What is the process of petition a moderator to be removed? What are the reasons a moderator can be removed?

  • 1
    I'm downvoting this question to say that I disagree with the need/usefulness of initiating moderator removal.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented Apr 15, 2015 at 22:38
  • 1
    I think it would be a harder job to find a replacement. Yes things happen and sometimes they hit a nerve. After all there is hardly anything that can't be ended with a discussion.
    – Theravada
    Commented Dec 8, 2015 at 21:17
  • This is a very old discussion. I also have to come to believe this is not the solution, but should be based on development of more guidelines what and how to do it. Commented Dec 9, 2015 at 2:28
  • @MettaforBullies The moderator in question was yuttadhammo, and I was saying I disagreed with removing him and with Suminda's arguing against him. There are ways to remove a moderator, but you can't remove a moderator by yourself: to do it you would need consensus: from the moderator (who could agree to quit); from the community of users; from the other moderators; and/or from the "community moderators" i.e. stack exchange employees.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented May 24, 2017 at 21:15
  • @MettaforBullies Voting is different on meta says, "voting indicates agreement or disagreement with the proposed change rather than just the quality or usefulness of the post itself" -- so I was voting to disagree with the proposed change, which I thought was Suminda's proposing to remove yuttadhammo as moderator. I wasn't disagreeing with the question in general or in the abstract; I was disagreeing with Suminda's pursuing yuttadhammo's removal.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented May 24, 2017 at 22:24
  • @ChrisW Boy, you respond quick, sorry if I have been confusing. Don't other people who know nothing of what inspired the question just want an answer to the question, not an opinion to the question? The question had nothing to do with Bhante Yuttadhammo the way it is worded. It sounds like your saying something crazy to the user that doesn't know how the whole thing with Bhante Yuttadhammo and Suminda went down. I know your not that bad but others might get confused.
    – Lowbrow
    Commented May 24, 2017 at 22:43
  • I posted this so there is awareness about the process how a moderator can be removed. The attitude that moderators should not be removed or the community should not know about this process is unfortunate. This is about how to deal with any moderator who might go bad. 1st Instance that happened was in: buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3770 where reference to pali.sirimangalo.org without mentioning affiliation which is considered Spam but the moderator, at that time, is getting away with it. Any other user may get moderated for something like that. Rules should be. Commented May 25, 2017 at 4:01
  • @MettaforBullies Yes I assumed that this question was posted in context (of Suminda's disagreement with yuttadhammo), and my comment was posted in that context. I can see, now you tell me, that my comment could be misunderstood by "other people who know nothing of what inspired the question" ... I wasn't thinking of them/that, when I posted my comment and downvoted. Sorry that I wasn't clearer, when I posted that comment.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Commented May 25, 2017 at 9:00
  • I respect Mr. Suminda's opinions he have great knowledge about Buddhism but I love Ven. Yuttadhammo. This comment is a general suggestion about the subject: The best thing is one morning writing all of the facts about a moderator with details ;)
    – Murathan1
    Commented May 17, 2019 at 16:57

3 Answers 3


Please see the Meta Stack Exchange post Handling Calls to Remove a Moderator. This outlines the process the community, along with the Community Managers, has settled upon as the protocol for removing a moderator.

I'll quote the initiation process. You can read the rest in this answer.

The process will be initiated by a formal request from one or more moderators on a site, sent privately via an email to [email protected].

The process may also be initiated by the Community Team at Stack Exchange, Inc. in response to numerous, substantiated complaints from users on the site.

In either case, the complaints will be treated by Stack Exchange as confidential, and their authors will not be named by us at any point in the process.

  • Good to know and the only one that actually answers the question.
    – Lowbrow
    Commented May 24, 2017 at 21:51

I have read the chat between you and Ven. Yuttadhammo and i am shocked to see how you spoke to a buddhist monk. This is not okay and your behavior was over the top. I think you owe Ven. Yuttadhammo and the Buddhism SE community an apology for your behavior.

Im not looking to start a discussion with you but i have to voice my concern about this behavior since this created a lot of unnecessary turbulence on our site and i think you hurt the feelings of other people, including myself. I know that such feelings should be viewed for what they are - impermanent, impersonal phenomena. But this is really not the focus here. My focus is on the lack of respect in this behavior you showed. I consider Ven. Yuttadhammo to be a great teacher and he had a great impact on my life. It is not cool to see someone you consider a teacher to be spoken to like that.

When that is said i know there are always 2 sides of a coin and im not really questioning that. My concern is the lack of respect in the way you behaved and that is not okay. You see such behaviors dont just affect yourself and Ven. Yuttadhammo but the entire community. For example if new comers come to see this behavior and think that this is the tone on Buddhism SE they might be scared away or get a totally wrong impression about what this site really is.

I hope you will consider your behavior in the future and the effects of it on other people and the community. I respect you and think you have a lot of knowledge to offer so please show that in a respectful manner as you use to do. May you be well and happy.


  • 3
    I admit my behaviour towards a Monks was in appropriate. This was not an isolated incident also. I do apologies for my behaviour directed towards a monk of the Buddhist order. Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 5:42
  • 3
    In person also I have to apologise. Having said this we have a mechanism where by you can handle perceived or actual conflicts of interests without it boiling over the to the point you loose your control. Again I have to admit that as Buddhist loosing control in not the right way. Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 5:53
  • 3
    Also from my side also I have to be more mindful so I do maintain composure and cordiality in the light of any situation specially as a Buddhist. Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 6:06
  • 3
    What has been done cannot be undone. It is now how to more forward. Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 7:05
  • 3
    I am very happy you gave this apology and talked about the behavior. That took at lot of courage. Thank you Suminda. I hope others will see this and accept it too. May you be well and happy.
    – user2424
    Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11
  • 1
    Here my I am withdrawing my apology as I did not to cool down the community I do have reasonable basis which I will resent in due course as this has been brought up again. Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 2:42
  • @Lanka When we write arguments back and forth like we do here are we all accepting things as they are or is it only you who accepts reality as it is?
    – Lowbrow
    Commented May 24, 2017 at 21:45

It is customer to apologies to a Monk and the Sanga regardless on who is right and wrong. On this basis I would 1st and for most to extend this my customary apology to Ven. Yuttadammo and the Sangha and the Noble Triple Gem.

Having done this as (pointed by @Lanka) I am expressing my shock and bewilderment what @Lanka is using this as basis for the following: https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1809/295 when in fact I have adequate basis from perspective for this. The working implies that I am in the wrong though no means admission of this. This mentions I was make to apologies which is not the case I did it on my freewill and it is customary. (Also why I started this one the same note.)

Initially the issues were more subtle but became more apparent as later on.

Implying and taunting that a particular branch or tradition is not the orthodox position when of course the person in that expect his tradition is the orthodox form: E.g.: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8664/295 is one such instance

Though most traditions in Theravada accept the general interpretation of the Satitpattana there are terms where some divergence happens though I am not sure of all such interpretations. I wanted to find your and asked some question on this. Some question which remain has very high votes. This was taken with hostility though some of the comments have not survived.

There where instances where users were more strictly moderated based on the tradition they were from. E.g. When this user joined the site and stated asking question based on other Theravada tradition this was initially take with some strictness but then the user switched to asking from his tradition the his tradition this became less strict: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/5069/nish1013?tab=questions.

Saying that a position held by another tradition is not and answer to a question. E.g. The impact of the subconscious mind on the conscious mind though there are shorter answers which may not adequately answer this question specifically picking on my answer which is adopted the Discourse given in the 10 day courses by S.N.Goenka. In many instance through the Ven. Sir kept mentioning something is not an answerer of not holistic, the Ven. Sir some times filed to provide such holistic answers when he is writing. Also many of these comments (since deleted) were targeted at me in some cases there were more less than perfect answers which were selectively ignored. There were instances where I did not attempt to answered areas which were adequately covered in other answers and sometimes such to areas this I was strong in. There were other answers fitting the same criteria which were selectively ignored.

Also many content which are pretty straightforward is the Ven. Sir mentions in he do not understand. Though this might be the case this or he does not put in the effort to understand or this a subtle for of hostility, the net effect is exclusion.

During the moderation election during the initial few weeks Ven. Sir had less votes but suddenly rose during the last few day. Not sure the exact cause of this but there is a possibility of vote rigging by asking his students to vote. This is not definitive but a possibility and can only be reviewed by looking who voted and when. Also during there was discussion though not directly by the Ven. Sir that standing moderators get vetoing right to exclude users they perceive they cannot work with. Though the exact extent is not easily verifiable this like forming an inner circle or exclusive club which can maintain control over the site as such powers any person not party to this group can be excluded. At worst this can bee seems like hijacking the site depending how active this collusion is.

Also there was an incident there I complaint about some comments left by Ven. Sir. In which case they where deleted fist and then I was asked to produce them as proof.

Also I like to add moderators should strive to have a higher standers than they try to impose on the users. They should try to be blameless and commendable in their action. No specific user should be targeted, when what they write is not always agreeable with the moderators positions on a matter. Proper investigation should be done before jumping into conclusions. When a conclusion or rationalisation is based on mistaken premise or a premise that does not hold then not be adamant on ones position as this will generate a lot of resentment. Don't jump on action and later search for justification trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, as always this does not come with positive results. Be transparent in what is done without leaving room for others in the dark wondering why something was done, inquiries on this may lead less than ideal situation, in maneuvering for later justifications and rationalisation. Do some demonstrable ground work and perhaps research to build adequate understanding before hand than jumping into moderation in case there are things you do not understand or just think something is suck but not established or inclusively established. Do not jump to conclusions without demonstrable investigation. All action should have a reasonable and adequate basis.

You must log in to answer this question.

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