I would consider it somewhat problematic (and probably best answered in the negative, if at all),
This is really a very friendly way to put it. But ...
but perhaps it could have been salvaged through editing into something acceptable.
Simply NO, as the very core of that question is asking for opinions. Language choice, and even more about what is perceived as 'standard' is always a matter of opinion.
All answers given so far literally start or include "I used", "I created", "I " (that one made me smile), a list of opinions about tools (Wordstar) and languages. So exactly the kind of answers not fitting.
[Insert why that particular question is onjective unanswerable in addition to asking only for opinions] In addition this very question is unanswerable even today with, as there is still no hard data (*1). Sure, Projects like Tiobe Index numbers, but they do in no way tell anything about real world usage. Same goes for index numbers based on projects on Github and so on. They are all biased in one way or another. So if we cant't even have a reliabel overview with today's tools and data, how much less looking back onto a an era before any mainstream on a new machine was even formed?
For those who don’t know, close and reopen votes by moderators are final and binding;
Yes, that's a critical point and IMHO a flaw of the SE design. Moderators should have the opportunity to simply vote like as a regular user.
Then again, they do need a way to close of questions right away if deemed plain unfit.
And that is the case here.
I think moderators should ordinarily recuse themselves and refrain from casting close/reopen votes entirely
Which, AFAICT, they do. Yes. this whole thing puts a burden on them which I think is unfair, but so far I consider it as handled in an acceptable way.
(or cast votes only when there is already only one left to take the action),
Not really. Tactical voting is never a great idea.
Unfortunately, this is not even a first for this particular moderator: I see their name in review queue histories all the time, blithely casting fiat votes, though so far nothing as egregious as this.
Well, that's their job. I for one can not see anything justifying such harsh accusatory wording in this case. I also can not see any obvious overuse of moderator voting for Chenmunka. Sure, I may not always agree, but that's a different point.
In addition having the histories is already the good part of the system, as it gives transparency and creates liability. Quite different to moderator intervention in comments, where perfectly fine comments get deleted to promote particular interests. All without any (obvious) trace. If at all, then this power needs to be constrained. But that's a different story.
Re-posting a question to bypass a close decision is also poor form, but I would rather not fault a newbie for it too much; nevertheless I did point this out in the comments
Being new entitles to a lenient handling, but not to rule bending.
(and also the original moderation decision).
I wouldn't consider putting the boot in a great help to move that point.
Apparently a lively discussion about the latter has taken place afterwards, but I was unable to read it while it was ongoing. This is not a good look for the moderation either; I can only guess that the comments were not particularly flattering.
Which again highlights the problem with comment manipulation by mods without transparency and liability. Still, I can see the reasoning, as that discussion was provoked by an unnecessary side comment.
You have edited the question into a completely different question about a completely different OS. This is considered to be vandalism on SE. You should ask a different question in another post.
But this rationale is nonsense. Prompting the asker to edit the question to address its flaws is exactly what closing questions is for. The claimed flaw was that the question is too broad, so the asker narrowed it down, exactly as they should.
Sure about that? Editing in itself is not a neutral process of improving/clarifying the question. It can be as well creating a moving target (like to invalidate answers given to the question as it was asked), or turn it into a different question, which is what happened here.
Looking at the question log, it seems that the OP was retargeting the question way past editing for clarification, which the desired process after (or in expectation of) closing is, but rather creating a new one. Which is what was criticised by the mod - and which should, as mentioned lead to opening a new one. That the new one isn't a better fit for RC.SE does not mater.
Now that we’re in this mess, what should be done about it?
Can't see any mess. It was a moderator action not only within its abilities, but as well in accordance with how RC.SE should be maintained. It was an obvious case, not needing any further process.
And on a more general note:
Moderators have the job to keep the site in working order, which foremost means keeping content in line with topic and rules. They are necessary, as pure peer governance does not work as one would wish. SE format is about being focused on solvable issues.
Anyone wanting a free for all format should maybe look for some forum site. They can be quite useful,helpful and knowledgeable - some well patronized by the very same people as RC.SE - and without the restrictions of RC.SE (*2).
Thus, if we have moderators, we as well need not only to trust them, even if we don't like particular decisions, but also accept their ruling.
*1 - . IMHO everything should be written in Assembly, but even I wouldn't believe that Assembly is more widely used than PHP or SQL. It rather shows where people have more questions about, more problems with, or are more proud about telling about their little achievements.
*2 - Or better, they may come with a different set of limitations. Like about guns ... old timers will know :))