My question was revised then locked and I can no longer roll back, why?

Question

This is maybe a personal question from @goldPseudo, but the system automatically advised me to bring my question here in meta, so sorry for the mess if it makes any.

Quite recently I wrote an answer to a question in Islam.SE, the moderator @goldPseudo kindly advised me with some advices about it and himself tried his best to remove some irrelevant information provided in that answer for the sake of brevity and to make the answer more to the point. Actually I intentionally added those parts not to trigger an emotional debate and reduce the consequences of such an answer that I understand its acceptance by the Sunni brothers (that I guess be the majority of the active users here in this website) would be difficult and somewhat almost impossible. However, I noted that some main parts of my answer had been fallen in the removed parts while edited by the moderator, so as I couldn't personally roll back the edit asked him to help in this regard, when he didn't (maybe was busy, not aware of my comment for him, or else) I went and add only those parts that were mistakenly deleted in his EDIT. They are some inevitable parts of my answer and such a deletion if be intentional will not be simple revisions but censorship, and I should stress here that I tried my best to remain polite and respectful, only restating parts of history of Islam from another perspective. A few minutes ago I saw @goldPseudo has again rolled back his previous EDIT and then locked my answer so that I cannot change it any further. Would you please explain me where I am missing a point? It seems to me that as the majority of members here are Sunni the minority should talk in a way that they like and allow, and is it is the case I will leave them on their own, simply they can change the name of the website to SunniIslam.SE and all will be satisfied with the answers that they expect and like to see and read. I hope that I am wrong so please explain me, is the problem only with my answers being long, or is it about beliefs?

Regards

Answer 1

I just took a look at the answer and modified it somewhat. Hopefully I managed to keep the main content of your answer and removed some extraneous bits. Remember that Stack Exchange is a website for focused questions and focused answers. If a significant portion of your answer is devoted to establishing something that is secondary and totally unrelated to the question (in this case, Ayesha (ra)'s actions years after the Prophet (saws)) then it's probably tangential. I did however try to keep your point.

If you still feel that the information that was removed is absolutely essential to the point you're making in the answer, you're free to make your case here and we'll take a look at it.

I will also say that I got lost in the transition from Ayesha (ra) and her role in the meat saga, to the ayah from 66:3, and from there the transition to being asked about Ahl al-Bayt.

Re. the other parts of your question - the answer was locked to prevent edit wars. Moderators don't have the energy or inclination to invest in keeping track of these things for very long. It's your responsibility to make a case for your answer and keep it focused.

Finally, is there any evidence for your accusation of sectarianism? If not, I advise you to be mature and not bring up the sectarianism canard every time something happens which you don't agree with.

Answer 2

I removed the text in question because, as was described in the edit summary, it was irrelevant. The question was about whether the prophet died naturally or if he was poisoned. The question had nothing to do with whether or not Aisha is a reliable narrator which, as best I could tell, was the only point the removed text was trying to explain. Were that the case, it could've easily been replaced with a single sentence stating "However, the Shi'a do not consider Aisha to be a reliable narrator, and as such treat these reports as questionable."

Answers are expected to be clear and focused on the question asked; this not only helps the questioner himself but also all future users who are looking to find the answer. As such, irrelevant information serves only to lengthen the post and make the actual answer harder to distinguish, which doesn't serve this community or the internet as a whole.

We are not a soapbox. We are (trying to build) a library of high-quality questions and answers.

If someone (be it the questioner himself or a future user) wants to know why the Shi'a don't consider her to be a reliable narrator, that would be an excellent question for the site. Because that's exactly what it is: A completely different question.

And if such a question were asked, explaining the situation in detail as was done would be entirely relevant.