It is a common maxim that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
Unfair "moderation" by a coterie of people here who have a common belief is leaving no room for freedom of expression on this website. This is reflected again and again in the acts of editing answers to fit their own beliefs.
Now the comments will be that this is a rant :) What might again is that the coterie will vote to close this answer!
But here is recorded proof of this bias. The coterie is exposed in the "Guidelines for new users answering questions" See point 5. where the coterie has as the yardstick of "Prasthana" to measure the "correctness" of the answer.
Why should all the user be measured on the yardstick of Prasthana? This is a million-dollar question!
This is recorded evidence of the way the coterie groups together to judge an answer, downvote it, close the question and many other acts that point to the rigged practices on this website.
So now we have an excess of users who believe in Prasthana and anything that does not fit their yardstick is incorrect. Then these users group to downvote the answers, close the question by casting their votes and so on.
Such practices are an infringement of principles of Anti-Trust laws, principles of natural justice.
Use your intellectual faculty and debate!
So let us make this discussion concrete one.
The written rules of this website do not support such biased moderation as is currently carried out by the moderators.
Some might feel rude and offended with a certain answer. But such a subjective perception cannot be a cause for suiting the answers to personal biases.
Since the only fair basis for discussion under this question can be the written rules of this website. Therefore, the moderators should present the written rules of this website to defend their "moderation" activism in defending Vedanta or Brahmins or any other group.
Personal harassment is different from criticizing Yajnik, Ritualist, Purva Mimamsa, Vedanta or Brahmins, Kshatriyas or new cult groups. But groups like these are subject to criticism.
Nowhere does the written rules of this website prohibit such criticism.
The Code of Conduct says,
No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.
No harassment. This includes, but isn’t limited to bullying, intimidation, vulgar language, direct or indirect threats, sexually suggestive remarks, patterns of inappropriate social contact, and sustained disruptions of discussion.
Criticizing Vedanta is not bigotry. Like any other philosophy, it is subjected to criticism.
Criticising Brahmins is also not bigotry according to definition above. According to the definition above Brahminism is neither a race, nor gender, nor sexual orientation, and nor a religion (that being Hinduism).
All these words are an example of personal characterizations which can be delineated.
On the other hand, Brahmin is a characterization that cannot be delineated as it does not has any external behavioural or physical or religious distinguishing features.
Therefore, the word Brahmin is not a personal characterization.
My question is different from the question, "The tone of language does matter to the health of our site"
There is ample evidence that many Vedantic moderators and users have used "irrelevant" passages in their questions and answers. Such moderators have been never been "corrected" for the tone of their language. Then why a different yardstick for non-vedantic users!
The question here is not about the tone of the answers but the bias of the moderators who edit well-researched answers and without any personal insinuation against any other user of this website. Such editing is primarily done with an intention to portray Vedanta in good light! This is bias.