I first want to apologize for this comment. The issue is that we have seen that kind of thing before, where people really aren't looking to get real answers, instead they are only trying to push a particular opinion/agenda. It is clear now that you are not trying to do that. However, I can't get over the fact that you seem really pissed at this. It's really not that big of a deal. Making a mountain out of a mole hill, they say.
Now to address the two questions. Here's why they look like duplicates. Your's says:
What are common Biblical and theological arguments against trinitarianism?
The other one says:
how are [non-trinitarian] views justified from the Bible?
Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?
The only real difference is that you ask for theological arguments as well, but that is not really a significant point because the other does not exclude them. Further, on this site, it is difficult to point out some scripture then not add in the theology that interprets it.
Two other people have already addressed your points about why they are not duplicates so I will not. I will add, however, that your point of the difference between "disbelief" and "scripture that opposes the doctrine" is a matter of semantics; that's splitting hairs. Listen to what the asker means, not what the asker has said [written]. Further, just because it is "proof" to you does not make it proof to anyone else. Proof is also a subjective term. This site isn't about proving anything. This site is about Christianity and its people. It is not about what is the truth about God and the proper way to practice Christianity. That's why nearly every question here takes the form of "What does this particular type of Christian say about this?" The community almost immediately closes down questions in the form "Why is this right or wrong?" Likewise, answers that give the impression that a certain belief is right or wrong are downvoted or at least not upvoted.
Some additional concerns:
Placing your reasons why it is not a duplicate in the original post is not how the system is designed. That is why this meta site exists. The main site is for the content that pertains to the site topic only. You have called it a mere formality (posting your complaints on meta), but that couldn't be further from the truth. Everything that this site is, every policy, every guideline, even the theme, everything, was forged here on meta. It started with a few people going through a definition stage to conceptualize the site. Then once there were enough people committed, it went into private beta, where a fixed number of people participated. Then it went into public beta, where anyone could join. Then finally site graduation, which marked Stack Exchange's commitment to keep the site living and aggressively optimize it for search engines. All of this took several years and it was meta posts like this one that laid down the foundations that this site now operates on.
It is not your post. Neither is this one mine. They all belong to Stack Exchange, who has set up the system so that the community (everyone with a username) can edit any post. The idea that the post is yours and it is unethical to change it stems from a misunderstanding of the aforementioned fundamental working of the Stack Exchange system. You are certainly the author and you get credit for it, but it is not your post by any means, unless you simply mean "I am the author" by calling it your post.
Additionally, the idea that people are trying to hide your question because they don't agree with it is ludicrous. If that were true then you need to explain why we have left alone plenty of other questions about non-trinitarianism and many other beliefs that fall outside of mainstream belief. Beyond that, your question is linked to another that is about the exact same topic and it remains open. Nobody is trying to hide or censure anything.
All actions except up and down votes are recorded, including post edits, and can be viewed by anybody. Even deleted posts can be viewed, if you have over 10K rep. The system has a large array of checks and balances that prevent everyone, even the mods, from taking actions that the community does not agree with. You can see a post's previous versions by clicking on the link that says when it was last edited. Because there are so many checks and balances you can rest assure that wax eagle and everybody else cannot do anything without a whole slew of other community members seeing it. If he made a really bad call, then likely someone would reverse it and open a meta post about it. I'm one person who would do this and I have in the past. The point here is that this site really is community run. The mods only step in as a mod when they must and the SE staff almost never interferes. So if you have a problem with what has happened here, you need to convince five community members with 3K+ rep to vote to reopen your question. Seeing as not a single user has voiced agreement with you yet, I don't think that is going to happen.
Bottom Line: There are quite a few people who are calling it a duplicate and are not convinced by the argument you have given. There is not one person who has voiced agreement with you that it is not a duplicate. It's really not that big of a deal.
One final note.
I understand that you are angry and frustrated, but I think you are letting that affect your tone. You almost seem hostile. I promise, nobody here interacting with you is taking actions against you or is hostile toward you. I can personally vouch for all four mods, David Stratton, DJ Clayworth, James T, Daи, and Narnian. They are all stand up guys who take the quality and operation of this site seriously.
So with that I urge you to read this meta post: Newcomers: Be patient. You will get there if you follow our direction. Keep trying
Much of the things you are saying and complaining about have happened before and they come from misunderstanding. I wrote that post to help users like you realize that there is no conspiracy against you or any particular topic.
