Recently this question — Is the “Defund the police”-argument anti-police or not? — was closed. I thought the question was salvageable and voted to reopen, as did three others for a total of four:
Yet when the question came up for review, it remained closes on a 3:1 count, per the history link:
Needless to say, the numbers do not add up, so some other thing must be going on that I am unaware of. I never saw this 'reopen' question appear in my review queue (is 14K rep insufficient?), no discussion was held on the question comments or any other place that I could discover; the process appeared to be arbitrary and officious, and I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify what actually happened.
I'm happy to discuss why the article ought to be reopened, though I think the answer I gave shows that it's possible to respond to such questions in a neutral and informative (if somewhat pedantic) tone. But here I'm more concerned with the inner political workings of Politics Stack Exchange than the question itself, so please answer with that in mind. I don't 'get' how decisions are made on this site, and I'd prefer to be better informed.
Thanks in advance for clarifying.
I'm beginning to get a handle on how the system works (per my discussion below with Glorfindel, whom I thank), but I have to say that I dislike it. It seems anyone who wants to reopen a question is forced to vote strategically; they can either:
- Vote on the page to put the question on the reopen queue, which bars them from any further action, or...
- Hope that other people vote to put the question on the reopen queue, so that they can participate in the actual discussion and vote on reopening.
This puts a strong bias against reopening questions (since those who want to reopen have to strategically allocate their votes). In this case, for instance, my correct move was not to vote for reopen on the page (since there were already three votes), so that I would be allowed to vote on the review queue. But that's not explained anywhere that I know of, and I can't see the sense or logic behind it at all (unless the intention is explicitly to make reopen votes more difficult to accomplish).
Was the process intentionally designed to have this effect, or is it an unintented consequence? Or is it all happenstance (e.g., a process that sounded good on paper but doesn't work quite right in practice)?