I can't discuss this in isolation as this would further the controversy. I need to consider your first revision and sketch out the issues here with that and further revisions.
Here's revision 1:
Title: How do I disinfect my infected Android device (phone) with adware malware that simple steps failed to remove? And what should I AVOID trying?
WAIT! Before you reflexively down vote this, see my answer!
In the process of trying to resolve the infection, I kept hitting major, dangerous hurdles. I had a pretty good guess as to what had led to the infection, but hit hurdle after hurdle as I tried to act accordingly.
I was surprised that the simple steps I tried didn't work. But then, I'm used to the iOS environment, which is much better defended.
That revision had multiple issues to begin with.
- Title says you tried some steps but failed to mention the steps you followed.
- Title also says "what should I avoid trying?". We need to know what you already tried which you didn't mention. Besides, that is something which is actually very broad. Since the body didn't focus on that, I reduced the scope of the question by editing it out (to prevent it from yet another closure (too broad).
The two paragraphs "In the process...defended" (almost the whole of the body) were of no use to a user trying to understand your problem because of the missing steps.
(Tip: always write a question as if somebody else is having that issue and you want to solve it, so you'd always try to mention what's relevant to understand the question at first go. May be some clarification could still be needed, but the question should at least stand on its own without clarification.)
As for considering the answer as asked in the body, it must be noted that a question, no matter whether one intends to answer it or wants it to be answered, must stand on its own ground. (We have some exceptions to this with self-answering, especially when the user intends to provide a conceptual understanding of a subject matter and a rooting guide et al.) Requiring a person to go through a answer just to understand the question disrupts the Q&A format and reduces it to forum style posts. It also wastes a reviewer's/moderator's time and effort that could well have been spent on matters genuinely requiring urgent attention.
Self-answered questions can be presented standalone. I have done so, and you can evaluate them yourselves.
As for the closure, a flag was raised against your question for being unclear. Because it was unclear to me as well, I closed it. Closure doesn't mean the post is done for. The closure note broadly indicates that the post should be fixed, and a fixed post may deserve to be reopened. Normally, a moderator leaves a note when closing a post as "unclear" because the user cannot usually come to know what to fix in it. However, user Irfan Latif had already asked most pertinent information in a comment, so I avoided adding my own comment. I suppose I should have been more careful by being explicit with what's wrong with the post.
I had to resort to locking your post because the meta issues of the question and your objection to a moderator's action should be addressed on the meta site. Knowingly not using the meta site but the post itself for addressing meta grievances can be considered abuse, as I considered in this case.
To be clear that I have nothing personal against the post or you per se, I did reopen the post after your revision 4 added useful information but simultaneously locked it for aforesaid reason.
I appreciate your intent to help us out by sharing your knowledge, but it has to be done in an order and format that the community expect. A deviation requires an appropriate response. It started with closure, which when failed to control things, led the locking of the post.
As for this meta question, some parts do not require answering because I have discussed the original question in detail. As for the comments, Irfan and you engaged in a very long discussion. Comments are for clarifications and suggestions. If there are 20+ comments (including both sides) then either the involved users are too chatty or something in the post requires an immediate fix, barring some exceptions.
Yes, you did offer a chat room in comments which was a good step on your part. When fixing your question, I simply moved all the comments into a chat room (auto-generated) and deleted them to avoid redundancy. If you think there exists a bug, please report it separately from your immediate issue here.
Also, it is neither Firestarter, nor Fire. It is Firelord (no spaces, no surname). I request you to focus on the matter from next time, not on distorting the name of a person (even if it is just an avatar). And please use standard dedicated channel for grievance redressal, which is meta here.