The election results for Physical Fitness SE show only one user:

enter image description here

Two other users ran in the election and presumably were not added to the list in the above screenshot, because they already had their ♦ status from when the site was in Beta (before any elections took place). However, Parenting.SE also recently had their first election since having their Beta label removed, and Rory Alsop does indeed show up in the election results list, despite already being a moderator during the Beta stage:

enter image description here

So are pre-existing (Beta stage) moderators who win the first election after "graduation" supposed to get displayed in the election results page (Rory Alsop is on Parenting.SE) or are they not supposed to get displayed (as in the case of Physical Fitness SE)?

It seems like they are supposed to be listed there, but there may have been a due to this being a more rare case in which the election was cancelled due to only having 3 candidates nominated for 3 open positions.

I did some prior research on Meta.SE to see if this question might have been a duplicate, and the two most related questions I found do not really answer this question:

1 Answer 1


The Physical Fitness election was canceled due to insufficient candidates, and the only candidate who did not already have a diamond was appointed moderator under the rules for a pro-tem election described here. Since the other moderators were already appointed pro-tem, their status remained unchanged. The Parenting election actually occurred as a normal election, and those moderators were promoted from pro-tem to full moderators as a result.

JNat noted when announcing the Physical Fitness election that if there were not enough candidates, then:

we'll default to considering this a "pro-tem election" just to try to bring the total number of moderators on the site up to 3

And in concluding the election, Rosie noted:

Graduation elections need to be competitive so four candidates would have need[ed] to run. However we did have three candidates so we are treating this a Pro Tem[] Election and C. Lang[e] has been appointed as a Pro Tem[] moderat[or] joining Alec and John P. We will try holding a graduation election again in the future.

As to whether this functionality is correct/a bug: I think it is appropriate and correct to not show candidates in the results who were neither elected nor appointed in that election.

  • My question already says that the fitness election was cancelled, and the reason why it was cancelled, and that the statuses of the other two mods were unchanged, and even the link you provided in your opening sentence, is exactly the same as the second link in my question. The bug here is that C. Lange is displayed in the list (which I showed in my screenshot) while the other two are not, even though they all ran in the same cancelled election at the same time, and all walked out of the cancelled election with the status of pro-tem mod. Maybe it's by-design, but it's confusing. Thanks! Commented Aug 24, 2021 at 18:46
  • 2
    @user1271772 It's all about whether their status changed. As I noted, since the other Fitness moderators were already appointed pro-tem, their status remained unchanged, hence them not showing up. C. Lange shows up because they became a new pro-tem moderator: that is, their status changed. The Parenting election actually occurred as a normal election, and those moderators were promoted from pro-tem to full moderators as a result, hence them showing up, as their status changed.
    – Ryan M
    Commented Aug 24, 2021 at 23:59
  • But the heading of the last column in the table is "Results". Not "Users whose status changed". It was not clear. You also seem to ignore the comment about much of your answer being just a repeat of what is already explained in the question. Why would you do that? Anyway, thanks for taking the time to look into this! Commented Aug 25, 2021 at 1:18
  • 1
    @user1271772 The results of the election were, in their entirety: C. Lange was appointed pro-tem moderator. The column reflects this accurately.
    – Ryan M
    Commented Aug 25, 2021 at 1:21
  • Except, it doesn't actually say what you said. Commented Aug 25, 2021 at 1:23
  • 1
    You seem to ignore my repeated mentions of the fact that the other election was a normal graduation election, not a pro-tem election, and thus, 3 candidates were elected. The column reflects this. This was treated as a pro-tem election with 1 candidate. That one candidate was appointed. The column reflects this as well. This was retroactively made not a graduation election.
    – Ryan M
    Commented Aug 25, 2021 at 1:25
  • No. Since comments aren't meant for extended discussion, let's talk in chat if you want. Commented Aug 25, 2021 at 1:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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