Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I have seen a same member being a moderator of different stack exchange sites.
Is there any limit for a person to be a moderator of different stack exchange sites?
If no, I have some suggestion on it.

Please limit the number of stack exchange sites being moderated by single person.

Reason to above statement

  1. A person, who are moderators of different sites must be excellent in moderation works. But when election phase starts, it will be great negative impact on new contested member(Not a moderator yet) nominating on election to be contested against already moderator of other site. I have seen on nomination phase the brief description of some candidates saying "I'm moderator on Superuser etc", this will make there chances to advance in to later stages of election. I don't say already existed moderators are not good, but they will reduce the chances of new contested members as the voters in election will have chance to give there votes easily to already existed moderators.

Note: Not in case of community managers & stack exchange employees.

Another Suggestion is to limit the continuous terms as mods for same person. For example like Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States as twice for a person, just like so moderators will be elected continuous only for two terms.

share|improve this question
No. Each community, when it elects, is aware of the number of existing moderation positions. If the proposed moderator demonstrates they are okay with the additional load, and can meet expectations, I see no reason why they can't be elected. – Emrakul Apr 19 '13 at 20:06
Well, SE staff can automatically become moderators on every Stack Exchange site. So I'd say the limit is the number of sites that exist... – animuson Apr 19 '13 at 20:09
Need to have new moderators, so that more new ideas come into moderation teams. @Justin, we do not need new moderators to get more ideas. These ideas are usually brought up and discussed here on Meta, whether they come from a moderator or not. – Frédéric Hamidi Apr 19 '13 at 20:15
I can't imagine someone who's not already providing ideas through meta participation ever getting elected. – Wooble Apr 19 '13 at 20:22
Being a moderator on another site is generally an advantage during an election, but it does have its downsides. People always question candidates about their ability to moderate more than one site, and they are made to defend their ability to do so. See also the comments on ChrisF's, Sathya's, and Madara Uchiha's nominations for how they responded to questions like this. – Brad Larson Apr 19 '13 at 20:40
What I am suggesting is giving chance to new candidates with enough experience as new mods. I don't have an opinion that existing mods don't perform. – Justin John Apr 19 '13 at 20:46
@JustinJohn Most current moderators had no prior moderation experience when they were elected. Why do you think new candidates aren't given a fair chance? – Yannis Apr 19 '13 at 21:00
SE Employees having the diamond are moderators on many sites simultaniously. But they aren't elected. – juergen d Apr 19 '13 at 21:36
Why do we lose a good moderator's service after two elections? – hims056 Apr 20 '13 at 9:31
@hims056 Do you like change? – Justin John Apr 20 '13 at 9:32
@JustinJohn - If the old one is good then No. – hims056 Apr 20 '13 at 9:34
@hims056 If you don't give chance to new, how you can say old is good? – Justin John Apr 20 '13 at 9:36
@animuson We have diamonds, but we don't serve as moderators the same way an elected or a pro-tem moderator does. Some of us having moderator access on every site is completely irrelevant to this discussion. – Adam Lear Apr 21 '13 at 18:43
I'd like to hold off on deleting this question. Even though the community here disagreed with the suggestions, I think it's an important point to raise and having the question around when this inevitably comes up again in the future would be helpful. – Adam Lear Apr 21 '13 at 18:44
@AnnaLear: I know. But the OP said that many moderators moderate more than one site. I did want to point out that it could seem so but in fact some diamonds are just employees. – juergen d Apr 21 '13 at 18:46

People with prior moderation experience don't always "win" in moderation elections. It's not like writing "I moderate Foo.SE" in your nomination stub guarantees you the "job" at Bar.SE. It helps, it certainly does, but why shouldn't it? It's proven prior experience for the task at hand after all. We can't really exclude people from volunteering their time just because they might be overqualified, can we?

If you go through the list of SE moderators you'll notice that*:

  • 301 moderators moderate only one site,
  • 33 moderators moderate more than one site.

