This thread is for any further discussion of what happened here. As I wrote there, I think we should mainly focus on discussing what sort of editing of questions should or shouldn't be done; for that purpose we could revive this post, where some relevant things have already been said, including by Arturo, one of the protagonists in the precent kerfuffle. However, since several people, including myself, couldn't refrain from continuing the discussion about the incident itself despite gentle requests to take the discussion to meta, I'm also opening this thread to provide a venue for that as well.
I'll start off by stating where I disagree with you, Bill. As I wrote there, I don't take any issue with your views on how and how not to edit. I do, however, take issue with your attempt to use a general epistemic skepticism to turn around the sufficiently clear facts in a sufficiently clear case. It's true that there may have been further comments that I didn't see. It's true that these might throw additional light on what exactly transpired. But it's also true that we all have enough experience with Theo and Arturo that we can pretty much exclude the possibility that they wrote anything that would have made a comment by the OP telling one of them to stop bitching and calling the other a bitch anything other than wildly out of proportion. I've gone out of my way to acknowledge your view point; I'd appreciate if you could also acknowledge that, whatever your views on editing, a difference of opinion about editing styles among well-meaning and reasoning users is on a different order of magnitude of problem-causing behaviour than a new user who starts spewing insults instead of engaging in argument when they object to something.