This old question (What is the mechanism of action of anaesthetics?) has recently been put on hold as being too broad.
The grounds are, apparently, that such a diverse range of compounds acting as anaesthetics must have different mechanisms of action. So the question is too broad because it would generate too many answers.
But the text of the question specifically asks why such diverse compounds appear to do the same thing, specifically "What do these heterogeneous compounds have in common". In other words why do they all act as anaesthetics?
This seems like a crazy decision for two reasons: 1 the question asked what the compounds have in common so the answer should be focussed, not a range of different things for different compounds; 2 we don't seem to know the mechanism of action and why it is different (or, to put it another way, none of the answers are specific to the compounds and none are really satisfactory).
If we had convincing mechanisms of action and they were clearly different then the "too broad" objection might make sense. But this would need to be demonstrated by answers (one of which would be "the compounds don't have anything in common"). Those who presume that the mechanisms must be different can only sustain that argument if they know the answers, which they don't seem to.
So my appeal is to stop leaping to conclusions which are irrelevant given what the question actually asked and which are based on theoretical issues nobody has the answer to.