Calls to action need not be limited to profiles.
We know the following:
1) Right now, Stack Overflow values eyeballs (page impressions / advert impressions) above following due process with regard to community members;
2) Consequently a little bit of controversy across the network is no bad thing for Stack Overflow, right now: it just leads to more page impressions and more advertising revenue. (Who cares about community when you're focused on dollar$?)
3) So if Stack Overflow continues to say nothing and the situation with regard to firing a moderator without going through due process remains unresolved and the controversy rages on, then... the advertising dollars just keep rolling in. (Trebles all round).
So the most radical individual action I can think of - and please note this is a thought experiment, it explicitly isn't advocacy - is the following:
i) A bold call to action paragraph by a user at the bottom of every question that user has ever asked and every answer they have ever given.
ii) The call to action not to be addressed to Stack Overflow but to Stack Overflow advertisers, explaining that Stack Overflow is out of control, acting arbitrarily, without accountability, publicly defaming at least one individual and failing to follow due process - that it has essentially become a toxic environment.
iii) The call to action to end with an urge to advertisers to pull their advertising from Stack Overflow and to boycott Stack Overflow until the latter agrees to start following due process and repair the effects from public defamation.
If the call for an advertiser boycott appears in bold at the bottom of enough questions and enough answers, word will certainly spread to the decision makers at various advertisers. They may decide that they no longer wish to be associated with such a toxic brand.
At this point Stack Overflow's primary priority - increasing impressions - will become a liability rather than an asset. The more Stack Overflow successfully increases impressions, the more visible the boycott notices will become and the more likely numerous advertisers are to make a decision to pull their advertising.
No doubt, Stack Overflow may seek to put together a robot moderator which can find and delete such boycott notices, so ideally, each boycott notice would include random elements and be structured differently so that it couldn't simply be located without resorting to a very convoluted Regular Expression Search and Replace.
The alternative to a robot moderator tidying up is, of course, community moderators tidying up. But many community moderators, given the way certain of their colleagues have been treated of late, may be disinclined to remove the boycott notices.
The alternative to community moderators tidying up is, of course, Stack Overflow paid staff tidying up - but I can't see them signing up to do such a lowly job.
The net result is that the more successfully Stack Overflow increases its own visibility, the more it promotes the message to the world that all reasonably-minded advertisers should be boycotting it, because it is failing to follow due process.
Note: I cannot underline this enough - this is just a thought experiment. None of this at all should ever be necessary.
All many community members would like to see is for the moderator dismissal which Stack Overflow conducted without due process to be annulled and for due process to be followed.
