I read through this question and saw that none of the existing 10 answers attempted to provide specific references to the standard being discussed (ISO 27001). However, several answers provided essentially the right guidance. Rather than create an 11th answer I chose to edit the top rated right answer and add in specific references to the ISO/IEC standard.
You can see my edit in the 3rd revision here.
This edit was initially approved by reviewers, but then apparently rolled back by the author. The author commented
"if you are going to add references to 27k, that's fine - but completely changing the tone and focus of the question should at least happen after a conversation first. You attempted to take over my answer."
I don't see how I changed the tone or focus of the answer. I supported the authors existing points with specific citations of the standard that agreed with them. I did add sentences to more specifically answer the question but tried to leave as much of their original text as made sense. From my perspective the biggest change was adding the part at the end about password cracking, which I thought was worth mentioning and didn't see as conflicting with their other statements.
I don't many large edits like this because I do tend to agree that the original author's answer should be preserved as closely as possible. But from my perspective these changes seemed appropriate and improved the answer. Where did I go wrong?