2015 Moderator Election

On Stack Exchange, we believe the core moderators should come from the community, and be elected by the community itself through popular vote. We hold regular elections to determine who these community moderators will be.

Community moderators are accorded the highest level of privilege on our community, and should themselves be exemplars of positive behavior and leaders within the community.

Our general criteria for moderators is as follows:

  • patient and fair
  • leads by example
  • shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words
  • open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions

Every election has three phases:

  1. Nomination
  2. Primary
  3. Election

Please participate in the moderator elections by voting, and perhaps even by nominating yourself to be a community moderator!


This election ended Mar 31 '15 at 20:00.

The results of this election can be viewed online via OpaVote. Anyone may download the election data. Voters have access to pre-built OpenSTV software to audit the results; all others may use this source distribution


2,733 voters were eligible, 1,121 visited the site during the election, 650 visited the election page, and 426 voted

I think I too would be able to help out our present moderators as the work-load increases. I've been a member for two years & three months, & as I've gained reputation, & the consequent privileges, have tried to improve many questions & answers through voting, editing, & commenting; I hope I've shown some tact & common sense in doing so. I've followed & contributed to discussions in Meta as to how the site ought to work: in my opinion CV is already on the right track.

  • $\begingroup$ Best of luck! I am pleased to see this nomination; you have given some great answers and comments. $\endgroup$ – usεr11852 Mar 21 '15 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ We are lucky to have you in the nomination pool, Scortchi! $\endgroup$ – Alexis Mar 22 '15 at 17:19

As Cross Validated grows ever larger and the need for moderation skyrockets, subgroups begin to speckle the site; one such group is students. As an undergraduate myself, I have grappled with the challenges of learning the basic concepts of statistics and machine learning. A huge number of new posters are students, and their questions are quickly closed for being in the wrong format. I agree with the rules in place, but I think that Cross Validated here is failing the users who might need it the most. As the moderator team must be representative of its community, a stronger core of students must be established in order to serve and assist this group.

Thus, I present myself to your judgement. I am not the most experienced user on the site, nor the most decorated. I am, however, passionate about change and accommodation for the marginalized groups on Cross Validated. An underused and slightly intimidating chat system and no information for students self-study questions on the "tour" page are just two places that immediately demand attention and improvement. I owe a lot to this community; being able to give back through donating my time to moderate would be a dream come true.

  • $\begingroup$ Chat is not designed for, and not suited for, asking substantial questions. But if it is underused, how would that be changed? What needs to be improved? $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Mar 21 '15 at 11:01
  • $\begingroup$ @CagdasOzgenc I agree entirely, and thanks for making a great point! It's an unfortunate fact that some of the students who stumble in here care for nothing more than a quick answer; however, I don't think this prohibits our ambition to have a more welcoming and student friendly atmosphere. Perhaps the same students would stick around if they saw a community trying to learn. They may be scared off by a (potentially) intimidating question queue, or miss features they are used to (chat, etc. as discussed below soon). As much as I agree, I think there is still much room for improvement. $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 21 '15 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox I completely agree, and I apologize if my post made it seem otherwise! My gripe with the chat system is that it has the potential to be so much more than what it is right now. Particularly, it is under-advertised on the site in general, and new users probably would not even know it existed. Even if they found it, they would probably find the mods talking about meta topics. SO has set the rep to open chat rooms at 100 (low), however, very rarely do users open chat rooms. Perhaps there has been no critical mass or reason to do so, but perhaps again people will observe and find $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 21 '15 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox (cont.) that more experienced users are occasionally talking, but there is no active community of people at their skill level. I think some of this comes back to the nature of communication on CV; from my observations, most people interact as they would with professional acquaintances. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just difficult for students who are used to different communities. I think we need a host of student centred chat-rooms, with the advertisement to actually bring people there. It could not only pull people in, it could engage them in the community. I think that $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 21 '15 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox (cont.2) a custom "student tour page" or something of the like would greatly encourage this, as well as teach them the correct method of asking self-study questions. It could be an option as they are signing up. With the umbrella of student reaching all the way from HS to PhD, we could catch a lot of people and educate them. On this page could be links to the chat rooms -- immediate exposure and hook to the community. I agree that it is not the place for substantial question, and I think the purpose of chat is to create a low-pressure environment where people can talk with more back $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 21 '15 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ @NickCox (cont.3) and forth than usual conversation. It could be the place for off topic or informal discussion. This could include course choices, thoughts about conferences, general advice and the like. I apologize for the rather long response, but I hope that started to answer to question; at least, I hope it gets the discussion going. $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 21 '15 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisC, I think you are raising a lot of interesting points, but you should be aware that most of what you are talking about is outside of our control, even for mods. Much of what you would like, say lowering the rep required to use chat, would need to be changed by the developers. While your suggestions have merit, it isn't clear how most of this directly relates to being a moderator on CV. (The fact that you are engaged on that level does speak well to your potential as a mod, however.) $\endgroup$ – gung Mar 21 '15 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @gung, Sorry for the confusion; I didn't intend to suggest we change the rep for chat, I was merely pointing out that it is low, and presumably for a reason. With a low rep requirement, the ability to start a chat room should be a widely used feature, yet it is not. I apologize for going outside of the scope of the current position; I wanted to get the discussion started about how we can better serve the community. Regardless of the mod election, I do think that these issues should be looked at. Having more representation would allow these issues more understanding in the mod community. $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 21 '15 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ How can I find the list of current moderators? $\endgroup$ – kjetil b halvorsen Mar 23 '15 at 13:48
  • $\begingroup$ @kjetilbhalvorsen To my knowledge there are currently 5 moderators: cardinal, chl, Peter Flom, mbq, and whuber. You can also see previous elections on meta (2013 and 2011 for example). $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 23 '15 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @kjetilbhalvorsen A list of moderators may be found here as well. Hope that helps! $\endgroup$ – Chris C Mar 23 '15 at 14:19

I'm nominating for moderator because I want to do more to help the present moderators than I can otherwise. I think I'd make a reasonable choice for moderator:

  • Familiarity with tools: I've been using moderator tools for almost two years; gold tag badges give me some additional privileges above even trusted user level. I'm active but cautious with them. I try to use privileges responsibly.

