Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

This question already has an answer here:

Will ex-moderators lose their moderation tools, or will they still have their moderation tools?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by ChrisF, Andrew Barber, Martijn Pieters, casperOne Mar 7 '13 at 18:40

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

If they didn't lose the tools, they wouldn't be ex-moderators, would they? – mmyers Mar 7 '13 at 16:06
@mmyers: You have the diamond. Are you a moderator or were you long ago? – juergen d Mar 7 '13 at 16:07
@BoltClock'saUnicorn: I was actually only trying to be funny ;) – juergen d Mar 7 '13 at 16:08
@juergen d: I know, I'm just saying "there's a meta question for that!" – BoltClock's a Unicorn Mar 7 '13 at 16:09
The answer to your question seems a little bit obvious if you apply any logic... are you trying to go for a question ban? – LittleBobbyTables Mar 7 '13 at 16:20
I can't help but notice that since the SO moderator election started on Feb. 25, you have accumulated the Strunk & White, Civic Duty, and Deputy badges, which coincidentally are all required for moderator nominees. You've also asked a boatload of questions since then on Meta. You wouldn't happen to be trying to game the Convention badge to make yourself eligible, would you? If so, you should be aware that the nomination period ended a little while ago. – Brad Larson Mar 7 '13 at 18:53
i was thinking to be a moderator , but you blocked me now to not be, so you blocked my account to not post here in meta. im sad for it as they were normal questions and you blocked my wish. :( . if it finish the period of modertaion then can you open my count here to post again but im not looking for moderation now thanks . – user998158 Mar 8 '13 at 13:57
by the way , the modetrations time ends in 4 days. – user998158 Mar 8 '13 at 15:04
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Mar 8 '13 at 19:14

If a moderator steps down from moderation (voluntarily or due to inactivity), they will no longer be moderators and will not have the moderator tools available to them.

Kinda obvious, I'd think.

share|improve this answer
It is worth mentioning that we're required in the TOS to refer to ex-moderators as the "Right Honorable" or "Mr/Ms Moderator" until they die. Cumbersome, but respect is respect. – user7116 Mar 7 '13 at 16:11
@sixlettervariables If only that was true – BinaryMisfit Mar 7 '13 at 16:18
Right Honorable @Diago, of course it is! – Andrew Barber Mar 7 '13 at 16:22
And yet, there is Jeff ♦... – casperOne Mar 7 '13 at 16:27
@jnk doesn't mean he should have the diamond. If they want to respect the fact that he started all this, that's great, but leaving him with direct database access and the ability to perform any moderator action on any Stack Exchange site is not the way to do it. There are a number of problems that have arisen on multiple sites as a result of this. – casperOne Mar 7 '13 at 16:34
@casperOne I was wondering who'd bring that up. Jeff isn't and never was a moderator. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but you and I both know that this is a special case and not what the question is talking about. – Adam Mar 7 '13 at 16:38
@AnnaLear You and I know that it's a special case (and he was a moderator, just never just a moderator, his position absorbed those abilities as well), but considering the majority of people outside of the network don't know the difference between diamond mods and community moderation, and the majority of the people in the network don't know the difference between diamond mods and say, employees (community, dev), all of which have the same powers, it's an important point to bring up. Meaning, if you aren't actively doing work for SE that requires this access, you should not have it. – casperOne Mar 7 '13 at 16:48
@AnnaLear Isn't SE violating its own privacy policy by allowing Jeff to have unrestricted access everywhere and to everything despite not being an employee or an elected/appointed moderator or an "agent/vendor"? – Lorem Ipsum Mar 7 '13 at 17:02
@AnnaLear Co-founder ≠ employee. You can't change the fact that he's a co-founder, but the isEmployed() function reflects the state at present. As for the listing on the team page, you can't expect me to take a page that lists a Cactus as a Community Manager seriously... besides, you can put anyone's name up there — I'm sure Joel could squeeze Taco in there if he so wished. – Lorem Ipsum Mar 8 '13 at 0:23
If you're giving Jeff special treatment, you should make it clear in your privacy policy that as a co-founder, Jeff will have perpetual access to everything related to Stack Exchange. On the other hand, if Jeff has a special arrangement with SE and is legally still employed (like Woz was and is at Apple), then why not just say that? – Lorem Ipsum Mar 8 '13 at 0:24
@LoremIpsum Because I have zero idea what the arrangement is. It is none of my business. Neither is it really anyone's business here, so I'm not inclined to go digging. What I do know is that Stack Exchange takes all legal stuff seriously, especially when it comes to maintaining the privacy of our users. As for the team page... if your argument is that Taco could be on there and a dog would have access to your account or that Grace Note is a cactuar and that makes her listing less valid, I think we're done here. – Adam Mar 8 '13 at 2:58
@AnnaLear You said that just because he's also listed on the team page and is an ex-employee/co-founder, he has unfettered access to it. My point was just that the team page is not legally valid and you could put up anyone up there. You mentioned above that this is a "special case", and I followed up by asking you what it was. Employees don't have a "accepts moderator agreement" in their history, so it has to be part of their employment terms. What do you do for ex-employees then? Since Jeff also has a diamond on sites launched after he left, the question still remains open. – Lorem Ipsum Mar 8 '13 at 6:42
@AnnaLear "Neither is it really anyone's business here, so I'm not inclined to go digging." - I'm sorry, but when a site has a legal policy, a privacy policy and it stores personally identifying information about me it absolutely is my business who has access to that. The whole point of making those policies explicit is so you don't have to say "trust us" ("What I do know is that Stack Exchange takes all legal stuff seriously"); it's explicitly defined elsewhere for the lawyers to quibble over. – casperOne Mar 8 '13 at 12:56
@casperOne What? Moderators don't? – Oded Mar 8 '13 at 13:01
@casperOne, wrt privacy, you're right that we need to be clear. We went out of our way to make the policy readable, direct, and as low-bs as a legal doc can be, and don't want to look cagey in how we explain its application. So, there are a couple of ways a non-employee may have access to PII: They can be someone we've asked to do something for us who has signed a contractor's agreement that includes protection of PII, or they can be a moderator, (which, for clarity, is defined as anyone who's signed the mod agreement & has a diamond next to their user name). Currently, Jeff is a contractor. – Jaydles Mar 8 '13 at 22:11

Once moderators are not anymore moderators, they have access only to the moderation tools that are allowed from their reputation, but not the full moderation tools moderators have.

For example, if a moderator is a 20K user, once he is not anymore a moderator he can still see the flags raised from other users, except when a custom reason is entered; he can still protect questions, or vote to delete questions, but he cannot anymore delete a question with a single vote, or close a question even if less than five users voted to close it.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .