I think SF is too heavy handed on the closes and non-professional complaints. Closing a question because the OS happened to be XP? Yeah, it's not a server OS, and if given a choice I wouldn't run it. But the business side of things rarely gives you such a choice. Hell, we just managed to kill our XP server yesterday. Making an active user justify a question is inane. If there's some additions that can make it better, great, make suggestions. But the scope of what questions get pounded with Vote To Close need to go way down.
We've gotten several signals that we've gone too far on this. Hence all the Meta questions about the professionalism standard. Hence why ssl on this very topic suggested that we declare this place a non-smackdown zone. Only to get smacked down, with a comment berating him for not making a suggestion. Hell, I've found the BOFH-ness of this place stifling, and I've never had a question closed. If I had recently arrived here, I would never have come back.
The simple fact is that SF is protecting the quality of its questions at the cost of the quality of its contributors. It prevents mediocre users from ever growing into worthwhile members. It makes amateurs completely forget about this site by the time they become professionals. And it will even turn off the very professionals we want here, because being non-inclusive just isn't very professional.
*Aside from the above, I also agree with what other people have said on this topic.*