......The second seems like it was primarily personal with the "law" backing up that personal issue. But I still think he did nothing wrong and proving malicious intent seems difficult given the responses by him.

I think most would agree to that noob is a little bit brash. However the community elected him knowing this. It was talked about at length during the election. The issue here in my opinion whether @shog9 will agree or not is whether noob was simply doing a cleanup after having enough of dealing with the admin panel questions or if he did it more as a way of flaunting his powers in a dramatic fashion albeit "legal" just to have a giant slap across the admin panel questioners faces

@Hyppy - I would actually concur with that last sentence. I know N00b can be course and swift in his dealing with questions/users. I've never seen him do it as a moderator based strictly on his own opinions though, but based on the guidelines (whether written or tribal knowledge) of the SF community. He's VERY active since being moderator, which I saw as a good thing, but maybe moderators aren't supposed to be seen by the general public overall. Regardless I guess it's Shog's/SE's call to do what they feel is best for the community/site/SE.

Oh sure...ask a question about moderators and get immediate comments from SE staff...ask for a feature-request and get crickets -- I'm taking my shovel and pail home.

Not really, but still irrelevant. Shane himself commented/answered on it. I just figure if it is tagged as such then I'm curious if there's any timeline/procedure they follow to actually respond to these with either a yea or nay.

meta.serverfault.com/questions/5823/… as an example...

"Can't tell if serious" -- Here's one I did back in December meta.serverfault.com/questions/6792/…

@Sven yep understand. I won't lose sleep over this either way. Just figured it was a "delighter" not a "must be".

So to your point #1 Hampton addressed. On #2 the problem there is that the URL could be quite long and possibly nonsensical if you just leave it as a visible URL. On #3 that's essentially what I'm asking for. The hope being that the text itself lends to searching if the URL is broken...

I don't know that BigHomie...I won't go into meta.SE though...even after the separation/changes with SO. There are a few SE employees like Tom, Kyle, Shane that should at least see this post. I know feature requests take second place to bug fixes and things like Stack Egg... :)

1) I'm not a moderator (why does everyone assume that?) 2) my comments may have come off snarky but that was because I felt like you weren't putting much effort into solving your own issue. I explained that you could simply change a client's hosts file to test resolution. Then you said "well of course that works but it's a hack", to which I replied "you should've said that it works doing that in your OP. Then it's obviously a DNS resolution issue and you should post a debugged output of an nslookup if you want further help" which you never did. I'm glad you got it resolved still.

Any updates on this?