Why on earth am I being called upon to approve an edit by, of all people, ЯegDwight?

I urge the powers that be to review this post and confer a diamond upon our Onlie Begetter.

| |
  • Didn't expect a typo from you. :P – hjpotter92 Mar 26 '13 at 15:21
  • 2
    @DreamEater I must (modestly) disclaim the honor, which belongs either to Thomas Thorpe or to George Eld. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 26 '13 at 19:19
  • @StoneyB I'd respond with more substance but I find myself distracted by the paradox of your title! – WendiKidd Mar 26 '13 at 20:29
  • @WendiKidd It is entirely serendipitous, prompted by my being reminded by The System that I had stupidly omitted to provide a title. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 26 '13 at 21:36

Reg only needs about 300 more points in order to attain editing privileges. While I understand your incredulity, I think that making him a moderator would be a bit of an overcorrection.

If you wanted to game the system, I suppose you could put a 300-point bounty on a question he's answered, and then award him the bounty – but that would just that: gaming the system.

Methinks Reg has been around long enough to know how things work, and that he's willing to be patient until he amasses his 1000 points to edit here. In the meantime, you should just consider it an honor to be able to approve one of his edits; that's something not everyone gets to do.

| |
  • 3
    It made me feel like a junior reader at Random House called upon for a judgment of William Faulkner's latest novel. Sheesh, the man's got 8,000 revisions under his belt. What made it worse was he was correcting a post I'd already edited! – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 27 '13 at 13:01

Since he doesn't have the reputation required to edit every post, he needs to suggest edits. Making a user moderator is not a way to allow the user to edit any post. In fact, a moderator's task is not limited to editing other user's posts, although it can happen a moderator edits a post; editing posts is not even the main task of a moderator, who acts as a normal user with the permission of editing any post, when editing a post. (This means that a moderator's edit can be reversed; the fact the edit is done from a moderator doesn't make it not changeable.)

There are already three pro-temp moderators; if one of the current moderators doesn't want to be a moderator anymore, then he will be replaced. Until then, there will not be any other appointed moderators. Elections will be opened when the site needs more moderators; that normally happens after the first election.

Being moderator in one site doesn't automatically make a user moderator in another site, except in the case of Meta Stack Overflow, or the meta site linked to the main site.

| |
  • 3
    I understand all that; but this is ЯegDwight, fercryinoutloud. He takes the bus to work, he washes the feet of the poor instead of issuing bulls and decretals, but he's still the guy who started this place. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 26 '13 at 14:10
  • Appointed moderators are chosen basing on their participation on the site, not because the user proposed the site. Also, this place has been started from all the users who wrote the example questions, and who followed the proposal. – kiamlaluno Mar 26 '13 at 14:57
  • 1
    After all he did to convince them to let us have the site, I think he deserves the privilege, at least for the duration of public beta. StoneyB's comment says this very well: "Even if his obligations to ELU preclude his actually acting as a moderator, he should be conceded the privileges and designated moderator honoris causa for his services to this site." – ctype.h Mar 26 '13 at 15:17
  • 1
    @ctype.h Who proposed the site is not automatically appointed moderator. If he wants, he can be a candidate for the next elections. Then, do you know if he was asked to be pro-temp moderator, and he declined? And no, there aren't moderators honoris causa. – kiamlaluno Mar 26 '13 at 15:25
  • 1
    @kiamlaluno It is true that there aren't moderators honoris causa, but there could be; ЯegDwight could be the first. I also see no reason to have only three moderators. Why not four? Personally, I think three is too few anyway. We should have at least four. – ctype.h Mar 26 '13 at 18:11
  • 3
    @ctype.h Appointed moderators for a beta site are generally three (if not always). If a moderator doesn't moderate a site for X days, the status of moderator is removed. Kosmonaut was an elected moderator, but since he has not accessed the site for too long, he doesn't have anymore a diamond to the side of his username. I don't think Stack Exchange is going to make an exception. Then, it could be Stack Exchange contacted him for being a pro-temp moderator, but he declined. If that is the case, SE doesn't force anybody to be moderator. – kiamlaluno Mar 26 '13 at 18:34
  • 1
    kiamlaluno: What you've stated is the current SE policy, and entirely correct. I believe @StoneyB is requesting an exception, however. And of course he can never know if he will get it or not unless he asks! – WendiKidd Mar 26 '13 at 20:31
  • 2
    @WendiKidd Exactly. Before it was impudently retagged, I marked this as bug: "Indicates you've found an erroneous ... behaviour in the system that needs to be fixed." – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 26 '13 at 23:11
  • @kiamlaluno I guess you do have a point. He probably already has his hands full moderating two sites. How many days is X days? – ctype.h Mar 27 '13 at 6:48
  • @StoneyB Ha! Unfortunately I missed that. I'm also sad to see the question title has been changed! (Though I must admit it is more on topic, if less humorous.) – WendiKidd Mar 27 '13 at 20:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .