Is it a good idea to to use secure_hashing_function(mypassword.url) as my password?

The close notice there says:

marked as duplicate by Stephen Touset, Neil Smithline, WhiteWinterWolf, Iszi, Xander

And there's a note added to the question with links to the proposed duplicates.

It's great that we're now showing multiple duplicates in the case of a split vote (if I recall correctly, it used to be that only the majority vote was shown) but we still have a problem of misrepresentation here:

I did not vote that the question be closed as duplicate.

My vote was to close the question as primarily opinion-based. That means, regardless of whether the question is duplicate or not, it's just not a good fit for SE in general. I didn't even look at the duplicate questions to see if it was properly matched. However, my name is included in the "marked as duplicate by..." statement as if that's the reason I selected.

A somewhat similar case, albeit perhaps handled a little better, can also be seen here:

Admin privileges from Random regedit modification

Closure notice says (in whole):

closed as off-topic by RoraΖ, UserName, Deer Hunter, Neil Smithline, Iszi Oct 29 at 21:37

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about Information security within the scope defined in the help center." – RoraΖ, UserName, Deer Hunter, Neil Smithline

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

A careful reading will show that I'm indeed not associated with the specific off-topic reason selected by the majority. (I'm listed as one who voted as "off-topic", but not listed alongside the specific reason.) That's great. But anyone not so carefully reading it could be easily led to assume such.

Additionally, the reason I did select was this:

"Questions asking us to break the security of a specific system for you are off-topic unless they demonstrate an understanding of the concepts involved and clearly identify a specific problem."

This is a much more specific close reason, which would be useful information to have for the asker in case they wanted to edit the question and request re-opening. However, as it is now, the asker does not have that information (or, at least they didn't until I mentioned it in a comment).

I can dig up numerous other examples. These are just the two most recent cases I've been involved in. Are there any plans to address this?

marked as duplicate by Kate Gregory, nicael, gnat, Ward, Fish Below the Ice Nov 4 '15 at 21:02

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    Someone please vote to close this as non-dupe. Heck, let's see the majority do it! I love irony. – Iszi Nov 4 '15 at 20:16
  • Hm. @Shog9's comment to the first dupe proposal says off-topic reasons are supposed to be split, but my second example seems to demonstrate this is not happening. Am I missing something? – Iszi Nov 4 '15 at 20:33
  • I've personally observed 3/2 off-topic splits, although they're rare and I can't dig up an example at the moment. 4/1 splits don't appear to do that, though. – Nathan Tuggy Nov 4 '15 at 21:06
  • Example of 3/2 split in action. – Nathan Tuggy Nov 11 '15 at 18:44