Again, I didn't lock the aforementioned post.
It's a judgement call on whether to edit/delete or to lock. Rarely editing works. More often than not editing doesn't stop the problem. If a thread is at the point of needing a mod to edit/delete offending comments, then infighting continues even afterwards and others pile on. And those who were edited are furious, why them and not user XYZ (who apparently was much, much worse and us blind mods didn't see). That's my experience in many years moderating at least, trying both approaches and saying which works best in practice.
Regardless of what we do or don't do, there's always a few angry at the mods.
I wasn't accusing you of locking it. Whomever did, they did so without warning. I understand that editing is sometimes not the most feasible way, but I have not seen this method used ever, not once. In all the threads I've been in that got locked, the thread was always locked suddenly without explanation OR it was locked with a note saying it was closed due to being unproductive or whatever.
It's not so much about
being angry at the mods, it's that your team isn't using the proper toolset for the problem. I have been a mod at other forums and editing out posts is WAY more productive to discussions than locking. Locking is usually reserved for when every single person in the discussion has gone off the rails. But if only 2-3 people are a problem while the rest are still keeping the topic alive, you should really just edit out those 2-3 people and let the others continue.
I am firmly against locking entire threads because of 1-2 bad apples. It's not fair to others who are behaving and benefiting from the conversation. And as I said before, the usual suspects know that mods will lock threads if there is incivility so all they have to do is show up, be uncivil, and then the mods close it. You should really change tactics so that the usual suspects stop exploiting this. To me, it makes it looks like the mods are in cahoots with them.