Update: I resigned, see under the horizontal line
I'm a moderator on stats SE.
I'm suspending my moderation activity while I consider my position (Edit: superseded). I don't need to go over the events; they're well discussed, but I should at least be clear if brief (I'd say a bit more but other things are about to intervene and I won't be able to be online for a while).
The handling of the situation was deplorable and ill-considered and the response since has been far worse.
If things continue as they are right now, I doubt that I will see remaining as a moderator as tenable.
Hopefully I can return soon to clarify further. As soon as I can, I will also be explaining my position on stats' meta but I didn't want to wait any longer.
I've resigned.
I was holding off hoping for a really substantive response, but it's quite clear that this is not happening.
I don't feel secure as a mod. I don't feel like I can made moderation decisions with any sense of confidence. I don't feel like I can ask a potentially controversial question of a Stack Exchange employee safely, nor query the implications of proposed or impending policies. I don't feel like any kind of dispute can be trusted to be handled even-handedly. The relationship is much too one-sided. I don't feel like I can operate as I think a moderator needs to in order to perform as required.
I feel like my community support and trust me and my fellow moderators on my site but that's clearly not sufficient. I don't have the impression that Stack Exchange have any trust in me or that they will offer me any kind of support or credit in any kind of dispute. I don't trust that there will be properly structured dispute resolution if we have some disagreement.
While I believe that Stack Exchange as a company will act in a way that they think is fair (in particular that a large proportion of the CMs that have been around a long time would try to act in a fair way), I don't believe that the company can reliably act in a way that I can be confident is actually fair.
The relationship is all one-way; we supply valuable services to SE, unpaid. They can toss us out like they could an employee - but more easily than they could an employee, without notice, without warning, and without recourse, and with no proper avenue for fixing things if a suitable procedure isn't properly followed.
There needs to be some greater security for us if we're providing ongoing effort that supplies value for no recompense and it needs to be crystal clear to us how any process that provides a level of security is going to be fair to us. That is, if we're on the same end of a disagreement, how can we be confident we will come out feeling like there was some reasonable level of fair dealing?
I did have some level of trust that SE could do these things but not any longer, not from what I see in the apology - and I don't think the things that concern me even seem to have been understood when others have raised issues that worry me.
If SE feel they do or will have such a procedure, I'll believe it too -- when I see it applied with Monica.
I read "we won't relitigate this" but this is NOT litigation, it's dispute resolution, and you've shown us how that goes.
I hear "we shouldn't have shipped on a Friday". Monica is not a bug in a software product, she's a person.
This is your test case - when stuff goes down, whatever it was, this is how you show us what we will get -- with a case you seem to think is tough.
I don't see any proper indication I would get anything better. I'd be convinced I might get something better if Monica got something better.