The application of this answer to questions on H:SE (emphasised with the newly inserted quote (checked answers aren't even any longer obligatory pinned) are not always compatible with (H:SE) reality. It reads as if there should be (and only could be, reasonably) '1 & only 1 A'. All of SE has to be able to deal with more than 1, with alternative answers. Of course, one should be come out as 'best', but seldom are therefore the other As 'to be deleted(?)' (& agreement often not reached). (For example for the concept 'good subjective' this answer says: 'impossible by system's design')

The latest addition is starting to diverge from official SE policy? Not only are accepted As now unpinned on many sites, 'the design' also explicitly calls for 'competing answers', from which I conclude that 'more than one answer' is desirable? Now, I know that ideally a Q, even on H:SE should_strive to have/get an authoritative answer, 'strive':always, but that is sometimes unrealistic, sometimes _un-desirable?

@shoover These links are helpful. However, (given the content of my answer below): 1. these are most useful to go as comments below the Q on main, 2. if they 'answer this question', they should preferably go into the answer box? ;) (Note that I contemplated to include things like that in my A here, but decided that this was not asking 'what's wrong with my mainQ?' , but 'what's wrong with the community (experience) here?' Nevertheless, my reading is far from perfect, so please, do analyse the mainQ here en detail, in the bigger box.

Can you please re-read this answer, then make a quick survey of the site('s last few months at least) regarding this? Feels to me, this may reflect general SE policy, but doesn't reflect H:SE community? At least, whenever I act like suggested in the above, or highlight towards this policy, the only result seems to be backlash. Many H:SE users love comments and especially their usually wrong half-answers so much, I expect to see the suggestion that we abolish proper answers for good any time soon.

Two things: 1. Is the option "historical significance" ever used around here? and 2. Isn't the algo 'has A, won't close' now the default? Seemingly with hardly any regard to Q or A quality?

Maybe. I explicitly excluded this user from being 'troll'. But I do feel a certain shortcoming in my A to this. Especially, if we also might see a rule evasion: circumventing Q-ban for LowQ? (Plus the tracking issue we try to keep up with here)

It's not the first time that I contemplate a pattern (seen coming on down from staff for a certain troll —not that I'd insinuate this user was a real troll; but the staff actions are what's inspiring): would this be one case (I do know at least another on this site) for an unrequested/forced user profile merger?

This comment thread history.stackexchange.com/q/69837/26786 currently announces 10–15 Qs of 'that kind' to still expect. Whether it is really a 'diss', idk, maybe too pointy, but it is a kind of specialised and not really small project for sure. And that 'project' seems to 'progress', thx to our work, but 'we' fail to make progress on the expected Qquality front?

Given, H:SE is apparently currently writing some substantial bits&pieces for the research section of an upcoming dissertation (?), I fail to notice any substantial improvement visible in either guiding, nudging or inspiring an otherwise pretty persistent user towards better quality questions, starting with our constant clamouring for 'do your own research first, then show it here'. The announcement was to now expect a dozen or so Qs more like that. Can we in any way get an improvement out of it until this run is finished? This type (lowQs kept low) vs that type (topic) might need addressing?

Re: "helping Hitler". I know that you probably meant mainly 'Helping a so tagged Q'. Otherwise the irony would perhaps be killing me. The censorship that's part of the motivation which brought this new mainQ here in the first place, is 'helping the nazi-cause' already more than enough IRL & on the net. And then, leaving this mainQ dupe-closed would have helped actual neo-nazi content, with links to those sites, that the dupe voters very practically endorsed further, on the other Q's answer.