There certainly were problems with that answer but the way it got handled seems highhanded.
Problems with the post:
- it doesn't meet the current policy for the most part
had a rhetorical ending question
If Imam Ali(AS) was not born inside Kaaba then would you tell me where else was he born? And provide me authenticate documents about it?
Which was the only thing that was criticized with objectivity and specificity.
Surely, that was the only thing that should have been removed. Keeping in good faith with the editing guidelines.
Why does the treatment seem highhanded and incorrect, with questions:
This edit assumed that the things mentioned in there were inflammatory. Where
and unfortunately our Muslim brothers don't let us take photo of it.
was most probably taken for it. Why not treat it as information? If it's inflammatory to some but is nonetheless information, then why not treat it as such.
I don't recall posts being edited out on Stack Overflow or any other site if says that
unfortunately I can't say much about the bug because our fellow developer decided to keep it closed source. But you could get about it by ....
The referred developer shouldn't care nor should the supporters of their idea. Readers on the other hand would find it as a convenient, useful and relevant information. What's wrong with it?
The author was not comfortable with the edit and did a soft rollback (spelling fixes kept). Cool. Nobody questioned the action. And the post was deleted without an explanation. What was the reason for that deletion?
Why was it undeleted again?
Then the post was locked. How was the content disputed? What discussion on meta culminated into a community agreed policy being violated by that post if it were to be rolled-back?
Finally it was made Community-Wiki. Didn't see it coming. Why was made such?
Why has all that transpired with much explanation and/or comments?