I see nothing wrong with the question as asked, and neither did two others who answered.
"Q: If spoilers are released in flight without descending, what could
A: "Without descending" means that the aircraft cannot land. Therefore
it will run out of fuel. [...]".
is missing the crucial component:
"... fuel. In an attempt to avoid descending, it will slow and eventually stall. At this point, the conditions of the question, no descent, are violated.
As asked, the question is unanswerable.".
If you check the Timeline you will see that a moderator deleted and then undeleted the answer; clearing any review votes, and probably clearing any flags manually - allowing the answer to stand, with two downvotes showing.
That means that there was a moderator action on the answer.
Different sites have different policies about humorous answers; and such is received differently also. Without clear evidence of rudeness the answer stands, that was the moderator's decision - taking issue with that decision would be done on Aircraft.SE's meta, not here.
The person asking is entitled to write their question, and if clarification is sought people are allowed to ask for it.
Similarly, answers should be taken as-is. You are allowed to flag or vote as you see fit, even comment (as was done) - all must be within the policies of Stack Exchange.
I think you are in need of a different example, or more of them; to support a complaint of clear wrongdoing.
As you can see with this answer on a different site:
"There are a couple of text-book situations where speed brakes / spoilers / airbrakes may be used mid-air:
2. Flap Deployment / Landing Gear Deployment
Various reasons may cause you to be way above your Flap operation speed or Gear deployment speed when you really need to deploy flaps or lower the gear. 2 options here, cut the throttle and wait for the speed to wash out which may take a long time if the air is thin and / or the outside air temperature (ambient) is too high. Raising the spoilers partially helps drop the speed quickly.".
There is one answer offered to the question where it is explained that you can both deploy the spoilers and maintain level flight, slowing the aircraft.
"So if you are on autopilot and do not increase power(thrust), the A/P would increase AOA to increase lift sufficiently to maintain level flight, (further increasing drag), and the aircraft would start slowing down.
If you were flying manually, you would probably manually increase back pressure to increase AOA and lift to maintain level flight and increase power to maintain airspeed. This would be necessary to prevent a descent.".
My answer is somewhat echoed in this comment, though certainly more terse:
"Well based on the examples, I don't think it's putdown or unfriendly. It's answering the question as-is, it is up to the question author to double check and triple check the question, and if not written correctly fix it. That's not something others should be doing anyway.".
The complaint in your question has already been resolved on the site, and there is no question about it raised on that site's meta. Your appeal here is premature, and probably unfounded; that there was a breach of Stack Exchange's CoC or the site's tolerance for either humor or an incorrect answer.
It's not so much a case of that answer denying further edits to the question, the answer is at best incorrect; if they needed clarification before answering it was on them to ask for it, or vote to close it for lacking details.
Two moderators have answered here: "Author's edit right in on-hold question vs invalidating existing answers" and another moderator here: "What should I do when clarifying updates to a question invalidate my first answer?" All answers say that sometimes it's necessary to edit the question regardless, and that subsequent fixes to the answers may be necessary; one assumes such risk when answering prematurely.