To expand a bit on AJ's answer, moderating a community and judging the technical accuracy of user-submitted content are distinct roles. Your question is an excellent example of the dangers of treating them as one role.

Under no circumstances should a user who is "prone to anger" be given the responsibility to moderate a community. No matter who they are, no matter how much you like them, and no matter how involved they are in the community. Moderation requires impartiality, patience, the ability to keep a cool head. There are many equally important roles that do not.

The problem may not have been apparent when the user first took on the role. As an administrator, you have the unenviable responsibility of correcting their behavior, even if that means removing them from the role. That's the nature of administration; you implement and manage the other roles in the community.

It sounds like you need to implement another role for technical experts in your community. This role should have as little overlap with the moderator role as is practical given the nature of your platform. Technical experts absolutely should not have any exceptional power to delete or alter user-submitted content. If users in your community have the ability to vote on content, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted votes. If users have the ability to flag content, such as spam or hate speech, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted flags. You could then pass the responsibility of acting on those votes or flags to your moderator team.

Some platforms deal with "wildly incorrect" and/or "wildly unpopular" content by hiding or de-emphasizing content that exceeds some threshold of negative votes or flags. Here on Stack Exchange, for example, answers that receive very negative net scores are sorted to the bottom and additionally grayed-out to emphasize their status as wildly incorrect and/or unpopular. There is often no great way to distinguish incorrect from unpopular, when everyone in the community can contribute toward this status. This is where technical experts, selected for their ability to judge factual correctness, could play a useful role.

One approach is to simply give this role visibility so that when a technical expert says, "You're wrong," they have some extra credibility. Another approach would be to implement some sort of special content score that can be influenced only by technical experts. Yet another might be to allow your technical experts to put a "black mark" on content that they judge to be inaccurate; by consensus, by separate action, or however you decide works best for your community.

However you go about it, I agree with AJ that this user is not being a good moderator. Your first step should be to communicate with them and try to convince them to change their behavior. Sometimes this will solve the problem on its own. In other cases it won't, but you owe them that courtesy before booting them from the team. Acknowledging their contribution by giving them another role and responsibility that aligns better with their particular skillset might soften the blow a bit.

To expand a bit on AJ's answer, moderating a community and judging the technical accuracy of user-submitted content are distinct roles. Your question is an excellent example of the dangers of treating them as one role.

Under no circumstances should a user who is "prone to anger" be given the responsibility to moderate a community. No matter who they are, no matter how much you like them, and no matter how involved they are in the community. Moderation requires impartiality, patience, the ability to keep a cool head. There are many equally important roles that do not.

The problem may not have been apparent when the user first took on the role. As an administrator, you have the unenviable responsibility of correcting their behavior, even if that means removing them from the role. That's the nature of administration; you implement and manage the other roles in the community.

It sounds like you need to implement another role for technical experts in your community. This role should have as little overlap with the moderator role as is practical given the nature of your platform. Technical experts absolutely should not have any exceptional power to delete or alter user-submitted content. If users in your community have the ability to vote on content, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted votes. If users have the ability to flag content, such as spam or hate speech, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted flags. You could then pass the responsibility of acting on those votes or flags to your moderator team.

Some platforms deal with "wildly incorrect" and/or "wildly unpopular" content by hiding or de-emphasizing content that exceeds some threshold of negative votes or flags. Here on Stack Exchange, for example, answers that receive very negative net scores are sorted to the bottom and additionally grayed-out to emphasize their status as wildly incorrect and/or unpopular. There is often no great way to distinguish incorrect from unpopular, when everyone in the community can contribute toward this status. This is where technical experts, selected for their ability to judge factual correctness, could play a useful role.

One approach is to simply give this role visibility so that when a technical expert says, "You're wrong," they have some extra credibility. Another approach would be to implement some sort of special content score that can be influenced only by technical experts. Yet another might be to allow your technical experts to put a "black mark" on content that they judge to be inaccurate; by consensus, by separate action, or however you decide works best for your community.

However you go about it, I agree with AJ that this user is not being a good moderator. Your first step should be to communicate with them and try to convince them to change their behavior. Sometimes this will solve the problem on its own. In other cases it won't, but you owe them that courtesy before booting them from the team. Acknowledging their contribution by giving them another role and responsibility that aligns better with their particular skillset might soften the blow a bit.

