I was not a part of this, so this answer is based only on what the OP has shown us. I am afraid that I may catch a lot of flak for this post, but here is how I see things.
Part 1: Embedding Code
Let's go from the beginning:
@RavenHursT broke our rules for not posting the code here.
@rolfl posted a polite response clarifying our rules.
@RavenHursT posted an immature response questioning the rule.
@rolfl posted why the rule exists.
Let's stop right there for a second and let's look at @rolfl's response:
...(because, you know, clicking a link is not too hard....)
While this is a clever response, hence the 4 upvotes, it is unprofessional and immature. I can accept a normal poster being immature about something, but it is unacceptable for a moderator to act like this. Such a response will only throw the OP on the defensive.
Please note that this is not meant to be a personal attack on @rolfl. I am in no way questioning his or anyone else's ability to moderate. I simply believe a mistake was made and it had dire consequences.
I believe a better response would have been something along the lines of:
If you have any questions or concerns about the rules listed in the help center, feel free to post a question on our meta.
After writing that comment, the question should have been closed. @RavenHursT's next comment should have been ignored and deleted. No further comments should have been allowed until @RavenHursT complied with our rules.
Part 2: Working Code
I feel this issue was a simple misunderstanding. Based on @RavenHursT's comments, the code worked to the best of his knowledge, therefore it was on-topic.
...I'm looking for a review of the code and feedback on any edge cases or race conditions I may have missed.
And further down:
...So yes, I'm a bit iked that I come 2 a code review community, ask 2 have some code (that works) be reviewed, ...
While this was a minor issue, it's not hard to see why this one, compounded with the previous issue, would turn into a huge frustration for @RavenHursT.
Part 3: Conclusion of Events
@RavenHursT was immature.
Moderators stooped to his level.
Some community veterans backed the moderators.
Unnecessary back and forth replies ensued.
@RavenHursT probably felt like he was being ganged up on and was generally frustrated.
Overall, this was not a good experience for a new user and that is a failure on our part.
Final: What should have been done?
This may be arrogant, but community veterans and moderators should hold themselves to higher standards than new users.
When a rule is broken, a moderator (or someone else) should post which rule has been broken. The question should then be closed and no further discussion needs to occur outside of meta or a private chat with a moderator. Back and forth discussion about who is being disrespectful or who is breaking the rules is unacceptable.
Disparaging remarks and threats such as:
You really want to piss off the only guys that can permanently have you banned?
feel free to leave and never come back.
should be avoided. This goes back to not stooping to the OP's level and holding moderators and community veterans to a higher standard.
When a user is frustrated or confused about something, a moderator (or someone else) should provide steps that the user can take to solve their dilemma. Whether or not they choose to take those steps is up to them. Aside from that, a moderator should stand firm and no further discussion is needed.
We all must work hard to provide a welcoming atmosphere for new users. The new users may have a few oddities in the beginning, but we can only hope that they become beneficial and contributing members of our community.
This post isn't meant to defend @RavenHursT. The way he acted was also unacceptable, but I believe this could have been avoided.
Overall, we should take this as a learning experience and strive to handle the situation better in the future.
The Elephant in the Room
I did ask my question in SO.. and was told to come here for my question. And now you're telling me to go back????
This problem really needs its own topic, but I think we need to face the facts. The scope of Code Review is ambiguous and counter-intuitive. This isn't something I'm going to discuss in this topic though.