Your premise seems to be that I am a one-eyed supporter of the Australian Education system that I so often champion and will stop at no lengths to protect it from a harsh attack.
Well, when I say "often champion", it is a topic I don't think I have ever mentioned on this site before, except perhaps anecdotally in chats about the different systems.
Well, okay, not a harsh attack, but a weak subjective argument extrapolating from two anecdotes.
Well, okay, not any lengths. I wouldn't go too far. I wouldn't delete the comment, delete the room, suspend the user, or anything that extreme! But I would certainly freeze the room two weeks later! That will show them, and protect my beloved education system (well, educations systems, because they are state-based in Australia!)
This is such an egregious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and lazy insult that I am having great trouble imagining it hasn't been posted in an attempt to provoke me, but what it actually provoked was a huge belly laugh.
As I explained to you in chart already:
This chat room was created about 3 months ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with Skeptics. It appears the creator was trying to avoid visibility from users and mods of sites it was related to.
In fact, some of the topics discussed were an anathema to the Skeptics ethos.
Normally, we are fairly relaxed about what is discussed in the chat.
I gave it little thought, because I thought it would die out and disappear.
However, two things happened.
Artificial efforts were made to stop the room from being naturally frozen when the conversation died.
And it appears that it has been confusing users into thinking it is the main chat room, and posting in there rather than here in the Hub of Reason.
For that reason, I decided that it was time to help the room and its lapsed conversation into the archives.
So, if you are looking for the actual triggers: it was this and this.
Meanwhile, if you are looking for actual posts in that chat that I object to, I'll give you some freebies to help you:
I was unimpressed by the religious test placed in the description and at the beginning. Skeptics.SE is welcoming to people of all religions, not just those with a bible. Importantly, it is also welcoming to people who do not have a religion, who are disproportionately represented in the Skeptics community.
I was unimpressed that the room was being used to drag experts reluctantly into personal conversations to satisfy one user's personal curiosities rather than using the appropriate sites to let them answer questions for everyone.
But this isn't again the Code of Conduct or any limitations that the community has agreed on, so I didn't act.