We're running across an increasingly common occurrence in which a user asks an identification question with an artifact that people are concerned isn't from a game, the question is closed in very short order (often in a matter of hours), then somebody outside of the question recognizes the artifact and answers in the comment since they can't actually make an answer.
So, what happens now? The question, as per our canonicical question, is on-topic:
Game-identification questions are okay only if you include screenshots, audio, or other tangible media from the game.
We support the use case where someone sees or hears a thing that is ostensibly from a video game, and wants to identify more concretely what video game it's from.
It's also on-topic as per the help message that is given to the user when they want to improve the question, and the one delivered by the close voters:
Game identification questions that rely solely on memory are off topic here. If you find a game in a video, advertisement, news article, movie and so on, and you have a picture, video/audio file, or other medium to point to, we can answer that. See our Game Identification Wiki for more info and for help with your search.
So, right off the bat, things are confusing for a new user. They went through the trouble, they read the help topics, and the question is closed despite following the requirements to the letter because voting users aren't convinced. There is nowhere in our help, nor in our canonical question, that it's the responsibility of the asker to personally convince voters of something, and it's only been lightly discussed here, with only three votes majority on what seems to have become our official stance, with our official stance not even being accepted.
But then somebody comes in and proves that the artifact is from a game. So now it definitely meets the criteria of belonging to a game, right?
Well, no. Because of a more hidden requirement that the question must stand on its own and can't rely on comments as proof of the thing coming from a game, despite everybody in the room agreeing that the artifact is from a game.
So, then the user just needs to go back and edit the proof into the question so that the question now has proof and it can stand on its own, right?
This was tried, and was rejected, because answers can't be edited into the question. Which is even more confusing, because the question can't be answered while it's on hold and comments shouldn't be used as answers, and the user spent an hour trying to prove that the artifact was from a game only to be refused from adding in the game that it's from and why he thinks it.
So, finally, the idea would be to create a meta question trying to get the question re-opened, since meta can historically be used to override community votes. Which, also didn't work historically, since users just deleted the question against the community consensus anyway, with the reopen plea having the exact same vote majority as the stance on artifacts users think are from a game that was used to close the question.
I think this is creating an unwelcome experience, and it's no longer just an odd legal loophole in Arqade's non-standard rules. Not in the sense of users feeling unwelcome because of having high bars of entry to maintain a quality QA site, but because I can see in the comments and the edits of at least one user a clear and active desire to meet the barriers for entry, meeting them at least four times with four separate comments and edits in the exact same way I, a veteran user, would do, and then getting repeatedly higher bars put in front of them until we've reached the point of edits being silently rolled back and then being chastised for adding in literally the exact information they were asked for. Because they received their answer before they got the chance to react to their close votes and actually want to follow the rules and be a good Arqade member.