First this question is not a dupe of:
Though the upvotes show it's an issue: I'm not seeing things.
My question concerns specifically someone with 20K+ rep being eligible for the "moderator" status (you could vote for him on SO as a moderator, which I didn't).
I've seen post where that person changed the entire question so that it fits an answer "because then it adds value". The logic behind the edit being "so it gets referenced in Google (and is searchable directly in SO) and if someone search for the question that fits the answer, then we have an answer".
I don't disagree that from that standpoint it seems to make some sense. But the problem is that it makes the original poster very uncomfortable: why would such a poster come back to SO if it's to see his question completely distorted? Also, why would people answering then getting zero votes or downvoted be motivated to answer more questions when they know the question may get completely modified?
In another case, and this has been the subject of a post here on meta that generated some heat, same 20K+ rep person simply didn't understand the question. So he modified it to a question where he portrayed the user as making something illegal or questionable and the user got downvoted to oblivion. The user left SO and went ballistic on Usenet and on blogs about SO.
This is not good in my opinion because, sure, you completely rewrite questions to make it fit your own view of the world but it's detrimental to existing SO users.
Both to the original poster who asked the question and to people answering the correct question (with the correct meaning, before the crazy edit took place completely changing the question) and to commenters, which often go crazy in comments because they dislike the edit.
That user never edited one of my question, but I was reading a weird series of 20 comments and understood that obviously there was an issue at work and when I saw the name of the editor I thought "oh no, it's him once again".
So my question is simple: what do I do when I think that a user with 20K+ rep is acting in an unacceptable manner, frequently entering into arguments in comments with various SO users and often re-inventing questions?
In other words: what has been put in place in the SO platform to prevent people at the very top (being eligible for meta-moderator status, I don't know how you call this) from subverting the platform?
We could push the logic a bit further: why not write random question, random answers, random upvotes and then after a few days rewrite the question so that it matches the answer with the most vote?
Isn't there really a very serious issue here?
Once again, it's obviously not the first time the subject comes up, the problem is so obvious that it has prompted question here like "mark a user as not being able to edit your question" that I linked to above and it also prompted several blog entries criticizing SO.
I don't dare to flag his comments defending his own crazy edits because I'm thinking "maybe he's meta-moderator now, so he'll see my flag and start editing my own questions to make me look a stupid poster".
It's even worse than that: right now I'm thinking "but why ask question as to how to deal with this and make stackexchange a better platform, because my post may be edited anyway to completely distort my question?".
That is how bad it is. I found it (and it's just an opinion) a bit disgusting.
To make a bad analogy, it's a bit like when you give to much power to someone who turns out to be a bad cop. This is an issue. It has to be dealt with. But it is very difficult to deal with a bad cop once he's near the top of its sphere of influence.