Physics

2019 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 May 7 at 20:00.

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


7,870 voters were eligible, 2,593 visited the site during the election, 1,432 visited the election page, and 589 voted

3 Candidates

My questionnaire answer.

I've been around for awhile and have seen how the site has changed for nearly a decade. That long view of where we have been and what problems we have had gives me some optimism about where the site can go. It also means that I have seen what successful (and unsuccessful) moderation and behavior looks like.

My participation in answering questions is mostly on and related topics. I spend a lot of my time lurking, waiting for those questions to arrive. I hope we can encourage more participation for questions about the physics underlying engineering work.

link | history
reviews | meta posts
  • $\begingroup$ thx also for running in 2016 & feel that fluid dynamics is a very important area of physics that is rising in profile in recent times due to deep connections with particle physics and possibly even areas like dark matter/ gravity and unified field theories + theories of everything. amazingly some element(s) of current leadership has downplayed it in Physics Chat in the past. miss you in chat & hope you can drop by routinely and for informal dialog/ not just/ solely for disciplinary purposes :) $\endgroup$ – vzn Apr 29 at 3:14
  • $\begingroup$ "Engineering, huh? Where the noble semi-skilled workers execute the dreams of those who think and dream." -- Dr. Sheldon Cooper. Of course, bazinga! All the best! :-) $\endgroup$ – Dvij Mankad Apr 29 at 14:47

Hi everyone, since it seems like we have a dearth of options, I'll throw my hat in.

My questionnaire

Why me:

  • I really like this site, and like to contribute when I have the time
  • I'm reasonably active in moderating (I have the Marshal badge and 5 of 6 Steward badges, 984 helpful flags, and 252 edited posts)
  • I believe strongly in democracy, and as such would use my awesome mod powers with great discretion
  • The aforementioned dearth of options

Why not me:

  • I'm not terribly active on meta
  • My time will be fairly limited for the next year or so. I don't expect to be able to spend more than a few hours a week moderating for that time period. Though based on what the current mods have said in chat, that may be all that is needed anyway
link | history
reviews | meta posts
  • $\begingroup$ Yay for someone stepping up! $\endgroup$ – Nat Apr 28 at 12:10

I care about the Physics SE very much, and would like to see some broad nudges for cleanup to some tags. I'd like to aim this toward traffic patterns, and maybe a few passion-plays attempt to bootstrap a few tags/communities.

I'm modded other online communities, and I've gained tremendously from online science and engineering spaces, so I would enjoy giving back.

to reinforce: While I've spent more time mod'ing other communities, recently, I would put that focus on Physics.SE, if elected.

link | history
reviews | meta posts
  • $\begingroup$ You were last seen on the Physics SE meta site on Sep 27 '17. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Apr 28 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ Your lack of moderation badges and editing badges does not seem to show an interest in moderation tasks. We need to see you respond on "the candidates answer your questions". $\endgroup$ – StephenG Apr 28 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ According to your activity, the only thing you've done at SE.Physics in 2019 is visit this election page and post this nomination. Then in 2018, you just posted 1 answer. In 2016 and 2017 combined, you made 3 revisions and voted in an election. Given that you've barely interacted at all over the past few years, it's somewhat confusing that you'd say that you really care about the site; could you elaborate on that point? $\endgroup$ – Nat Apr 28 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ If not one else shows up to commit to being a moderator — then I'd say that I care about the site. But the questions are fair, and I'll update with the responses in the format of "the candidates answer your questions". While I've spent more time mod'ing other communities, I would put that focus on Physics.SE, if elected. $\endgroup$ – New Alexandria Apr 28 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ As much as the criticism of your activity level is valid, I do appreciate that you nominated yourself when nobody else had done so. $\endgroup$ – David Z♦ Apr 28 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ Consider answering the questions at physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/11246 $\endgroup$ – user191954 Apr 29 at 10:11

This election is complete.