Roger,

sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate.

In particular, the reprimand to the GUEST that was flooding the forum was well-deserved, in my opinion. And I find Joe's explanations for all of the actions (and prompt corrective action in the case of mistaken deletions or changes) fully satisfactory. If anyone finds this to be the case, they are free to say so - you don't need to, you posted the evidence in the first place, so your view is clear.

One warning though: Repeated presentation as "evidence", without the context, of Joe's statements like the one towards the GUEST can appear as a willful attempt to besmirch Joe's (or the editorial team's) character; they in fact appear as judgemental "attacks" on your behalf. If you don't mean them to be taken as such, you should really make this clear.

To summarise:

This is not evidence of evil intent.
This has been satisfactorily explained.
If this is the only evidence you have, further insistence can appear as willful slander.