To expand a bit on AJ's answer, moderating a community and judging the technical accuracy of user-submitted content are distinct roles. Your question is an excellent example of the dangers of treating them as one role.

Under no circumstances should a user who is "prone to anger" be given the responsibility to moderate a community. No matter who they are, no matter how much you like them, and no matter how involved they are in the community. Moderation requires impartiality, patience, the ability to keep a cool head. There are many equally important roles that do not.

The problem may not have been apparent when the user first took on the role. As an administrator, you have the unenviable responsibility of correcting their behavior, even if that means removing them from the role. That's the nature of administration; you implement and manage the other roles in the community.

It sounds like you need to implement another role for technical experts in your community. This role should have as little overlap with the moderator role as is practical given the nature of your platform. Technical experts absolutely should not have any exceptional power to delete or alter user-submitted content. If users in your community have the ability to vote on content, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted votes. If users have the ability to flag content, such as spam or hate speech, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted flags. You could then pass the responsibility of acting on those votes or flags to your moderator team.

Some platforms deal with "wildly incorrect" and/or "wildly unpopular" content by hiding or de-emphasizing content that exceeds some threshold of negative votes or flags. Here on Stack Exchange, for example, answers that receive very negative net scores are sorted to the bottom and additionally grayed-out to emphasize their status as wildly incorrect and/or unpopular. There is often no great way to distinguish incorrect from unpopular, when everyone in the community can contribute toward this status. This is where technical experts, selected for their ability to judge factual correctness, could play a useful role.

One approach is to simply give this role visibility so that when a technical expert says, "You're wrong," they have some extra credibility. Another approach would be to implement some sort of special content score that can be influenced only by technical experts. Yet another might be to allow your technical experts to put a "black mark" on content that they judge to be inaccurate; by consensus, by separate action, or however you decide works best for your community.

To expand a bit on AJ's answer, moderating a community and judging the technical accuracy of user-submitted content are distinct roles. Your question is an excellent example of the dangers of treating them as one role.

Under no circumstances should a user who is "prone to anger" be given the responsibility to moderate a community. No matter who they are, no matter how much you like them, and no matter how involved they are in the community. Moderation requires impartiality, patience, the ability to keep a cool head. There are many equally important roles that do not.

The problem may not have been apparent when the user first took on the role. As an administrator, you have the unenviable responsibility of correcting their behavior, even if that means removing them from the role. That's the nature of administration; you implement and manage the other roles in the community.

It sounds like you need to implement another role for technical experts in your community. This role should have as little overlap with the moderator role as is practical given the nature of your platform. Technical experts absolutely should not have any exceptional power to delete or alter user-submitted content. If users in your community have the ability to vote on content, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted votes. If users have the ability to flag content, such as spam or hate speech, you might consider giving your technical experts more heavily weighted flags. You could then pass the responsibility of acting on those votes or flags to your moderator team.

Some platforms deal with "wildly incorrect" and/or "wildly unpopular" content by hiding or de-emphasizing content that exceeds some threshold of negative votes or flags. Here on Stack Exchange, for example, answers that receive very negative net scores are sorted to the bottom and additionally grayed-out to emphasize their status as wildly incorrect and/or unpopular. There is often no great way to distinguish incorrect from unpopular, when everyone in the community can contribute toward this status. This is where technical experts, selected for their ability to judge factual correctness, could play a useful role.

One approach is to simply give this role visibility so that when a technical expert says, "You're wrong," they have some extra credibility. Another approach would be to implement some sort of special content score that can be influenced only by technical experts. Yet another might be to allow your technical experts to put a "black mark" on content that they judge to be inaccurate; by consensus, by separate action, or however you decide works best for your community.

However you go about it, I agree with AJ that this user is not being a good moderator. Your first step should be to communicate with them and try to convince them to change their behavior. Sometimes this will solve the problem on its own. In other cases it won't, but you owe them that courtesy before booting them from the team. Acknowledging their contribution by giving them another role and responsibility that aligns better with their particular skillset might soften the blow a bit.