Is there something that can be done to prevent *curators* from dumbing down a SE site?  

I've witnessed this behavior several times in the following forms

1: a user asks a question that is either not understood or is perceived as too difficult by a handful of *curators*, who then vote to close it.
But the problem is not in the question, is in the ignorance of *curators* who do not see how a proper answer can be crafted. Often this is the result of the *curators*' inability to put certain common assumptions in discussion (for example, on the Electrical Engineering SE the lumped parameters assumption, or the fact that reversible transformations are to be used for certain principles of thermodynamics to be applied, and so on...)

2: a question that *might* require detailed answers gets closed "to protect the community from having to write long and time consuming answers". And this to me is the most absurd reason that could be given. I thought the SE network should strive to provide high quality answers (and I have seen very good long answers on Physics SE, for example) but the impression certain closing proposals give is that users should provide only twitter-like answers (see note (\*)). And that, IMBO, is very bad. Bigly.

A recent example
----------------

Here is the most recent example I've encountered:

[How do phosporus atoms affect the conductivity of a doped semiconductor?](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/403259)  

Now, the question was reopened and went from -4 to +1, but it is still considered "too broad". The problem here is that it has been shown to be false, by the very first comment (by user jonk), actually providing a concise answer to the very specific question asked.
In general a question like that can be answered in a concise and not superficial form by using a bit of quantum mechanics and quantum statistics.

Note that most - by now all - of my comments explaining why the reason given to close, and the 'too broad' classification was wrong have been deleted, along with the 'curators' flawed reasoning that inspired the close vote. 

(\*)For example a close-voter comment explaining that a reason to close the question was that the long answer (that received several up-votes) was tedious. All that, said by the same user who complimented the poster for his answer!  

As of now (00:30 GMT, 0ctober 31) the irrelevant comments on the pink hue of Wyoming granite pavements are still there, though. A very selective clean-up.

Why I think those comments should have been left there? Because they were actual clarification of the question asked (is it not that the purpose of a comment?). And they also exposed the flawed reasoning for trying to close the question. People unwilling to learn from past errors are bound to err in the same way in the future.

The way it is now, it requires 5-6 frequent users sharing the same limited knowledge to dumb down the site. I renounced to waste my time contributing months ago for these very reasons (admittedly, in my case, you are not missing much), but I still leech from time to time and I believe it's a pity to discourage quality posters with this superficial twitter-like mentality. 
I thought I might raise the question here; I seriously doubt it but maybe there's an infinitesimal chance you could find a fix.

The bottom line is: people acting as moderators (whatever is the PC term for the privileged users who vote to close) should not let their ignorance to stand in the way of the good of the site. They are basically telling users that the site expects easy questions that can be answered in a few lines. Because otherwise... "boooooooring...".

Suggestions
-----------

A) Create a detailed guide on how to exert the power to close a question. It seems to me the rules are misapplied and abused.

B) Curators who voted to close a question that was reopened because they misapplied the rules should be banned from closing rights for a period of time. No repercussions on their rep, just prevent them from doing more damage for a while.

C) your take

Alternatives
------------

Well, let's allow the dumbing down the site.  

Most of you have probably skipped reading till here because this post was longer than 280 characters.  

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it was elicited by the irking attitude to sweep questions that are not understood under the rug, and to persist in the error removing critical comments explaining why it was wrong to do that.