This question brings up an important question:
Do we want to allow or avoid the use of non-standard English such as the words
zir as non gender specific pronouns on this site?
English has a singular they and it's fine for situations where the gender of a person is unknown. It has a long history of usage, and is very logical compared to you that is also available for both singular and plural usage.
I'd never seen these used before today. I suspect most readers won't be familiar with them either. Normally, you'd want to simply edit a post that used such obscure words or phrasings to make it more accessible (provided you could do so without altering the meaning)... But that was tried, and not only rejected, but rejected with a declaration from the author asserting that no alternate phrasing would suffice if it did not use his preferred pronouns. So the question then becomes, what now?
Do what you can to respect the original author. If he (zie?) insists on rolling back the edits, then let it be. Don't get into a rollback war over it... This goes for any rejected edit. I understand how frustrating it can be, but it's the original author's name shown below the post, not yours - let it credit or discredit them as they desire. There are more productive avenues available for dealing with problematic posts where the author is too stubborn to allow edits:
If the rejected edit amounts to a matter of personal taste, defer to the choice of the original author.
If multiple users see the question, edit, and find their edits rolled back, flag for moderator attention. The author is probably being intentionally disruptive if the edits are valid and obvious to most readers - a moderator will need to mediate (and either attempt to find a clarification that satisfies all parties, or simply lock the post with a revision chosen according to their best judgement.
If the question is rude, argumentative, or blatantly offensive with the edits in place, close ("Not Constructive") or flag as appropriate.
If the question is simply unintelligible without editing, vote to close as "Not a Real Question". The author should have edited to clarify instead of simply rolling back the edit he saw as incorrect.
Rejection of any other edits intended to correct serious issues that would otherwise result in the question being closed or deleted should similarly result in the question being closed and/or deleted.
Finally, if a question has problems that don't necessarily require it to be closed or removed, but nevertheless hurt its clarity or usefulness, then feel free to down-vote it, regardless of whether or not it has been edited, closed, etc. Voting helps the system remove cruft from the question list, as well as helping both moderators and the system to identify users who fail to show improvement over time. Don't forget: down-votes on questions cost you (the voter) nothing...
(I hasten to add here that not all of these guidelines apply to the question under discussion; I wouldn't close it simply because the example ends up looking a bit tortured.)
No, this is not standard English, and will confuse the vast majority of non-native English speakers, as well as a very significant percentage of native English speakers.
Even if the OP speaks this way in normal conversation, as he claims:
No. It's not artificial. It's the way I speak and write. And it's staying.
I don't think this is an excuse to use confusing language. If a non-native English, or even for that matter, a native English speaker were to post a question with confusing grammar, we would correct it to be more generally understood.
Furthermore, there are other ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns that don't violate "normal, accepted" English. We should encourage these instead.
I think that the pronouns were used in good faith but were a bit confusing. However, the edit was also a bit confusing.
On the other hand (and I feel this is important):
Considering we are accepting all comers as far as self claiming Christians, we might as well accept all comers as far as self proclaimed pronouns too. It is in the spirit of religious and lingual tolerance that we accept them. This tolerance is of course limited by the fact that this is an English site, these however, while not exactly English are an attempt at correcting an issue in the English language..
Sure, let them. Who cares about "zis"? If someone is fond of their own pet thing, let them do it. They'll have confused people make edits all the time and they'll roll them back and there's no need to have more scuffling than that over it. I've seen it with "colour vs color" edits, and that's such a waste of time. If someone rejects BC/AD/BCE/CE dates and only puts in years from whatever other frame of reference - fine, let them.
What will happen is that if people insist on making question in their own pet mindframe, few people will answer their question. As long as people are asking questions they want to know the answer to, this will be self correcting - if you use a language or date system or whatever that people don't understand, you won't get answers. If they are not asking questions they want to know the answer to, crush them, because that's not what we need here.
I think that calling these pronouns "made up" is (a) phrasing the question in a leading manner, and (b) completely irrelevant. Many "made up" words are now a natural part of the language. The word robot was invented by a science-fiction writer (and a Czech one, at that); the word lasar is completely artificial. So, for that matter, is the word agnostic. Would you complain that I was using "made up" language if I called myself an agnostic?
No, the question is whether they are a natural part of the language. Are they? Well, they're too new to have percolated to everyone yet, but I am well used to them and they come naturally to me. Their meaning is pretty clear; they mean what they mean, and nothing else. There's no pretension or special agenda involved in using them. Frankly, I don't see a problem.