How is this against Code of Conduct?

Question

How is this against Code of Conduct?

Darkerowl 0

Says: This comment has been deleted due to a violation of our Code of Conduct. The comment was manually reported or identified through automated detection before action was taken. Please refer to our Code of Conduct ,]<-(was a link) for more information.

This is my message I sent in response to a post to help others understand the issue in better detail nothing more, just info in what was going on, just like the link gives just broken down in a better way for those who are not deep into Windows systems?

My comment:

I was able to get Loop MIDI to work? Because I'm having the MIDI 1.0 issue as well, but I did find a way to fix Loop MIDI but. The process is advanced to help you rebuild LoopMIDI. The program they provided in this thread is amazing and should work! My theory about what is wrong was : Windows WMI / MIDI enumeration issues. Let's see if I was right...

START↓ The tool the Windows tech gave points to a couple interesting issues. after checking the paperwork and putting it through VirusTotal. Info:

The chain goes: Windows MIDI Services; WinMM MIDI; USB MIDI devices; Network MIDI discovery.

The program has 2 special parts that they highlight and which points to the issues also.

In the program - (MidiEndpointDeviceInformation) exists to - represent a MIDI device endpoint.

MidiEndpointDeviceInformation:↓

DeviceID; EndpointName; Transport; Metadata; Capabilities.

*This is what apps read to display MIDI ports.↑

Definitions:

USB endpoint: the logical termination point for communication between the device and the host computer.

MIDI device endpoint: is a specific, addressable source (input) or destination (output) of MIDI data within a device or software, representing a single 16-channel stream.

Displayed MIDI Port-(virtual MIDI drivers or MIDI monitor): creates, manages, and visualizes virtual pathways for MIDI data to flow between applications on the same computer.

USB / Bluetooth / Network MIDI device; Windows USB / device stack; Windows MIDI Service (midisrv); MIDI endpoints createdApps (DAWs, Python, tools, etc).

MidiEndpointDeviceWatcher: It watches the system for MIDI endpoints appearing or disappearing. Windows MIDI Services ties the watcher directly to the service lifecycle.

USB device plugged in; USB stack detects device; MIDI service creates endpoint; DeviceWatcher fires event; App sees new MIDI port

My issue is right in this pipeline. Which is amazing because all my work was not wasted, I did hunt down the right

Conclusion:

USB device detected ->PNP device created; BUT MidiEndpointDeviceInformation not created. Which results in: USB device exists but MIDI endpoint does not exist. ->(cant see the MIDI device's name in software)

So then we ask? " Why did older "MIDI breaks"? Well, older MIDI devices often rely on the old WinMM enumeration path. With new paths made because the implementation of MIDI 2.0 to Windows being the possible cause.

The new system translates: WinMM; WinRT; MIDI 2.0; USB MIDI. Our old devices fail, If the translation fails, the device never becomes an endpoint. In the end, after all of that, the failure likely lays inside; Windows MIDI Services or WMI Enumeration layer. This comes up (wmidap.exe) which is why I landed on WMI Enumeration failing. So I guess I was close in my personal finding, but it is good to know way smarter people than me made a program to fix it this issue that should have never been broken

. In short- Primary issue appears to be Windows MIDI endpoint enumeration / binding for older MIDI 1.0 devices, likely involving the newer Windows MIDI Services layer, WMI/device metadata enumeration, or legacy compatibility handoff.

Saying Windows WMI was the cause is not 100%, but super close, I just am new to this type of deep troubleshooting is not my normal wheelhouse. But I am learning, and its been fun!

I hope this help!

End of comment.

0 comments

Answer recommended by moderator

1 additional answer

Your answer

Answer 1

EmilyS_726 16,540 Volunteer Moderator

Hello, looks to be a false positive deletion by the system's anti-spam filter. I have undeleted it for you.

Darkerowl 0 Reputation points

2026-03-26T04:14:04.35+00:00

Thank You!

Answer 2

Comments and questions on Microsoft Q&A can be automatically or manually deleted for Code of Conduct violations, but moderators and community members cannot see the exact internal rule that was triggered for a specific deleted comment.

From the examples in the context, there are two common, non-obvious reasons technical posts get removed even when they look harmless:

Automatic spam/abuse filters
Long, highly technical, or repetitive posts with many similar terms, tool names, or external references can be flagged by automated systems as potential spam or low-quality content. Several users have reported that their legitimate technical questions or answers were auto-moderated and deleted “by mistake” and later restored by moderators.
User actions or moderation workflow
In some cases, content is removed because of how the system handles reports, AI replies, or moderation actions. For example, one user’s content disappeared after they interacted with an AI reply; another user’s question was auto-deleted and later restored when a moderator checked it.

Given the content of the MIDI/LoopMIDI explanation, the most likely cause is that the automated system classified the comment as spam or otherwise problematic based on length, structure, or wording, not that the technical content itself violated the Code of Conduct.

To address this on Microsoft Q&A:

Ask moderators to review and restore
Other users with similar issues had their posts restored after moderators confirmed they were deleted by the spam filter in error. The pattern in the context is:
- User reports that a question or comment was auto-deleted.
- Moderator checks the moderation logs.
- Moderator restores the content and confirms it was a spam-filter mistake.
Use the Community/Support guidance
For issues with missing or deleted posts, moderators have indicated they can see all comments and replies and verify whether anything is actually missing or was removed. Raising the issue in the Community Center (Q&A site feedback) is the correct place so a moderator can:
- Confirm whether the comment was removed by an automated system or a manual report.
- Restore it if it was a false positive.
Future posts
If long technical breakdowns are repeatedly flagged, consider:
- Splitting into shorter, focused comments.
- Avoiding repeated blocks of similar text across multiple threads. This can reduce the chance of triggering automated filters.

The only way to know exactly what happened to that specific comment and potentially restore it is to have a Q&A moderator review the moderation history for the thread, as shown in the similar cases in the context.

References:

Share via

How is this against Code of Conduct?

1 additional answer

Your answer