Just to stir up the soup. I agree with Alan Munn on this issue but with a slightly different motivation. I'm actually quite bothered by the word swiftly. I don't mind if the question stays open or closed, either way the issue is not resolved so no need to insist on practice because next year it would really be an ancient issue but as you can see it's reopened after a meta discussion. Same can happen in the chat room too.
So Joel Spolsky might have a different view maybe. But he is not in this community. I would not try to learn how to socialize from Mark Zuckerberg either just because he founded Facebook. That would actually be quite a disaster. Therefore invoking rules in the discussion would make the matters only worse because then everyone starts interpreting a rule that was not there in the first place. It's a community not a state. Everything is based on interaction. I wish the use of
subfigure ends tomorrow but it doesn't. That's why every time a subfigure question comes we paste the same old comment
See subcaption vs. subfig: Best package for referencing a subfigure
Now my main problem with the treatment of your question: I claim that TeX-SX community should reconsider this reviewing button habits just like we dumped the idea of downvotes. Thanks to that we didn't have any major conflicts due to why is this downvoted? stuff for quite a long time.
We cannot look for fixed rules when interacting with people. Everybody should keep in mind that it's not our forum even if we were here from the beginning. So we don't deal with customers. They are maybe experts on something completely different but not so experienced in TeX. So rule based handling feels like Microsoft Online help system. Hours of nonsense without actually getting any answer and seeing the same old
Was this page helpful? Yes No No dammit no!
Moreover, you bring any set of predefined rules and I'll find a question that doesn't fit in any cases. I'm not invoking Gödel-ish inconsistency. I'm talking about actual social setting. We don't own here. Everything is based on mutual agreement.
We tend to do things in certain way but they are not conclusive, only suggestive. In case of ambiguity, we reopen the question even if it is against the common practice because some user needs information. We hang out here for a better understanding and fun. Not because of some set of rules and discipline. Hence we do lots of mistakes until someone comes along and warns that the question should not have been closed in the first place. Then we open it again. If another one comes and warns that it's then a duplicate of another we close it again after consulting the OP.
The reason for the hostility of other SE sites, is precisely due to this behavior. Flagging, closing questions without interacting with OP. Then OP gets angry asks for reopening and composes pages long of comments and gets twice as much of belittling and accusing comments back etc. We don't do that. It doesn't cost us anything to have an unresolved question so leave it open. We handle things in the Answer the Unanswered sessions. So just move on to the next one.
Having said that, the new review system actually encourages making mistakes during closing because of those stupid yellow/red dots under our avatars :). So I'm asking our high-rep users to use it less often to close the questions. If there are two closing votes it practically means five in a couple of minutes because of our good-willed but slightly impatient reviewers. There are no machines which review questions though some of us are indistinguishable when they are editing/retagging/archiving :).
Thus there will be mistakes/misjudgements etc. a lot. This doesn't mean that we need to make the rules stricter. Instead we need to watch for the pattern how these mistakes are being generated and as far as I can see it's the review system and too much respect for common practice instead of using them as guides. A disciplined community does not mean a thicker law book that handles unambiguously every case.
So consensus is good but that's it, just a consensus.