I have many issues with what happened to Why is the subway in Seoul so cheap?
I see absolutely nothing in the question that is objectionable or in need of moderation. There is a mildly (but only mildly) debatable allusion to the Berlin S-Bahn being dirty but that deserves at most a comment. The site is littered with statements that are more objectionable than this one.
It's not racist, sexist or hateful in any way, does not seem to raise any legal question and it is expressed in a completely civil and nuanced manner. The content is still fully viewable because, unlike truly objectionable content, it is obvious to everybody that there is no need to hide the edit history. So why did it need to be edited out by a moderator?
The following comment
When a moderator edits a question to take out a city name, do not edit it to put it back in!
only adds insult to injury. In my view, moderators should be more careful than others when editing. If you are opinionated and prone to comment on many things (as I know I am), it's best not to become a moderator. It seems to me that moderators certainly should not ever use their moderator hat to enforce their opinions and preferences in a content dispute that they themselves initiated.
In that case, given the utter lack of urgency in censoring the offending comment, the obvious choice is to abstain from editing out again and engage with the OP. Whatever the conclusion of this dispute, it's clear that having that content visible for a few hours or even days is not a serious problem. If the matter was more sensitive and moderator action was genuinely required, it would be best to leave it to another moderator to step in.
Meanwhile, while this silly dispute gets resolved, the question is locked and it doesn't seem possible to post an answer, thus defeating the whole point of the site…
Am I wrong in my understanding of the moderators' role? Is that the new standard for moderation on this site?