Who polices the moderators?

Having moderators is a necessary part of the site, but what do you do when a moderator hirself starts abusing their privilege? When they start banning people for petty reasons like disagreeing with a subjective edit or post? What do you do then?

Moved to better forum. Generally the answer would be to appeal the action to the moderation and if that fails to the admins.

Also, remember that moderators have broad arbitration and policing authority; making certain decisions by fiat is part of our job. Most cases of claimed "abuse" fall within the scope of this authority. Of course, mistakes can happen, and moderator decisions may well get some disagreement. I don't know of any case of "abuse" here.

edited 26th Dec '15 6:35:58 AM by SeptimusHeap

How about Fighteer suspending Lego3400 for "Inaccurate Troping" without giving a reason WHY the trope is inaccurate and then saying "My way or the high way" when questioned?

How about him suspending Gone Rampant for adding a subjective trope?

How about him being rude and insulting to Night when he was just suggesting a way to make a rule clearer?

How about him threatening to suspend me for disagreeing with him on ANOTHER trope instead of discussing why I'm wrong like a rational adult, and then turning of my ability to use PM's, when I asked for a second and third opinion?

Oh right, sorry. Asking multiple moderators something is "Harrasment". Good to know I was told that beforehand and didn't just have my PM System turned off out of nowhere without the courtesy of even a warning.

This shows both insecurity and outright immaturity. This is meant to be a community. Not one place where everyone has to do what one guy says.

What's the deal with trying to make wiki policies a one-on-one debate? What's with accusing a moderator of doing their job improperly before figuring out what their job is?

More than half of the tropers that are suspended are actively trying to pursue their agendas, at the detriment of the wiki's goal to collect and analyze tropes.

Something you can notice when the mods double post each other in the suspensions thread; before they post there's a discussion we cannot see and they decide what needs to be said to most of the violators in a consensus before responding. (That's one reason why they're slow to respond there, I don't think they allow themselves unilateral decision making for those tropers)

Now, as tropers, we can discuss how wiki policy is enforced, but I've been around long enough to have decided that the moderation is sufficient and I can disagree with moderators on a friendly basis both socially (as a Troper) and professionally (as a violator of policy). If all you want is to bitch, I'm not posting. If you want external opinions to how the moderators act, there's a narrow line we can walk.

I repeat; narrow. Talking about other tropers who violate policy is gossiping about their behaviour. Talking about personal violations is whining.

You, Gone Rampant and Lego were suspended because you got caught up in arguments and would not ever let your opinions go even after others had said no. In a collaborative place sometimes one has a consensus against them, and endlessly hammering the same issue over and over becomes disruptive. Gone Rampant also had a prior incident where they made edits that were highly offensive and almost got him a permanent ban. Night's problem was the lack of awareness of the natter rules. All of these things happened in public places, too. A moderator has the duty - and authority - to decide when such things are disrupting the wiki and to take measures against it.

Also, technically this is a privately owned website where everybody including the moderators are only guests and nothing more.

I trust that the original questions ("Who to appeal to if you disagree with a moderator decision" and "Why did these bans happen") have been answered, so I'll lock.