Timeline for spurious interaction between close votes for different reasons
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2019 at 6:25 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | Siding with quid here. I have seen many instances of gold badge holders (ab)using their privilege to reopen obvious duplicates. Seemingly so that they can post essentially the same answer umpteen times. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jul 4, 2015 at 12:12 | comment | added | quid | "unlikely from gold badge holders" citation needed :-) More seriously, yes I think (based on little info though) that it would be some work, and for not that much in return. | |
| Jul 4, 2015 at 12:00 | vote | accept | joriki | ||
| Jul 4, 2015 at 12:00 | comment | added | joriki | I'm accepting your answer because it's already been discussed elsewhere, but in my view the discussion there focused too much on deliberate misuse (unlikely from gold bage holders) and too little on honest mistakes that unnecessarily destroy information. (Of course I can't judge how much effort it would be to change this.) | |
| Jul 4, 2015 at 11:41 | history | answered | quid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |