If the project in question was not an anti-adblocker, the question would be fine on its own. That you do not like the project is moot. Expressing yourself that you do not like the project is fine, if not distracting from the topic at hand. My actions were to maintain focus on the question and not have you hijack the post with your tangential opinion.
My very first action, once you get the sequence of events correct, was to preserve your opinion. I converted your anti-answer ("you don't deserve an answer") into a comment, which is perfectly fine for a Mod to do unilaterally. You say that there should be discussion and downvoting by the community instead of conversion, but your answer was 14 words long and dismissive of the question, not answering it.
Just after answering, you vote to close it. If you thought it should not be answered, then don't answer. VTC, or answer, not both. Posting an anti-answer then voting to close while focusing on a tangent of the question, is just you wanting to make your voice louder.
I delete the auto-generated comment, because once the answer was moved to comment, it was redundant, and your VTC reason is still maintained in the VTC options for the post. So, your VTC reason is preserved.
My actions were to keep your voice heard, but to a minimum.
I then explain my actions, and then, yes, you do get combative. I keep deleting the elements of our conversation in chat and advise that you come here to meta. You post a calmer reaction, which I leave.
My role as Mod is to help get everyone heard, most primarily, the people asking questions. I do not have to agree with any opinion and I have a balancing act to maintain, and I do always try to explain the reasons for my actions.
And I will prevent users of this site from turning any legitimate question into a protest rally against the asker or what the asker does. Guide, advise, encourage different choices of the asker? Sure. Torches, and pitchforks? No.
And, as Nobody said, it has been the longstanding policy of the site to not close questions just because the answers might help someone write malware. So, while you might not like the project, your close reason doesn't make sense for the site:
- the nature of the project in question is tangential to what was asked
- the project is not malicious, even if undesired by many end-users
- being malicious doesn't make it "malware" (it's site code), which was the wording of your close reason
- if it was a straight-up bank-cred-stealing malware, it wouldn't matter
So, one of the other roles as a Mod is to maintain site policy and community standards, which I have tried to carry out.
This is not the first time you have bitterly complained about "the abuse of power" from the Mods. It is not an abuse of power, it is the carrying out of power to help the community, and you appear not to like that sometimes you don't get to do exactly what you want.
Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that it is bad. If you do not like that StackExchange, or this site, has Mods, then perhaps you should go to a more free-form, unmoderated forum.
We are Mods. We moderate.