What is the process of petition a moderator to be removed? What are the reasons a moderator can be removed?
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@example.com.
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.
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.
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.