This question(Is "Like Niobe, all tears" an apposition?) was put on hold as proofreading. Why do people think it is proofreading? The question is not about an English composition.
The reason given in the closure message can be fairly arbitrary.
It's the majority reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that three out of five voted for it, though. There could be 2+1+1 votes for three different reasons. If the last vote is for reason A, then the voting is 3+1+1 and reason A is given in the box; if it's for reason B, then the voting is 2+2+1 and reason B wins because that was the last vote.
Because it's a majority decision, all votes count, even those cast before a post is edited. A post which is obviously proof-reading up to an edit could have gained three votes by that time, so that would the reason given even if there was another more "valid" reason after the edit.
Voters can make mistakes and choose the wrong close reason. It's not possible to change that, because once you retract a close vote you can't re-cast it. So it needs to be left as a "wrong" vote.
Voters can simply follow prior opinion: they know the question is bad and needs to be put on hold pending improvement, and simply follow the herd even though a different reason might [now] be more suitable.
It doesn't really matter what the reason is. The apposite fact is that the question is on-hold and needs to be improved. The closure message gives a hint as to where that improvement might usefully lie, but it's not foolproof because of the above reasons.
As has been stated on this page and elsewhere, once the post is improved, ask that it be reconsidered. That's the way to get it re-opened. Asking why it was closed in the first place is both pointless and counter-productive. No-one has to give any reason for any vote, and the community has come to a decision, either collectively or via delegation to a moderator, and that should only be gainsaid in the most egregious examples of error.
As to bullying, saying "No, you're wrong" is not bullying. Using the mechanics of the site to put poor questions on-hold pending improvement is not bullying. Providing civil answers pointing out how the site works and advising on the right course of action is not bullying, even if those answers aren't the answers you want.
And this is it. I'm not entering into discussion on this answer. Quod scripsi, scripsi.
If an answer was given, and it doesn't say "We're closing this because of bullying" I'm likely to take it on face value and move on. I might even think those people might be jerks and they don't know what they're talking about.
Although, because the responses here have been reasonably civil, and within reason, not personal ("the post is poor quality, shows limited research, is proofreading" vs "the submitter is a pain in the ass"), I'm likely to infer that repeated submission of sub-quality requests, and that rather quickly by a single person on similar topics means that it may just be likely that the submitter is bullying the site into accepting such posts, feigning ignorance and calling foul in advance. I could be misreading this, though.
I haven't yet had a noticeable opinion on your posts nor have you explained the audience of interest in your post questions or answers besides yourself. (As in, who cares or what problem are you trying to solve? See: don't ask.) Don't jump the gun here. be nice is what we're trying to be here. It doesn't mean that because I used specific words in a comparison, that they actually apply to anyone, present company included.
- Your questions have been answered before you asked them.
- Your questions have been answered after you asked them.
- You have been prompted to ask the original questions in a manner that better reflects the type of questions that the community wants to see on this site.
- You have been given information how to ask this meta question better that it might possibly reflect the ability to open the topic of this question.
- You have been spending more time arguing semantics of the why than improving your posts
- You have been accusing others of bullying and continually insisting it is bullying. If you continue this path, the suggestion to look up and understand irony is going to be continually presented. A hint: Those who have said their piece and have stopped returning comments have stopped feeding the troll, I have as yet not learned my lesson. Looks like I need to learn about irony.