Of those 33 multi-diamonds, only 5 won more than one election, the rest of us moderate one graduate site and one or two beta sites, or only beta sites. So, the data doesn't seem to support that people without prior moderation experience don't have a fair chance of getting elected.

* Gist with the raw data I used.

share|improve this answer
But what if I don't apply to moderate Bar.SE instead I apply to moderate Baz.SE...... I love how Foo - Bar is the example of choice no matter what a programmer is talking about :P – ryan Apr 19 '13 at 21:28

The facts are simple:

  • Someone wants to volunteer their time to moderate
  • The community elects them if they are fitting

But, in truth, it is the job of the voter to understand the candidates they are voting for. Yes, when someone who is already a mod runs for a second moderator election, available time is a completely valid concern. It is then the job of the candidates to prove that users' concerns are unfounded. This is how sane, rational elections should work.

So, assuming the following conditions are met:

  • The nominee demonstrates full willingness to participate in both (or more) sites
  • The nominee is, regardless of other mod positions, capable of giving a competitive amount of time
  • The nominee regards each moderator position as requiring equal commitment
  • The nominee is otherwise a reasonable candidate

...then they have my vote.

share|improve this answer
  1. Well, why is this a bad thing? If someone is, or has been, a moderator on other sites then they have experience as a moderator. That's a positive attribute to have when considering a new moderator, not a negative. You can also look at their record as a moderator on the previous site; you don't need to think about what they might do in situation X, you can see what they have actually done in situation X. Much more useful.

  2. You don't need to be a moderator to contribute new ideas to the site. The meta sites are filled with active non-moderator members who contribute ideas and affect the running of the site (often quite dramatically). SE, as a whole, is very community driven, not just moderator driven.

  3. If they can't handle the duties then they likely won't apply. This is something we don't see all that often for precisely this reason. If they fail to keep up with their responsibilities then they may end up stepping down or even be asked to step down from one or more of the sites they moderate. Another option is to have more mods on those sites (in other words have the same number of modes on SE in total, but have more people with mod permissions on any given site). As long as the mods are responsible, this increases the ability to respond to urgent issues on any given site.

share|improve this answer

But when election phase starts, it will be great negative impact on new contested member (Not a moderator)

I think it is the opposite: When a user is already a mod on another site there is always the question in an election:

How can you make sure you can handle to mod 2 sites at the same time?

share|improve this answer
Yes, but how these mods are again elected in spite of above question mentioned. – Justin John Apr 19 '13 at 20:11
@JustinJohn And do you have evidence to indicate they have failed to meet the workload expected of them on any of their sites, and that this is a problem with all or most mods moderating multiple sites? – Servy Apr 19 '13 at 20:12
@JustinJohn You're suggestion defeats the point of community election. If the community trusts a user that is already a moderator of another site that shouldn't be a problem. You should vote for who you think will do a good job, whether or not he's a mod elsewhere. – ɥʇǝS Apr 19 '13 at 20:12
@Servy I don't say existing mods never perform what I was saying giving chance to new ones. – Justin John Apr 19 '13 at 20:27
@Justin, wait, so you're willing to voluntarily lower the barrier to entry into moderator positions, so "younger", less experienced candidates can preempt "older", well-established ones? How would that be a positive change? – Frédéric Hamidi Apr 19 '13 at 20:29
@JustinJohn You specifically said that you don't feel that a user moderating multiple sites will be able to handle the workload. That's the entirety of your point #3. If you don't feel that that's the case, and that there are no instances of mods that are incapable of handling their expected workload, then I suggest removing that point. – Servy Apr 19 '13 at 20:32
@FrédéricHamidi Are you saying only existing mods have enough experience, no one else have enough experience but not a mod yet... – Justin John Apr 19 '13 at 20:37
@Justin, on the contrary, I'm saying everyone should compete equally, regardless of seniority, popularity, or existing moderator positions. – Frédéric Hamidi Apr 19 '13 at 20:42
@FrédéricHamidi Sorry, misread the comment, disregard. – Servy Apr 22 '13 at 20:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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