The reasoning may or may not be correct. However, the timing of application was extremely poor irrespective of that. If an individual is exhibiting problemati

The reasoning may or may not be correct. However, the timing of application was extremely poor irrespective of that. If an individual is exhibiting problematic behavior, then it was problematic before and will be problematic after. There will be plenty of other opportunities to throw the ban hammer in defense of someone who isn't part of the leadership group. Applying a punishment that looks like abuse of authority in response to someone challenging a measure which increases your scope of authority is an extraordinarily poor choice of timing. Instead of looking like punishment for wrongdoing it looks like harassment and intimidation because someone had the temerity to publicly call you out. The current problem is that punishments do not have negative consequences to their use. If something is important enough to punish someone else, it should also be important enough for you to take a penalty (stepping down, being unable to run for reelection, being unable to be a moderator, etc.). If this kind of behavior occurred inside a corporate political structure, for example, there would be all manner of people decrying the abuse of power, and the approbation would be nearly unanimous. Funny how quickly people get thin skinned when they're delivering the pointy end of the stick rather than receiving it.