What can I do against moderators with double standards? [duplicate]

Question

On Arqade I re-edited a question title to make it a tad clearer, along the same lines as other users have suggested we post titles. I was heckled to oblivion, with comments telling me that titles were up to the OP in the end, and it was not my place to judge that.

So I went back to a previous question that had had a title that was in line with what the meta post suggests, a question that I had asked, changed the title back to the first title I had picked, and then the moderators banned me right away.

For no apparent reason, except to say, double standard. They told me I had no right to judge the original askers intent, yet they judged my intent on my very own question.

What do I do in this case? The moderators that have banned me have made baseless claims, accusing me of trolling, when in fact, the same moderator who has banned me has trolled me before, making rude, accusatory comments directed towards me in the past.

Answer 1

The Community Managers are the Moderators' "bosses". They're the ones who are going to do anything, if anything is going to be done.

I think your recourse is this:

Send an email message to community@stackexchange.com. Explain the situation as best you can. Provide links and any other evidence you have to make your case.

I suggest you be upfront. It takes two to make a conflict, so own up to your own behavior; don't sugarcoat it. The Stack Exchange team will be able to see things that us mere mortals cannot.

And then, let them investigate. I'm sure you're not the only issue they're dealing with. It may take some time. You may be asked for more information. Be patient and don't make matters worse. (It's good that you haven't name-checked anyone here.) Don't create a new account to get around your suspension. Don't continue to flog the issue here. Let the Community Team do what they're here for.

Answer 2

Well, there are a few popular strategies here, and considerable debate as to which is the "best"... I'll lay them out and leave the decision up to you.

The Archivist

This strategy involves carefully monitoring a moderator's activity over time, potentially many months or even years. Notes are taken of any inconsistencies between what the moderator says and does, supporting information (transcripts, screenshots, archive.org links) are attached and annotated.

Finally, the archive is presented, either publicly or to the site administrators, along with the assertion that - in light of such overwhelming evidence of malfeasance - the only sane option is to remove the moderator from his position and send him away in disgrace.

The Robot

In this strategy, one distills each utterance of the duplicitous moderator into its most literal form, bereft of all nuance, and tirelessly applies it in every possible context until the rest of a community is in an uproar over the resulting chaos... At this point, the robot presents his defense: "this moderator commanded me to do so. Your grievance is not with me, but with him!"

The Rage Quitter

Generally the easiest but least effective strategy, a rage-quitter responds to any official rebuke with a tirade of vulgarity and accusation, then leaves the site vowing never to return. Unlike the previous two strategies, rage-quitting has little chance of actually convincing anyone else that the dastardly moderator is actually in the wrong - its success hinges on the Quitter's ability to vaporize all semblance of order and dignity with his outburst, leaving behind a smoking wasteland for which the moderator must take responsibility. Once the dust has settled, the Quitter may quietly return to the site, disclaiming all knowledge of the distant past in which such alleged outbursts might have been said to occur.

The Legislator

This clever strategist does not seek to attack the wretched moderator directly, but instead calls him out obliquely - making references only to "certain confused users" who are "struggling to understand our ambiguous rules". The Legislator then draws up plans to "clarify" the rules, carefully defining each scenario in which they apply and the resulting implications in the most minute detail. The goal here is to prevent the moderator from speaking up without incriminating himself, while simultaneously tying his hands to prevent such meddling in the future.

The Communicator

Easily the most boring strategy of the lot, this strategist calmly talks to the moderator, perhaps even in public, laying out the behavior he found worrisome and asking politely for clarification or correction. Success in this strategy is anticlimactic; all but the most stupid moderators will recognize that the game is up and either explain or reverse their actions to avoid the wrath of the community. I honestly cannot recommend using this strategy unless you for some reason wish for a long and productive future on the site.