user17004: What's the evidence against SARS-CoV-2 being engineered by humans?
In this question, a mod deliberately deletes only certain comments (which presumably he thinks took a side), claiming "Please don't introduce new conspiracy theories in the comments. If you want to question a specific claim, try Skeptics.SE. Locking comments for now; when the lock comes off please use these comments only to suggest improvement to the question."
My comment is one of them. How is my comment: 

"Neither of natural origin/lab-made should be called a conspiracy
  theory. They are called competing hypotheses when neither has been
  solidly-proven. This commits the same mistakes as when church people
  branding Darwin's theory of evolution as conspiracy when their
  Creationism had not been proven."

not an attempt to improve the question/remind the OP to reduce bias (from attracting just pre-opinionated story, reaffirming his prior beliefs)?  The OP's only has biased personal story with unsourced claims such as:


there is a consensus that the most probable source of the first
  infection was in an animal market in China. 


since that animal market
  was actually composed of a plethora of animals belonging to various
  species (mixed with humans), a virus had a bigger chance of evolve a
  mutation that might infect an individual from another specie (a thing
  that is way less unlikely in the wild since many of those animals do
  not sit close to each others or next to humans)


Not saying all comments deleted are unjustified, but I would like to hear your rationale for deleting my above comment.
I will probably get a lot of hate, but just pointing how ridiculous this is for one person has an opinion and then he has the power to selectively delete whatever doesn't suit his interests. Some comments have absolutely no elements of personal attacks/violation of conduct.

user22057: The problem, in my opinion, is that this question is unsuitable for SE Biology as it does not come under any of the categories in the Tour: 

general questions about biological concepts
questions about the biological mechanisms behind medical conditions
questions about techniques in a biological or biochemical laboratory

I regard it as call for discussion on conspiracy theories — off-topic in any circumstances, but irresponsible in the current situation — and stated this very strongly, voting to close. However my view was not supported by other list members and the question stood and still stands.
You came to the question and took it on its own terms and it is perhaps understandable that you felt it valid to add your two cents to the conspiracy theory and feel aggrieved at the outcome. However, if you had read the description of the purpose of the site you would have realized the question was off-topic and, even assuming it on-topic, you should have answered in an answer not a comment.
I would ask you not to use emotive expressions like “get a lot of hate” and “accept the possibility that you will anger someone”. This may be a language problem, but these expressions are inappropriate on any SE and especially on Meta where one tries to discuss issues about the site frankly, but in a civil manner. Because people disagree with you it does not mean they hate you, and the moderators must perform their duties regardless of the intemperate responses they may provoke.

17004: <p><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/90793/whats-the-evidence-against-sars-cov-2-being-engineered-by-humans">What&#39;s the evidence against SARS-CoV-2 being engineered by humans?</a></p>

<p>In this question, a mod deliberately deletes only certain comments (which presumably he thinks took a side), claiming "Please don't introduce new conspiracy theories in the comments. If you want to question a specific claim, try Skeptics.SE. Locking comments for now; when the lock comes off please use these comments only to suggest improvement to the question."</p>

<p>My comment is one of them. How is my comment: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Neither of natural origin/lab-made should be called a conspiracy
  theory. They are called competing hypotheses when neither has been
  solidly-proven. This commits the same mistakes as when church people
  branding Darwin's theory of evolution as conspiracy when their
  Creationism had not been proven."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>not an attempt to improve the question/remind the OP to reduce bias (from attracting just pre-opinionated story, reaffirming his prior beliefs)?  The OP's only has biased personal story with unsourced claims such as:</p>

<ol>
<li><blockquote>
  <p>there is a consensus that the most probable source of the first
  infection was in an animal market in China. </p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><blockquote>
  <p>since that animal market
  was actually composed of a plethora of animals belonging to various
  species (mixed with humans), a virus had a bigger chance of evolve a
  mutation that might infect an individual from another specie (a thing
  that is way less unlikely in the wild since many of those animals do
  not sit close to each others or next to humans)</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ol>

<p>Not saying all comments deleted are unjustified, but I would like to hear your rationale for deleting my above comment.</p>

<p>I will probably get a lot of hate, but just pointing how ridiculous this is for one person has an opinion and then he has the power to selectively delete whatever doesn't suit his interests. Some comments have absolutely no elements of personal attacks/violation of conduct.</p>
 22057: <p>The problem, in my opinion, is that this question is unsuitable for SE Biology as it does not come under any of the categories in the Tour: </p>

<ul>
<li>general questions about biological concepts</li>
<li>questions about the biological mechanisms behind medical conditions</li>
<li>questions about techniques in a biological or biochemical laboratory</li>
</ul>

<p>I regard it as call for discussion on conspiracy theories — off-topic in any circumstances, but irresponsible in the current situation — and stated this very strongly, voting to close. However my view was not supported by other list members and the question stood and still stands.</p>

<p>You came to the question and took it on its own terms and it is perhaps understandable that you felt it valid to add your two cents to the conspiracy theory and feel aggrieved at the outcome. However, if you had read the description of the purpose of the site you would have realized the question was off-topic and, even assuming it on-topic, you should have answered in an answer not a comment.</p>

<p>I would ask you not to use emotive expressions like “get a lot of hate” and “accept the possibility that you will anger someone”. This may be a language problem, but these expressions are inappropriate on any SE and especially on Meta where one tries to discuss issues about the site frankly, but in a civil manner. Because people disagree with you it does not mean they hate you, and the moderators must perform their duties regardless of the intemperate responses they may provoke.</p>
