« first day (4 days earlier)      last day (16 days later) » 

11:35 PM
@Tortliena Okay, I have simmered down and went back to read your question. The thought process is this: moderators are — in my optics — increasingly injecting themselves into posts, and taking moderator action, needlessly. I am more and more seeing that — if a post can be interpreted as both breaking and not breaking a rule, depending on your subjective interpretation — moderators are deliberately choosing the negative interpretation. And that happened here.
And when users are objecting to this, the moderators double down... i.e. get defensive and refuse to see it any other way, and become rude, dismissive, even snide. And that happened here.
Now, I grant that this is very much a biased view on my part, because I am not seeing the full picture and I am not seeing the instances where moderators went "Ah, okay, that makes sense" and reverse their decision... like you did with the recent question about interchangable barrels.
That said, this sort of behaviour, where moderators are apparently — i.e. this is how it looks, in my biased view — looking for reasons to shut a post down instead of looking for a reason to keep it open, is grating on me. And apparently OP of the UFO crash question felt the same way. I believe this should serve as a red flag and make the mods of WB SE — at least — ask themselves "Okay... do we have a problem here or not?"
I also feel that any answer of the sort "We act by the rules; the rules are good; therefore inconceivable we have a problem; the users are at fault for being dumb/not understanding/not liking the rules" is not resolving this issue, but instead proof of the problem.
There, that is my thought process. You asked for information, so... there it is. Do with it as you wish.
 

« first day (4 days earlier)      last day (16 days later) »