Timeline for Is this account suspension abuse of moderator power?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 12:24 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen Mod | Defendant? LOL! I feel more like a parole officer :-) | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 7:35 | comment | added | quid | I assume you refer to a comment you wrote quite some time ago, not a recent one. Anyway I now wrote a comment myself. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 2:07 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | It is like the evidence submitted by a plaintiff in law court. The moderators are like the defendants in this case. Removing it is abuse of moderator power. I did write a comment asking the reason why they did so, but they ignored it(and it was deleted). | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:59 | comment | added | quid | I meant it can be harder to read a text when there is a lot of links and other formatting. If you think the information is important I propose you either write a comment to say that links can be found in the revision history or ask a moderator if you can restore the links. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:26 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | "The links made the post more busy-locking," I don't understand this. What do you mean? "they are mostly dead-links for most readers, they could reignite olds debates." I think they are important facts to discuss the matter. "Furthermore, they were not there initially. It seems you did not consider having them as a priority yourself." It was because I thought the abuse was obvious for everyone which I found later was not the case. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:13 | comment | added | quid | I do not have any particular opinion on this. The links made the post more busy-locking, they are mostly dead-links for most readers, they could reignite olds debates. I can see why one might want to remove them, but I consider it not a necessity either. Furthermore, they were not there initially. It seems you did not consider having them as a priority yourself. Yet maybe their removal was even just incidental to the rollback to the last moderator-created revision. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | "I followed the editing quite closely. I believe you over interpret some things a bit." What do you think of the fact that they removed the links to my meta questions which are the very reasons why my account was suspended? | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 18:37 | comment | added | quid | I followed the editing quite closely. I believe you over interpret some things a bit. For example, you found it problematic that the list of moderator-names was removed, but really I cannot see the issue with this and find it rather an improvement as the list distracted from the fact which moderator actually sent the message. This information is preserved, while it could theoretically be more "inconvenient" for the concerned individual. Besides the comment of Bill Dubuque a great number of other comments was also deleted. I'd guess easily more than hundred in total on this thread. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:26 | comment | added | Makoto Kato | If you read the edit history of the question, you can see that the moderators removed the lines telling the facts that are inconvenient for them. In particular they removed the links to my meta questions. They also deleted Bill Dubuque's comments saying that I had been a target of unprecedented extreme bullying. | |
| S Dec 2, 2015 at 22:57 | history | notice removed | Daniel FischerMod | ||
| S Dec 2, 2015 at 22:57 | history | unlocked | Daniel FischerMod | ||
| S Nov 29, 2015 at 21:48 | history | notice added | Daniel FischerMod | Comments only | |
| S Nov 29, 2015 at 21:48 | history | locked | Daniel FischerMod | ||
| Nov 25, 2015 at 15:24 | history | answered | quid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |