I don't know if you've ever hear of Occam's Razor, but I'd like to propose that you've made quite a number of assumptions about my motivations that are not justified by the paper trail. Some of the paper trail is public (edit histories, remaining comments). Other bits of it are now moderator only (deleted comments), but there are two other moderators on this site as well as Stack Exchange staff that are free to review the cases and decide if I made decent judgment calls or not.
Also since you've called me out publicly I'm going to post some here so the community can better judge whether I'm moderating this site fairly or not. Otherwise it's your word (saying I'm abusing moderator privileges) vs. mine (saying I'm only enforcing community norms).
My valid comment was made to they answer provided by user33515 [...]
Asserting that your comment was "valid" does not make it so. I deleted your comment(s) on that post in response to community users flagging the dispute you'd gotten into with that user.
You commented to complain about the perceived issue in the post.
The OP disagreed with you and tried to explain themselves.
You made an edit that substantively changed the content of the answer to something the OP did not want to say.1
They reverted the edit.
You attacked them personally in the comment section including a comment:
What kind of person posts something that is patently false [...] What kind of person?? What is wrong with you?? And of course I can't count on the moderators. Oh well, this site can only rise to mediocrity in such a state of affairs. – Ruminator Dec 8 at 17:24
Another comment in the same thread called on the moderators2 to chastise the user for posting false information.
It addition to deleting the entire string of comments in which you included that ad hominem attack I commented explaining how that was not an acceptable use of comments.
In retaliation Caleb made this inappropriate response to my answer:
My comment on your post was not in retaliation for anything. It was several days later and my attention was only drawn to the post because it was edited and thus hit the home page again. I read and reviewed it as a site user not as a moderator and commented based on the content, not your personage.
Is there a
non-croney-minded moderator that can intervene both in having Caleb
post a retraction/apology for his retaliatory dishonest comment and to
edit out the willful disinformation by user33515?
As I said above other moderators (and the community) are free to review this, but I see two problems here.
My comment was neither retaliatory nor dishonest. It had no connection to the other users post. You only have my word for this, but I didn't even realize that it was the same question where the other answer altercation took place until reading this meta post. I did not review all the answers, I only read and reviewed the one that hit the home page a couple days later and reviewed it on it's own merits.
You may disagree with my assessment of the hermeneutical method in the post, but I commented based on my observation that the basic flow of the argument went from an established belief about the nature of humanity back to the text to find any tidbits that could support that view. You may disagree with me, but that is my honest assessment of the content of that post.
Moderators do not intervene on the content of posts as far as their hermeneutical right or wrongness. There are a number of content guidelines that moderators (and the community) are enabled to enforce, but "willful disinformation" about the interpretation of a lexicon entry is not one of those things. The quality of your interpretive process, the premises or conclusions of posts is simply not something we intervene as moderators to correct. We might have our opinions about those things but for those issues we use the usual site tools: voting and commenting. Note I did not delete your post (a moderator action) for employing what I consider to be a poor hermeneutic, I only voted and commented on it (what any user on this site can and should do).
It is one thing to have a difference of opinion about interpretations
but quite another to knowingly misrepresent the very lexicons you cite
and then to have the moderator support and establish the lie.
Again, just because you think a post is wrong does not mean that's something for a moderator to intervene on. A moderator would intervene if, say, the user was using abusive language or was off on a rabbit trail sermonizing about a topic not related to interpreting the passage in question, but we don't moderate based on the right or wrongness of a post.
That's what the voting system is for. Knowledgeable members of the community are supposed to read and review posts for their accuracy and vote on them according to whether they find them useful and accurate or not. In that sense you and I have the same amount of voice on this site. In fact there are many people on this site with more knowledge in this field than I (I don't have more than a smattering of either Greek or Hebrew). I'm not a moderator because of my subject area expertise (there would be better qualified candidates).
[...] I offered an appropriate edit that was
rebuffed Caleb undid my edit, defended the misinformation and deleted
Not intervening to correct misinformation is not the same as moderator approval. There is lots of content on this site I consider to be wrong, but I use the correct tools for that: I downvote and comment to note what the perceived error is. I'm not defending the content of that post, I'm only defending the author's right to post their own voice. I rolled back your edit because it was not your place to change the content of the answer to be something the author disagreed with, and I deleted your comments because the included ad hominem attacks on the user were inappropriate.
As it is, I'm not permitted to ask any questions because of trolls
down voting legitimate questions.
This is factually incorrect. You are not currently blocked from asking questions.
You were blocked automatically by the system for a week or so in November because of a series of posts all of which had negative scores. This is a standardized measure to slow down users who post a series of things that are poorly received by the community and don't make the effort to go back and fix them. It is also time based and automatically relaxed when some of your posts got improved and got a few upvotes.
Due to the long chain of downvoted (and many deleted) questions on your account, you will very easily hit that limit again. I don't actually know the exact parameters (that's SE programming across all sites, not just this one and not something moderators can fiddle with) but I suspect you're still toeing the line and a few dud questions would trigger the restriction again. Maybe try working with community guidelines instead of fighting them.
Since you brought up one question that has been particularly poorly received, allow me to suggest your own dogmatic inclusion of a massive lexicon entry is part of the problem there. I also thing the question is just poorly thought out in that it's about something pedantic that doesn't really require much extra explanation, but I'm sure it doesn't help that you have included a massive citation of content that is probably at least 95% irrelevant and by your own admission not interesting. You could just say you reviewed the lexicon and nothing caught your eye as being helpful to this context without making us scroll through the entries ourselves.
We went over this when you were trying to edit this content into other people's questions. On your own question it's your prerogative, but I think it detracts from the clarity of the question rather than adding to it. If there was something relevant in that entry an answer could cite the relevant portion. If your question was actually about something in the entry, that bit of the entry would suffice. But citing the on entire lexicon entry just doesn't help frame a question.
1 Making substantial edits is fine as long as it's done in cooperation with other contributors. You've made several good edits lately that improved the quality of posts, but you've also made several that either went contrary to the author's intentions or neutered the posts of their context. I've been alerted to the latter issue through community flags and stepped in and commented on these to explain the issue.
2 Incidentally comments should never be used to call on moderators, the site's flag functions should be used to that end. If there is a problem with a user's behavior flag it for a moderator to deal with rather than chastising the user or aggravating the situation by commenting. Flag it and step away.