I appreciate that the site has high standards of evidence and that therefore a lot of questions are closed because they don’t admit a clear answer.
That’s a good thing.
But things are sometimes taken too far for my taste. Take, for example the question of “Hitler's Religion” which was closed as “not a real question”.
It is a real question. It is on topic, if formulated properly, i.e.
Is there actually evidence for the often-cited claim that Hitler was [catholic/atheist/…] and that this motivated his actions?
Admittedly, the question is currently not very well formulated and lacks sources. It should be improved.
But this is what downvotes are there for. Closing the question, and then re-opening it once it has been improved is certainly possible but it is excessive, it smacks of unnecessary meddling by the moderators, when the “classical” take of moderation on Stack Exchange was μηδεν ἀγαν – nothing in excess.
In summary, I get the impression that Closing is replacing downvoting on this site, despite the fact that both are useful tools.
Please note that I am not complaining about one single moderator here. I just think that there’s generally a slight bias of too much moderation on this site, where self-regulation would work just fine.