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.

  • 13
    Are you saying one of the Arqade Moderators called you a 'retard' in a comment on the site? Because that's quite a serious accusation, and is pretty easy for SE staff (and other mods there) to verify. I'd be very surprised if a mod used that language, but if true that's pretty unacceptable language for anyone to be using these days, especially from a mod.
    – JonW
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:02
  • 3
    I'm not suggesting that you don't have a problem, but these cases are seldom as clear cut as you make out. Mods don't just ban people for no reason and with no history.
    – slugster
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:05
  • 11
    Yes, deleted comments are available to be seen by moderators and SE employees, so if your accusation is true it can be seen by them. Note also that all of your comments (deleted or not) are also available to those same people, which means they can see both sides of the full exchange. If you have an issue that you can prove with a specific moderator haranguing or personally insulting you, contact the SE team through the contact link at the bottom of this page, provide specific details (including links to the relevant posts) and someone there can investigate the issue.
    – Ken White
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:12
  • 4
    If you're making an accusation like this toward an individual (especially a moderator), you need to have the factual evidence available to defend it. If you don't, you should not be making the accusation in the first place. If the individual made the comment before they were a moderator, then a moderator did not make the comment - an individual did.
    – Ken White
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:16
  • 2
    If you flagged it, it's available in your flagging history in your profile. Dig through it, find the comment you flagged, and provide that link in your email to the SE team. Once again, though - you've made a quite serious allegation against someone that is in a position of some responsibility here - make very sure you've got your facts straight and all of your ducks in a row before you pull that trigger.
    – Ken White
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:18
  • 3
    You seem to be backtracking here now that you know 'deleted' doesn't actually mean 'expunged from all of history'. Moderators take their tasks seriously, and I'd be very surprised if one left a derogatory comment to you, deleted or otherwise. Especially because mods know how the system works and would know that their comment would be preserved in the DB for staff to see forever.
    – JonW
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:23
  • 12
    There's definitely some history you're conveniently leaving out. Most of it is your abrasive interaction with anyone you disagree with. I'd recommend telling the whole story, not just the parts that make you look like you were acting in good faith. Put it all together, it was pretty obvious you weren't.
    – fbueckert
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 0:15
  • 3
    Once again, you've accused a moderator for abusive behavior, and then backtracked and said "Well, he wasn't a moderator at the time". If the person was not a moderator at the time, then you were not abused or insulted by a moderator, and your accusation that you were is simply false.
    – Ken White
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 0:32
  • 3
    If the moderator in question did (prior to becoming a moderator) insult you as you claim, and you aren't just reading into things, like a single edit approval being evidence of 'incompotence'. Then the best time to have brought that incident up would have probably been during the election. Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 1:06
  • 8
    There's a difference between "someone insulted me in the past who is now a moderator" and "a moderator insulted me", and it's a very significant difference. Your question accuses a moderator of insulting you, which mean a person who was in the role of a moderator at the time the insult was posted. Your accusation is false, and you should edit it to remove that accusation.
    – Ken White
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 1:25
  • 5
    Though the issue seeming to get the most discussion here is the insult by way of a user who is now a moderator, I'd just like to point out one thing: The Arqade meta you've linked is not so much about a call to clarify the titles of questions. It is a call to avoid piling on the comments pointing out how hilarious/weird/misleading/etc the out-of-context titles are. Read: the titles are fine, but stop pointing it out in the comments. Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 1:35
  • 12
    No, it isn't. It's about your attitude in general, which you've just proven again. "You've disagreed with something I said, which means you're all wrong" is not the proper response here or anywhere else. You made allegations here that are wrong, and you've exhibited inappropriate behavior elsewhere that has led you to post here. Perhaps you should look at your own behavior and attitude, instead of trying to blame others. If you're having repetitive issues with your behavior, the problem isn't likely us.
    – Ken White
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 5:10

2 Answers 2


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 [email protected]. 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.


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.

  • 4
    So what is your suggestion? Why all the sarcasm?
    – yuritsuki
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:49
  • 13
    My suggestion is that you determine which of the above strategies will work best for you, and then apply it. I could tell you my preference, but I cannot guarantee it would work for you - different strokes & all.
    – Shog9
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:51
  • 22
    Looks like you are proposing five new badges.
    – user259867
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 23:59
  • 6
    I vote 'rage quit'. That's easily the most fun for all involved.
    – JonW
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 0:02
  • 7
    @CareBear It will be like the Steward badge. You get one for removing a moderator for each of the methods list above.
    – Mysticial
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 0:04
  • 5
    @CareBear: I have been taking notes on Jamal's moderation on Code Review lately, and based on my findings, I think I'm ready to earn The Archivist.
    – Jamal
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 0:12
  • There's also walking away. Been there, done that. Place wasn't worth the effort. ;p Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 1:55
  • 8
    @euphoriaoverlord Josh is not one to take such a thing lightly. I'm pretty sure he took a look at your case, and found no blatant evidence of your claims to be a victim of evil moderators. More likely you have some "history" in that site that most people here (including me) are unaware of, so this suspension didn't come out of the blue. If I were you, and wanted to keep being productive member of arqade, I would use those 7 days to think how to do that without irritating the site moderators. Good luck! :) Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 7:58
  • 17
    ... in which Shog9, in a rare state of vulnerability, laid on his back exposing his soft underbelly, and all five of his personalities to the world.
    – user50049
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 13:07
  • 1
    @TimPost This post, as others, has been closed as a duplicate of What recourse do I have if I believe a moderator has abused his/her privileges?. But the accepted answer there seems dated and possibly inaccurate: e.g., it lists Stack Exchange Developer Team as "the highest level of moderation". Given the importance of the matter and the visibility of that question, should there be a canonical answer by someone from SE there?
    – user259867
    Commented Oct 4, 2014 at 18:11
  • 1
    @CareBear Technically, the developer team is the highest level of moderation - they have a number of tools that not even Community Managers have access to, nevermind direct access to everything anyway. They don't have the appointed responsibility of overseeing the community, since they have the far more important responsibility of overseeing the sites themselves. Since that particular bullet list is enumerating capability levels (the list above it details what to actually do and who to contact), I think it best to keep it as is.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Oct 5, 2014 at 21:11

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