My question, proposed out of frustration with this site and what I perceive as overly aggressive closing/on-hold status of questions is simply....
Do the powers afforded to a moderator; the ability put a question on-hold in rare circumstances* (effectively closing it to answers) conflict with the overall stack exchange system of community voting?
Specifically this question has frustrated me - ArcGIS for Server need an Administrator account for Manager Account 10.0
(But this is just one question that has put me past the tipping point of actually writing something on the meta. I've seen countless others, that no, I'm not going to go dig up as source material)
It was closed once because it was 'unclear what was being asked' by a single moderator 'super vote'. In this instance, it was unclear to one person. It was clear to me. I voted to re-open. Eventually another regular member voted to re-open. However the rules state that 5 members need to vote to close/open a question. A mod came in and opened it. Only for it to be closed again with a single member vote to close by another mod. Effectively there have been 3 people vote to close and 3 people vote to open. Unfortunately 2 of the 5 unique voters are moderators, essentially cancelling out the organic nature of the voting system. I've basically given up voting to close/open questions because I know a moderator is simply going to go and do it. (So please don't propose an answer of 'nobody votes to open/close' ... I think that is a symptom of the heavy-handed closing)
Further, I don't get why it's closed a second time when it has an answer. (I don't get why it was closed the first time either). The only thing I could have done was to edit the original question. But why do I need to do that when I understood the question in the first place and provided an answer?
Anyways, I don't expect a satisfactory answer to why this site is so heavy handed in closing questions so quickly. But this is a Question and Answer site, and this is a question, so you're welcome to try.
From https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation/ which is directly referenced in the GIS Moderator explanation -
Even with active community self-regulation, moderators occasionally need to intervene. Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those (hopefully rare) exceptional conditions that should not normally happen, but when they do, they can bring your entire community to a screaming halt — if you don’t have human exception handling in place.
Moderators also have some special abilities necessary to handle those rare exceptional conditions:
Moderator votes are binding. Any place we have voting — close, open, delete, undelete, offensive, migration, etc — that vote will reach the threshold and take effect immediately if a single moderator casts a vote.