My recent answer to a question about how to address racist comments has been edited by a moderator (eykanal) to remove a substantial portion of the content. As authority for the edit the moderator cites another meta post discussing whether or not a different answer contains off-topic commentary. The moderator also states, "OP - If you wish to discuss this edit please feel free to do so on Meta, but please refrain from heavy editing as the current votes are based on what was present." The moderator has now locked the post to prevent rollback of his edits.
(A brief history of the answer: (1) there was an initial detailed answer that received a large number of upvotes and a few downvotes (approx +50 net upvotes); (2) following solicitation from other users in the comments section, I added an additional section to the answer, and there were then a small number of additional votes which did not make any substantial change to the net score of the answer; (3) the moderator edited the answer to remove the bulk of the content (including both the new section and most of the original post), based on his rationale above; (4) based on the rationale that the answer should not be heavily edited after receiving substantial numbers of votes, I rolled back all edits to restore my answer to its original form in (1), when the bulk of voting occurred; and (5) moderator then restored his edit removing most of the content, and locked the post to prevent further edits.)
I do not agree with the removal of content from this answer and I would like the original content of the post restored. There are several problems with the moderator edit:
(1) It removes relevant content --- this content is on-topic and gives a detailed argument challenging a false premise in the question, in order to give context for the advice at the end of the post;
(2) The edit does not fall within the scope of when should I edit posts in the help centre guidance;
(3) The edit does not leave the post in a better state than the original version; and
(4) The edit contradicts the moderator's own instruction that the post should not be heavily edited after the bulk of votes are accrued to the post;
(5) Unlike the case of the answer that was the subject of the meta-post cited by the moderator, this answer has a high net upvote score, suggesting that a large number of users found the post to be of value in answering the question; and
(6) The edits pre-empt the current discussion of development of "frame-challenge guidelines" on Meta.
I appreciate the work of moderators on this site, including the present moderator. Nevertheless, in this instance my answer has been edited down to a shell of its original content, and this edit substantially detracts from the quality of the post. (The main negative effect is that it removes contextual argument on the premises of the question that are crucial to understanding the advice given in the post.) It seems to be getting more common for moderators to edit down answers where they feel that the content is "controversial", and in such cases, there are some very stretched interpretations of what is "off-topic". In particular, in questions where there is an assertion of "racism" by the OP, moderators seem to be opposed to answers that question this premise. Questions on racism, sexism, etc., are necessarily going to be controversial, so it is important that we allow scope for "frame challenges", questioning about potentially false premises, etc., without removing this content as "off-topic".
A secondary problem here is that it represents an instance where moderators unilaterally remove the bulk of contents from an answer (in this case a highly upvoted answer) and then put the onus on the answerer to go to Meta to appeal this change. In previous cases there is usually a discussion on Meta that comes first, to discuss whether or not the answer should be edited down. The present case sets a bad precedent in which moderators remove content under a strained interpretation of what is "off-topic".