Update on Aug 18 2017:
To all who could sympathize with me, thank you very much. That is very precious.
To all who couldn't, I just wanted to make my learning process at unix.se smoother. I apologize for having made you less comfortable, which I didn't mean to, and I have my own problems to work on. I have considered to delete this post, but it was not something that I wrote when I lost my mind.
Sometimes it is hard to refrain from expressing, while sometimes it is also not easy to speak out for self without being perceived confrontational and defensive. I haven't reached a perfect balance, and I have already lost to time in this discussion.
I am here to report possible abusers of close votes (and possibly downvotes). There are patterns about the close voters. I don't personally know them. I judge them not based on how high their reputations are, how splendid their personal experiences look, how many recommendations they received on their linkedin pages. Those have little to do with how they behave on my posts. I will let you decide if there is abusing here.
Is any alias equivalent to a function? put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Mikel, Stephen Rauch, Scott, Archemar, Romeo Ninov
https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/383796/674 put on hold as too broad by Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch, Scott, countermode, Archemar
https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/383544/674 put on hold as off-topic by mdpc, Stephen Rauch, Scott, Anthon, Archemar
Arguments in `bash -c mycommand arg1 arg2` put on hold as off-topic by cas, Archemar, Scott, Toby Speight, Romeo Ninov
https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/383018/674 put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch, Scott, Rui F Ribeiro, Romeo Ninov
The zeroth argument to a command executed by exec put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Jeff Schaller, Scott, Rui F Ribeiro, Romeo Ninov, cas
https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/382736/674 put on hold as too broad by Rui F Ribeiro, Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch, Romeo Ninov, Anthon
... (I can go on and on.)
Regarding the cited closing reasons:
I have put efforts and cares to make my questions as clear as possible, and most of time I think I make them clear. If not, I welcome well-intentional comments, and am always happy to improve them, because I know about my limitations. On the other hand, just as I know about my limitations, the abusers of downvotes and close votes better know about theirs too. We are just a bunch of people who happen to gather here at unix.se, a place which is supposed to be free of workplace politics. Some need to improve themselves, and some are generous and willing to help. We all have different backgrounds and experiences, and therefore we are limited in different ways. If some discussion isn't clear to me, I would consider if it is because of my limitations and if the discussion is not meant for me, and if I should leave the discussion open to others rather than downvote and close it. I would give some advice : know to control self ego, be humble, know when to back off, don't use own criteria to measure others and to judge if something is worth it, .... Examples of "should have not got involved": 1, ....
"Too broad" and "Off topic"
When possible, I try to ask fundamental things to break the limitation by specific examples (examples, however, may also help others understand my questions), because those fundamental things have significance to learning and understanding and to help me cope with having the same confusions and making the same mistakes over and over again. Fundamental stuffs often come with a little more abstraction and concepts in a bigger picture.
Questions and answers can be conducted at different levels, while many here believe that questions can only be answered at one level which they are used to. So when some questions are closed due to too-broad nor off-topic, they are actually asked at a slightly abstract level or in a big picture, and expect answers at that level. It is also helpful to think the same thing across different levels and from different angles. Unfortunately, some people criticize those who ask related questions as not learning or improving.
Why close votes should be used in a more spare manner. After a post is closed,
there are much less space and more discourage for others to participate in the discussion.
It is always much harder to reopen a closed post than close a post. I have posts that have been waiting forever for more reopen votes (some just one reopen vote away), while a close vote and a bad comment would trigger other close votes and downvotes very quickly, and people are easily influenced by the behaviour of others, especially those who look reputable. The difficulty of reopening a closed question maybe comes from that the same bunch of people who closed a question decide whether to reopen the question. So it is asking the same people to admit what they did was not correct, and a battle of one versus 5~10 with the rest mostly bystanders who either don't want to get involved or follow whichever side that looks more powerful and hope to benefit from such. There is not yet any mechanism to regulate the behaviors of close voters, and to make them be responsive and responsible when needing to reopen the posts on which they cast close votes. The lack of such mechanism encourages abuse of close votes possibly as a way of personal attack, retaliation, stereotyping and discrimination or badge gaming.
Whenever things like that happen, I first inspect myself to see if I did some thing bad, and most of time I refrain from talking back. But that doesn't mean that I don't have something to say. Respect is mutual, if there is little respect from one side, it takes the other side a lot to show respect back. If I ever question their votes and comments, I can only receive severe retaliation: more downvotes and close votes on the posts that are under discussion and even on older posts that are not relevant (some people like to dig my profile and history and show me their existence and influence there). It somehow shows that people are more or less opinionated, and I shouldn't expect to change their minds and waste time arguing. Some are very ready to attack and retaliate, if they don't receive much attention, are not much agreed with, or don't see everything that they ask for happen. They are bringing real-life workplace politics and personal attacks to the site, which is opposite to every bullet listed in the be nice policy and I have not seen been moderated under control.
Re the replies and comments:
Although my voting and acceptance pattern has little to do with my post here at meta and I have more or less explained this in several comments in history, it doesn't hurt to reiterate it. It is really my personal issue, nothing against anyone else.
There can be multiple possibilities why I haven't accepted a reply for one specific post. It is possible that there is no satisfactory answer. But more likely, I haven't reached a point to understand the received answers, and will come back and try again some time later. Once I understand an answer and the answer addresses the questions correctly and is the best among all, I would happily accept it without hesitation. It is unethical for me to accept an answer when I don't actually understand it but just because someone requests me to. I thank again for your patience.
It is also my belief that the ultimate goal of stackexchange sites is not their "successful" and "innovative" mechanism for voting, accepting and rewarding, but going beyond that to promote passing knowledge among human beings, and inspiring thoughts and questions. So I feel very delighted since stackexchange sites stopped showing the acceptance rate of every user in their profiles a few years ago.
Nonetheless I have been upvoting the majority (99%) of the replies that I have received with appreciations.
What is wrong with asking about and quoting the bash manual?
During the first few years at Unix.SE, I asked questions when I had difficulty in practice, even though I knew the importance of RTFM. The manual has less than 200 pages, but it is not a easy read at all. I tried to read the manual but couldn't actually understand the organization of the topics and many sentences in the manual, even though I could understand every single word. There were many online materials much easier to understand, but as many other people have pointed out, most of the online materials about bash were misleading. Since misconceptions slow down my learning and understanding as I have to discover them and correct them, being misinformed makes things much harder compared to learning from the official and standard reference even if it were learning something that is completely new to me, so I realized that there was no shortcut and I had to read and learn Bash manual, with more focus on what I didn't understand.
I had never said anything about that until now, because I didn't really want to downgrade myself to argue with those endlessly mocking and discriminating against my post asking about and quoting the bash manual.
What is wrong with asking followup questions?
Yes, I have hard time understanding often times. So shall I pretend that I understand and move on (and maybe even accept someone's reply just because they ask me to), instead of what I have been doing, trying to ask a few more times before giving up for coming back sometime in the future?
Does someone else really knows better about whether I have learnt something than I do?
I am happy and grateful that I have been improving my understanding a great deal from this site. I see having new questions as part of continuously learning and thinking. If one day I stop asking questions, that will probably be because either I have been banned or I don't think and study things any more. Note that I deliberately change "learn something" to "improve understanding", because I never know. Quite often when I think I have learned something, sooner or later I will discover that it was actually some improvement on understanding, and then new thoughts and questions will follow.