open... With one more vote needed to close. The next day, it gets a sixth vote, and now it's closed. You can tweak the behavior of that "do not close" vote and adjust that timeline a bit, but there's a pretty good chance that if one person piles on with a vote then two people will as well.

So, the two problems here are:

• The four initial votes became obsolete after the edit.
  IF the folks that cast them agree with that assertion, allowing them to retract their votes could account for this without actually increasing the number of votes needed to close legitimately poor questions.

• The final vote closed the question anyway.
  Well, so what? Closed questions can be re-opened! Voting, flagging, posting here on meta, etc. can all get folks' attention - but if voting to re-open bumped the question into a dedicated reopen review queue, that attention might be a bit more focused.

Your per-tag-rep requirement strikes me as unworkable, I'm afraid - while I'm all for making it easier for folks to help moderate areas of the site where they have specific expertise, I think forcing this would end up creating islands where nothing gets moderated at all.

Also... It's easy enough to edit [my-favorite-tag] into a question before voting to close it. You can probably think of a way around that, but this is getting horribly complex already.

can we please reconsider a question-specific "Do not close" vote?

I think you're missing the real problems at work here. The question got four votes when it looked lousy. Then it got edited into shape. Then it got a fifth vote. You're asking for a tool to negate one of the previous four votes, but...

...The problem is still that fifth vote.

So you cast your "do not close" vote, it gets the fifth vote anyway, and now the question sits open... With one more vote needed to close. The next day, it gets a sixth vote, and now it's closed. You can tweak the behavior of that "do not close" vote and adjust that timeline a bit, but there's a pretty good chance that if one person piles on with a vote then two people will as well.

So, the two problems here are:

• The four initial votes became obsolete after the edit.
  IF the folks that cast them agree with that assertion, allowing them to retract their votes could account for this without actually increasing the number of votes needed to close legitimately poor questions.

• The final vote closed the question anyway.
  Well, so what? Closed questions can be re-opened! Voting, flagging, posting here on meta, etc. can all get folks' attention - but if voting to re-open bumped the question into a dedicated reopen review queue, that attention might be a bit more focused.

Your per-tag-rep requirement strikes me as unworkable, I'm afraid - while I'm all for making it easier for folks to help moderate areas of the site where they have specific expertise, I think forcing this would end up creating islands where nothing gets moderated at all.

Also... It's easy enough to edit [my-favorite-tag] into a question before voting to close it. You can probably think of a way around that, but this is getting horribly complex already.