  • Presence, coverage, experience: I've been here every day for the last two years. I'm in a different time zone to the most active moderators. Besides being on CV since the public beta, I have had some outside moderation experience (held two moderator-like positions outside SE).

  • Good relationships with the moderators and the other active high reputation users who help keep the site running smoothly. Issues are handled in a positive and productive way. (See many comment threads, meta posts, and chat discussions about site issues.)

Cross Validated has worked very well since its early days, yet site traffic has doubled just since the last moderator election. I want to do what I can to help keep the site as clean and responsive as its first 4-and-a-half years while it continues to grow.

  • $\begingroup$ Quite simply an outstanding candidate. Anyone who knows your contributions to this forum should be delighted that you are standing. That should be anyone who has even examined the site more than cursorily. Glen_b has also shown himself extraordinarily patient and polite to all members, yet is capable of tougher comments when deserved; these are crucial qualities for a moderator candidate. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Mar 17 '15 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed. Glen_b has provided CV so far with numerous high quality answers, he actively participates in the review queues and he is a general constant that keeps the overall level of the site high. $\endgroup$ – Andy Mar 17 '15 at 9:40
  • $\begingroup$ I assumed Glen was already a moderator due to his high quality participation! Should definitely be elected. $\endgroup$ – conjectures Mar 17 '15 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ I agree. A great candidate. $\endgroup$ – Peter Flom Mar 17 '15 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ I am still fairly new to this site and I am surprised to hear he is not already a moderator...definite yes. $\endgroup$ – Christoph Hanck Mar 17 '15 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ Like @conjectures, I too thought that Glen_b was already a moderator. Sincerely polite, very supportive and extremely knowledgeable. $\endgroup$ – Rohit Chatterjee Mar 17 '15 at 11:18
  • $\begingroup$ I never know that you're not a moderator. Mind = blown. $\endgroup$ – Penguin_Knight Mar 17 '15 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ This one is a gem in ways subtle and overt. Glen_b has represented himself well in his nomination to my mind, and isn't even touching on his generosity. :) $\endgroup$ – Alexis Mar 17 '15 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ Glen_b, you have helped me in several ways. You have been patient and have helped me to grasp concepts required to answer many questions. You have always been as detailed as possible. Today, I offer you this token of gratitude and appriciation by electing you as the High Moderator, though I do not understand how one can elect :P $\endgroup$ – Landon Carter Mar 17 '15 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ I want to echo what everyone has already said -- I think Gleb_b would be an amazing mod. $\endgroup$ – Patrick S. Forscher Mar 17 '15 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ You should definitely be a moderator here, given your outstanding efforts and sage knowledge. $\endgroup$ – Adam Robinsson Mar 17 '15 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ @yedaynara I hope I'm correctly understanding your question. What will happen is that in a bit less than a week you'll get a chance to vote for your top three choices (I expect there will be additional nominations), and you'll have a week to do it in. If you come back then the procedure should be clear enough. If there's anything you're not sure about, ask on meta.stats.stackexchange with the election tag (or you could post a question on chat, I guess). $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Mar 17 '15 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, thanks Glen_b. You interpreted the question correctly, yet again!! $\endgroup$ – Landon Carter Mar 18 '15 at 2:12

I like statistics and finance, which I also studied at Bachelor and Master level. Therefore I would like to also become a moderator for the site with a focus on undergrad questions.

  • $\begingroup$ Flag record: noice. $\endgroup$ – bjb568 Mar 16 '15 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ I am not an expert about moderator elections on this site but to "like statistics and finance" seems quite shallow as an argument to convince people that one will be a good mod. Surely you can do better! $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 16 '15 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ Not shallow, but definitely limited. You need to sell it! $\endgroup$ – Brandon Bertelsen Mar 17 '15 at 4:28
  • $\begingroup$ @BrandonBertelsen Sorry but why "not shallow"? $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 17 '15 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with your meaning, but not the connotation that is typically derived from the word. $\endgroup$ – Brandon Bertelsen Mar 17 '15 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Did I think my text is reasonable and clear. One does not have to write more details than required, Glen_b wrote a lot of generalized phrases without specific examples such as "I want to do more to help", unlike me here. $\endgroup$ – emcor Mar 18 '15 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ @emcor "Moderating" is one more incarnation and variant of Management. Your post includes what you like (you like statistics and you like to become a moderator). Now, surely it is a good thing for one to enjoy the activity one is engaged in, but this information alone does not help others assess whether there is a good chance that he will be competent for the job. So your post does not include the "required details", not at all. $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Mar 18 '15 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ @AlecosPapadopoulos I think the required details follow directly from the information I gave. You should interpret and not just copy it. $\endgroup$ – emcor Mar 19 '15 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ @emcor Certainly not, because by "interpreting" I would be projecting on you what you may not possess (in a positive or in a negative sense). And in an election, it is all about the candidate persuading the voters that he (candidate) has got what it takes. It is not about the voters persuading themselves about it. $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Mar 20 '15 at 2:42

This election is complete.