I was the original author of this question, which was closed as "subjective and argumentative" shortly after it was written.

I was one of five users who then voted to re-open it (as I thought the subject was appropriate for a "community wiki" question, though not for non-CW.)

Surprisingly I am still able to vote to close it.

I think this conflicts with

  1. The fact that I contributed to the question
  2. The fact that I previously voted to re-open it.

Is this by design or is it an oversight?


I think it's reasonable as people can change their minds, and questions can change too.

As an example, suppose there's a bad question. You vote to close it. It is improved, and you then like it. You answer it, but then others close it. You still like it, so you vote to reopen.

There's no inconsistency there, and nothing nefarious going on.


Unless there is a notable, real issue with such application behavior, I don't see a reason to prevent it. "Permissive until there is a problem" is the philosophy that seems appropriate here.


In this situation, it is probably better to offer more flexibility rather than less. As Jon points out, it allows you the ability to change your mind, or even vote to migrate it to a different site. Without that option, you might find yourself in a position to earn a Peer Pressure badge with no way to close.

You must log in to answer this question.