This question already has an answer here:
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:
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?