I thought this was fedilore, not let's create pointless fedidrama?

People need to know what they’re getting into. The purpose of this community is shed light on the inner-workings of the fediverse.

at least don't edit out his name.

Rule 2 states that: “When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.”

I was the person that nominated @jet@hackertalks.com as a moderator. I nominated him because he's active and engaging in the comments.

That is not sound basis to appoint someone. It should be based on a trustworthy background. I do not believe you and the other person have properly vetted their background.

Being a moderator isn't an endorsement of anyone's opinions.

Yes, it is you’re giving them the ability to manage the community displaying your level of trust into their demeanour.

But please let's stop with the brigading nonsense.

All the posts are brigading according to that logic. Where I have stated to “invade the community in question?”

To be honest, there's quite a lot of inter instance accusations happening now between !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works , !fediverse@lemmy.ml and !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com that I might take a break from those communities for a bit.

So you're only interested in someone that pushes engagement and not in who's actually fit to be a mod?

You've also called out other users for not having post history in that community. Is engagement your only concern? Wether or not they post, their critiscism is valid and holds water.

I don't understand how "I've felt he's pushing an agenda" isn't an instant disqualifier from moderation.

Nominating him for moderator is an endorsement of their opinions, you've granted them power therefore you hold the opinion they're of sound judgement.

I'm hesitant to post in a 'health" community that's more interested in driving up engagement than combatting pseudoscience and misinfo

Sure. I do not mind if people hold views that I disagree with, and I am very appreciative of anyone who chooses to donate some of their time and effort to moderation.

If someone abuses moderation powers to disrupt a local community, let me know and I'll try to understand the situation, have a chat with them, or possibly remove them if the situation does get out of hand. I am quite receptive to specific reports of specific actions, but I am not going to micro-manage users or mods and make assumptions/predictions about potential future behavior.

To be specific, in the context of moderating a "public health" community...

Acceptable: Mod or user posts often scientific articles discussing some positive relationship between the health in communities and eating meat. The user/mod may be biased to post articles that conform to their belief/opinion. If the content they post is high-quality and relevant to public health, and they do not overload the community with this single topic, then it is not a problem. Users are free to contribute on-topic however they'd like.

Unacceptable: Moderator removes posts about peer-reviewed scientific articles about public health benefits of vegan diets, a reasonable paper pointing out a risk in meat-eating diets, or bans users who make comments arguing against the conclusions or validity of a paper simply because the paper conforms to the mod's beliefs.

I think this is reasonable.