"they were still unable to grasp the topicality of SF". Probably because it isn't at all very clear and it leads to discussions such as this one. Don't fault them. Fault SF for not have really clear guidelines. Why does the XAMPP tag even exist if it is off-topic here? Remove it. Remove all the questions and answers on those topics.

NO SIR. IT ABSOLUTELY IS ABOUT ELITISM. The FAQ does not say anything about the manner in which tools are deployed being a reason for a question NOT belonging in this list. Are you people reading what you are saying? You don't like *AMP packages and that is the only reason these questions are being bounced back and forth between SO, SF and SU mercilessly. To boot, there seems to be some contempt for the SO folks sending questions to SF. Barring anything else the FAQ provides the definition for this community and it does NOT, in any imaginable way exclude *AMP and other techs being down-modded

Don't have the "delete" option. I am not going to waste my time with the form. Instead, I'll stay and leave this here in Meta for others to see in case they want to do the same. I'll let my account stagnate and let "nature" take its course per the stagnant account policy. Have a great time boys and girls!

Good-enough. Done.

"Furthermore, you particular installation is on Windows Vista which is a client OS which is not an enironment we support as a server." That's brilliant. So, when I run, say, CentOS (or take your pick) inside a virtual machine running on, say 64 bit Vista, that is not "supported" here? That's nonsense. Again, is SF only about tools and software the moderators have blessed? It's OK if that is the case. Just please update the FAQ to reflect it so otherwise-intelligent people will leave you alone.

Then something is broken because it should not have been closed. And, if no moderators closed the question it should not have been used to justify welcoming me by being banned from posting. I post something that clearly fits within the FAQ. No moderators are involved in closing it. I am banned from posting. The algorithm is broken.

Being that there are so many closed XAMPP/etc. questions on SF, either re-open them or make it clear that these questions do not belong here. How? Delete them. Remove the relevant tags. Update the FAQ to explicitly exclude that set of questions. Why am I worked-up about this? Because I got banned from posting for exactly that very-much-on-topic question and, in principle, it really bugs the hell out of me because the root cause of the closing of these questions is nothing short of elitism. The FAQ does not support the idea of rejecting content because the moderators don't like the tools.

Just because moderators look down upon the stack and don't like it (as @sysadmin1138 revealed in his own answer) it doesn't mean that they don't belong here. The SF FAQ does not say that SF is for enterprise-class technologies. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It sure feels like you guys (moderators) are injecting your own bias into this and you are damaging SF in the process. I founded three companies, manage a bunch of developers, have over two dozen workstations and, yes, about eight "real" servers and yes, we use XAMPP for internal testing and development all over the place.

Nice one. So these questions are bounced back and forth between SO, SF and SU and nobody wants them. They certainly don't belong in SU. Read the FAQ. They probably don't belong in SF either. Read the FAQ there. They squarely belong in SF. They are server questions.

Just picked up another nuance: "our collective dislike of *AMP installers". So, SF is about what you like? If people use tools you don't like professionally these tools don't belong in SF? Please update the FAQ to reflect that as well. SF questions have to be about tools the moderators like.

I strongly disagree with you. This is your chosen interpretation of "in a professional capacity". There's a vast stretch between those words and "In production, supporting the service's normal production workload." If you want SF to be about that, please lobby for a change in the FAQ. Until then, you don't get to substitute your sense of reality for what you imagine the FAQ needs to say.