I voted to Reopen the following post Resizing attribute table on QGIS print layout, and I left a comment (the only comment there so far) justifying why I thought it should have been reopen:

Voting to reopen as the question is perfectly fine. Asking it to be more focused is non-sense because aligning text within a table and resizing columns to fit such aligned text are almost tasks one does altogether. Such that is, answers show it is the same approach/logic which addresses both topics. We should not take a number/bullet formatting literally

@PolyGeo was the one who closed it in the first place with a single moderator binding vote. So far, so good.

enter image description here

After I voted to reopen, it had collected two more reopen votes and was probably in the way of being reopened. But PolyGeo came in again and cast another moderator closing (leave closed) binding vote (link to review).

enter image description here

Is this fair? At minimum odd? It seems like abusing the binding vote privilege; i.e., cast it once, and then, unilaterally overrule another 3 contrary votes to keep own's previous decision? What?

1 Answer 1


In their question the asker tells us that they think they "have three questions". I think they have two, and voted to close (and later to leave closed) based on that.

If they or any other reviewer/editor had edited the question to make it clear that they were only asking one then I may have voted to re-open it instead.

I think such an edit would be wise to start by removing the count and listing of multiple questions.

My recollection is that I only visited this question the second time because the Review Queues indicator had gone red with Re-open Votes being the queue that had triggered it.

I think voting (up, down, close, re-open) on posts should always be based on current content.

  • 1
    I agree the “have three questions” part could have been edited out (I myself overlooked that part). On the other hand the full review context was broader (the actual 2 questions in body; my reopening comment; the focused answers). Beyond one’s opinion about a Q’s on-topicness, don’t you think it is odd unilaterally casting a binding close vote twice against three other peer users who thought differently? Kind of distorting how peer review works? Jun 17 at 22:42
  • Voting to close and later to leave closed is not something I do often but I thought this was a case that warranted it based on the post content. The two votes were for the question lacking sufficient focus. Whether the answers were focused or not did not impact the question because their usefulness is assessed by up/down votes.
    – PolyGeo Mod
    Jun 17 at 23:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .