Sorry to drag up an old thread but I saw what I consider a striking example of moderator bias and didn’t want to start a whole thread about it, and the more recent “moderator bias” threads are locked.
From this post:
Now as I see it, “the Democrats are willing to excuse any and all accusations against Hillary, which would have been a more non-partisan approach” was a direct response to the OP’s “the GOP wants to tear her down as much as possible and this is more a political ploy than anything else” to which it was responding and quoting. Yet Colibri did not seem to see it that way. He quoted doorhinge’s post and said “Moderator Note doorhinge, political potshots like this are not permitted in GQ. No warning issued, but don’t do this again” but passed over the directly comparable quote that it was responding to. (In a later post he returned to the quote from the OP but only said “Since this has strong political implications, let’s move this to GD”. Even at that, it’s not completely clear whether that referred to the accusation about the Republicans or the general issue.)
This is not a big deal. However, it does illustrate - pretty starkly, I think - how someone can view the same thing differently based on how it aligns with their views, which is a topic that comes up every so often. The idea that the Democrats would do anything to defend HRC is a “political potshot”. But the idea that the Republicans would do anything to take down HRC is at worst something with “political implications” and possibly not even that.