A few days ago I asked whether the policy that binding votes by mods should be reserved for clear-cut cases is formulates somewhere on meta.

Now I found this post. Admittedly it is very old (it is from the time of first moderator election) and the site has evolved since then.

On the other hand, there are cases where binding votes seem to be useful. For example, here we would have keep the incorrect duplicate-close votes age until, which would take time. Posting the fifth vote and immediately reopening seems to be better. (Thanks to Arthur Fischer for cleaning up the site in this way.)

Other than that the text is way too imprecise. "Anything that could conceivably be of interest to some nontrivial segment of the community should be decided by the community as a whole." What is this supposed to mean? I assume a nontrivial segment of the community is interested in good food. Does this mean we cannot simply close questions regarding food?

What should "be decided by the community as a whole" mean in actual practice? This might have been somewhat more reasonable four years ago, though really even then it was not. But now?

Either way, I consider it as a false dichotomy to have "community votes" and "moderator votes," especially since votes to close/reopen (in contrast to up/down votes) are not expressions of a personal opinion but enforcing policies, for everybody. The name "vote" is really confusing in this context, unfortunately.