My patience is not infinite; the company has already dragged this out for nearly a month while harm continues to accrue. It is past time for a meaningful response. I remain available to discuss the matter. Please prioritize resolving this ongoing, painful, damaging situation in the very near future.
This yielded an answer which I thought wasn't in line with the Code of Conduct.
I think it was needlessly offensive to characterize negatively statements Monica may have made in the Teacher's Lounge, a place few of us are able to check to see if the statements are true. Furthermore, it made a very strong claim:
By Monica and her supporters taking the meta site hostage and the degree of vitriol that has poured out from this, is not the answer. It's created a hot bed for bigotry on the site. I am not calling Monica or her supporters bigots! - but this is the actual reality of what is occuring.
How I read it, that's saying Monica is partially responsible for creating a "hot bed [sic] for bigotry on the site".
For those reasons, I flagged the answer as rude or abusive, as did some others according to comments under the answer. These flags were declined within minutes. I then flagged a mod with a custom reason, trying to outline the reason I flagged the question. This flag too was declined within minutes:
The custom declination reason stated is:
This is Monica's question. If Monica didn't want to talk about Monica then maybe Monica shouldn't have posted a question about Monica.
I think this is very weird. Monica is a user who should be protected under the same Code of Conduct everyone else is. The Code of Conduct doesn't list exceptions for specific users or for users asking questions about their own situation.
Therefore, I am asking anyone who can shed light on this to take their time and answer thoughtfully. Why was this flag declined and why was this an appropriate rejection reason?
To add some background to my question, I think that a post, however personal, does not place it above the Code of Conduct. If there are parts that violate the Code of Conduct, I think those parts should be removed, which is why I flagged them, citing the Code of Conduct. These flags were handled in haste, I get that mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment. That is the reason I flagged a second time, but it seems to have been discarded immediately.
If that is the case, then anything goes. Where do we draw the line on attacking a user? Clearly that's why we have the Code of Conduct and it makes little sense to me to apply the Code of Conduct selectively. If it may be applied selectively as I understand some (e.g. in the flag declination) argue that, then please explain why that is okay and when that applies.
Even though the answer has since been deleted, the question on the handling of the flag stands.