But earlier, above, you said:
I haven’t used the word lie in any of this because I think it’s hard to know whether someone lied or not and I would like to be sure before making such an accusation. What I do say is that the above is one of many examples where it’s important IMO not to let inaccurate statements stand, yet you are generating so many we can hardly deal with them all. I’m amazed that @anon40790172 and others have taken the time to do so - I simply don’t have enough time to do that, and to read everything, and to respond to the more productive topics where new people are arriving, curious, interested, want help etc. or where details of how things might work, websites, forums, structured data, security, or how to do marketing and so on, are taking place.
Those are all very important to me and to the project, so while your concerns and wants are worthy of consideration, they can’t be addressed by you continuing to cause disruption and using up so much of our personal volunteered time without getting to the point and advocating for a specific proposal.
After at least a couple of months of this, you have not made a clear proposal for changes, though more than once you said you were going to.
When I asked about a month ago why not, you said because it wouldn’t be seen - you would do it when Meta was put back on the front page. My response was, well if you make a clear proposal, we could pin that to the front page, which would give it at least as much visibility, if not more. I also said that putting Meta back on the front page was a separate issue, and that linking them just made a deadlock, and I suggested it would be necessary for you to treat them separately so we could move this forward.
You have not responded to those specific comments, or further invitations on my part to put forward a clear proposal so we can resolve this.
Instead you’ve continued to present things as facts that have been found inaccurate, and continued writing large amounts of opinion and interpretation - often presented as fact - which amount to mud slinging and indirect personal attacks on the team and unspecified individuals (“two mods”). Because they are your opinion, your interpretation, and frequently inaccurate reporting of events (certainly disputed), repeated in order to perpetuate a picture of moderators here that is your fantasy.
You have been unable to hear anything said to you that doesn’t fit this picture, and have completely rejected the possibility that your behaviour had been even in part a cause for the repeated corrections and warnings, and in the end a short ban. Something we do very rarely indeed.
BTW when I was made a moderator - I accepted an invitation from the community (not another admin or mod), and in that invitation I think it’s fair to assume the community expected me to use the privileges of a moderator which range from deleting spam posts and accounts, to banning users who persistently cause problems. Nobody said, hey, we want to give you some rules, or for you to work some out and put them to us. Not even you. I realised that as the team grew, it would help us to be consistent for us to have some guidelines beyond the defaults that came with the forum. Also for clarity with visitors, and so they could hold us to account (as often happens if people feel were not operating to them). Other mods agreed, but I can’t say who suggested it. I recall @anon40790172 being one of several miss who advocated and set up more internal processes and “moderator resources” that built on that, helping new mods get up to speed, and streaining our work etc.
The community chose me back in the days we pretty much knew everyone, because they felt I’d do a good job, and I just got on with it. There were others with more privileges (admin), but as they didn’t have the time for moderation, I was added to the team, and as yes, I’m responsible for my decision to invite others to join me when I realised I needed more help.
You might imply I should have done this or that (involve the community in selecting other mods for example), but you didn’t suggest it at the time and nor did anyone else. Not even when new mods were announced. So while I take responsibility for the system that has evolved, initially under my influence, but increasingly less so with input from other mods and the community increasing, that doesn’t mean I’m claiming credit or responsibility for everything. You could have raised this right back then.
So I’m standing by what I did, and by the process by which it has evolved, and a team of high integrity, hard working volunteers, who have ensured this forum is absolutely doing a great service for the project - but which will no doubt continue to evolve it’s processes, including moderation and perhaps at some point the selection process, though I don’t support that at this time. Make a case and maybe I will be swayed - you made much of my being persuaded to moving off-topic from the front page, for which you like to claim some credit (I recall certain mods advocating it strongly too 
). So… why not get on and make the case here, instead of all this distraction.
Also, please note that Meta posts appear under other topics when read to the end, so even though they are not on the font page, they are far more visible than off-topic, and regular visitors will definitely see them.
We as a team are spending a lot of time on this, while few, if any apart from yourself, in the community continue to be concerned about it - again - and it simply can’t continue. As I’ve said more than once, there are options open to you, but you’ve not taken them, nor responded constructively to help us find a way to make them work for you (if indeed they can’t already).