I think the issue lies in the SE team's failure to communicate the issue properly.

If a moderator appears to be acting without community consensus, there should be warnings stating *clearly* the nature of the issue and the correct course of action to take:

> HopelessN00b, I'm becoming very concerned about the recent actions you've been taking. It seems you're acting without community consensus, mass-closing questions without seeking input from the user base at large. Keep in mind that [moderators are supposed to act on behalf of the community][1], not in place of it.

> Before making any drastic changes to the site, even if supported by established rules, please ask about it on Meta and, and most critically, have the community play its part. Make sure the community is involved in the cleanup. A Meta post directing the community to vote to close such questions would be a great idea—you would simply work in tandem with the close voters.

---

The response from Shog9 makes this sound like a witch-hunt, not an attempt to actually address a moderation issue. HopelessN00b was confronted with accusatory statements from the start, and did not receive an explanation of why this behavior was not healthy until now: [that the community was becoming over-reliant on him][2]. Problems must be explained clearly from the start.

What we've seen suggests Shog9 did not want to accept evidence that by performing the cleanup, HopelessN00b was acting out the will of the community, not against it. Through Shog9's failure or refusal to accept this evidence, by not revealing the real reason this was a problem until after revoking the diamond (and therefore not allowing him an opportunity to address the problem), and by not consulting the community before taking these actions, we have reason to believe that HopelessN00b was subjected to a witch-hunt.


  [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/
  [2]: http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/8071/some-parting-thoughts-and-apologies-for-the-drama/8088#8088