Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 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

Please read before voting to close as dup. This question is an earlier instance of the same problem. I don't think this should be closed as dup because new changes have taken place since then, even though the old question is closed [status-complete]. (I'm also not sure why that was marked complete if Jonathan and Gumbo were not added to the list.)

The list of moderators on Meta's "about" page is out of date.

  • Diago is still listed.
  • Jonathan Sampson is not listed.
  • Gumbo is not listed.
  • random is not listed (not yet a mod on meta).
  • quack quixote is not listed (not yet a mod on meta).

‘About’ Page list of moderators needs to be updated.

share|improve this question
FWIW... quack and random aren't mods on Meta yet. – Shog9 Mar 29 '10 at 18:07
@Arjan Random and quack haven't been moderators yet here on Meta. – Kyle Cronin Mar 29 '10 at 18:29
Do they need to be? It's not like there is a lack of moderators here. I realize that - so far - every moderator on any of the official websites is a moderator here too, but I question the reasoning behind that decision – Andreas Bonini Mar 29 '10 at 18:34
I agree @kop, We should have different moderators per site... meta is a site by itself and should have its own set of moderators – juanformoso Mar 29 '10 at 18:37
I refer you to the Meta FAQ: Any community moderator from Stack Overflow, Server Fault, or Super User is also a moderator here. If they are moderators elsewhere, the FAQ indicates they are automatically moderators on Meta and thus should be listed. – tvanfosson Mar 29 '10 at 18:48
Then the FAQ needs reviewing – juanformoso Mar 29 '10 at 19:07
@Downvoter (and others closing as dup): is there a better way to report a problem when it previously existed and was fixed and marked completed, but now it has returned? closing it reduces the chance the team will see it. – Kip Mar 29 '10 at 20:38
@Kip: well, I guess when random and quack are made moderators, they can edit the status-complete tag out of that previous question... ;-) – Shog9 Mar 29 '10 at 20:45
Maybe putting the "Please read..." message first will work? :) – Bill the Lizard Mar 29 '10 at 21:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .