As per this SE blog, this post is for nominations for pro-tem moderators for this site.

  • Each nomination should be a separate answer with the name of the nominee (which should be a link to the user’s profile).
  • The nominee should indicate their acceptance by editing the answer, adding that they accept the nomination. Optionally they can write something about themselves.
  • Self nominations are okay, and even encouraged. Most sites have not had sufficient time for many users to stand out. Self nomination is simply a way to say, “I’m interested. Let my record speak for itself.”
  • Links to other activities may be helpful: Area 51 participation, participation in other sites, blog posts reviewing or announcing the site, etc.

--thanks @Richard for the following helpful clarification:

These nominations are taken into account by StackExchange. However, they (and they alone) determine the pro-tem moderators. Votes are important, though, in showing community support.

  • I've made each of the answers community wiki. Hopefully that helps. (Except mine. I couldn't flag that one, for some reason.)
    – Richard
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 16:57
  • 2
    I'll refrain from voting right now as I haven't really put effort into BH.SE. I'll just state, as an active member of C.SE myself that Caleb and Richard have been extremely valuable members of the community and are excellent moderators, too. Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 17:07
  • Sorry to sound a bit foolish, but what are pro-tem moderators? I know who moderators are, but the pro-tem is throwing me off.
    – stringo0
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 21:57
  • I found the link about them - blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/moderator-pro-tempore/…
    – stringo0
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 22:26

6 Answers 6


I would like to nominate Richard

Richard has shown considerable commitment to the site so far, and has a proven track record as a mod elsewhere. He is courteous and encouraging to others, including new users, in comments, chat and meta. His questions and answers on the site are well though-out and researched.

Example questions:

Example answers:

Furthermore, his meta posts show an interest in the success of this site:

[Richard:] Thanks. :) I actually nominated myself, but I deleted the post because it felt wrong somehow.

  • 1
    By every objective and subjective measure, Richard is the best candidate. If he's willing to take on the workload, there's no question he should be given the responsibility. Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 19:51
  • 1
    I don't want to make my support sound like an inside job where you get you only support your buddies, but I didn't know Richard from Adam until we got asked to moderate together on C.SE. My experience in the time we've had together is of someone who is consistent, considerate, insightful, fair, shows good discretion, and both listens as well as communicates. I don't know how he finds the time to participate as heavily as he has, but I can only see his participation in whatever roll he's given as an asset to BH.
    – Caleb
    Commented Oct 15, 2011 at 21:24

I would like to nominate Jon Ericson.

He is one of the top contributors to this site so far in terms of reputation. He has asked and answered many questions with detailed and technical answers, as well as actively participated in the Meta discussions, especially about inciting conversation about the scope of what is and is not on topic for this site.

[Jon Ericson writes]: I am honored to be nominated and grateful for your many kind words (not just here but in the comments to my answers as well).

There are a few things I'd like to clear up, however. I'm not a moderator elsewhere. My Top 5% rating on StackOverflow is less impressive than it sounds. I participated heavily during the beta and suddenly stopped. Meanwhile my corpus of answers continues to receive reputation while new users (many of whom ask one or two questions before leaving forever) are added. My pattern of participation early followed by complete absence continued in the Philosophy site.

I also have serious issues with the moderation system on StackExchange. I'm reluctant to see questions closed to the point of potentially damaging a site. I don't like the chat system (which is more obstinacy since I've never really used it). I don't read or participate in the Christianity or Jewish Life and Learning sites, which is where many of our off-topic questions are likely to be moved. I think "community wiki" is a dumb feature. I rarely use my edit powers since I believe strongly in preserving an author's words.

On the other hand, I am committed to this site and did comment during the definition stage. I have spent much of my adult life engaged in the topic as a hobby. (My "About Me" here sounded pretentious in the cold light of day, so I've changed it to the one I wrote for the Philosophy site. It fits.) When I've been privileged to lead a study, I've had to take on a role very similar to a moderator on the StackExchange site: putting aside my own opinions for the good of the group. Except for the times I wanted to correct an injustice (in my perception) in a particular question, I've never desired to be a moderator anywhere else. But I think I'd like to be one here.

(Oh! I also use an order of magnitude more words than needed at times.)

  • I second this nomination. I think he has a lot of experience to bring to the table. From his info page: "I've spent the last two decades or so participating and leading inductive Bible studies." He's in the top 5% at SO - stackoverflow.com/users/1438/jon-ericson, and the top 8% at Philosophy - philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/73/jon-ericson He's a contributer at Meta, with detailed answers. And I believe he's moderated at other SX sites.
    – stringo0
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 22:04
  • Seriously, Jon has some awesome answers
    – Ray
    Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 11:49
  • 1
    CW pretty much IS a dumb feature, so that's a mark for you not against. The reluctance to close and edit however is something you should reconsider. Those are things that help both the site in setting standards and users in modeling what they need to do by hand-holding. Also, SE questions only partially belong to the OP, in a larger sense they belong to the community. More thoughts?
    – Caleb
    Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 18:56
  • @Caleb: Oh I agree. I don't know how to learn those new tricks, however. (Progress: I voted to close a question this morning!) I think being given the responsibility of being moderator would help, but I can't be sure. It's possible the finality of moderator decisions (both socially and technically) could make it harder for me. Hand-holding of new users is something I'd like to do more of. If I were moderator, I'd want to drive home the idea that closures and edits are not punitive: meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/95/… Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 19:48
  • @JonEricson: I saw your close vote. I guess it's a start, if that wasn't off topic NOTHING will be. I agree on the needing to stress non-punitive part. In fact I was chatting with a mod from another site today and our conversation led to this meta.so post where we pose that an improvement could be made to the wording of the close message for some types of closures.
    – Caleb
    Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 21:28
  • @Caleb: I may underestimate the number of close actions I take. Sometime after using the Philosophy site, I answered a question on its meta about a rash of closed questions and was shocked to see that I'd helped to close one: meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121/… Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 22:47
  • 2
    He may not take this as a compliment, but after three years of watching the progress of SO, I rather suspect Jon understands the importance of editing and closing better than he did in those early days... I'm happy to see him involved in this site, both as a contributor and a user-moderator; if he does end up as a Pro Tem, I think he'd do well.
    – Shog9
    Commented Oct 15, 2011 at 14:56
  • @Shog9: Thank you for the vote of confidence. I sure hope I've learned something in the last three year. ;-) Commented Oct 16, 2011 at 10:21

I nominate Caleb

His tireless work as a pro-tem moderator on Christianity.SE and his excellent moderation skills and wisdom make me believe that he would be an invaluable moderator here.

I have never seen anything out of him except for fairness and temperance. Even when he has become too involved in an issue, he has been fair to the people he's disagreeing with (and has brought in outside moderators to help resolve the issue).

Furthermore, his hermeneutical knowledge creates questions that stand as an example of what we should be striving for as a community. Examples include:

I consider him to be one of our true scholars and one of the experts that we are seeking to draw.

Finally, he has already played a significant role in supporting and defining this community with his posts on meta and on the main site that help us determine what is on-topic and off-topic. Here are some examples of the issues that he's raised to help us define ourselves as a community:

I fully support his nomination and am proud to raise him as an example of what a moderator should be.

Edit by Caleb: I am honored to be suggested for such a trusted role and would be willing to accept the responsibility if asked by SE. I understand the concerns about having a moderator with split interests, but I think BH stands to gain rather than loose from the crossover (a topic for another post). As for my personal interests, I would say this community should not be worried about my allegiance. I actually have a higher personal interest in learning from the subject matter that is the scope of this site than I do on C.SE. I feel I stand to personally gain from a better understanding of Hermeneutics and will am willing to invest back into this site.

One thing in the nomination that was not accurate is that I am not actually an expert in hermeneutics, I'm definitely an amateur. However this only heightens my vested interest in seeing this site be a good place for experts because I want to learn from the best!

  • +1 from me, but perhaps the question needs to be asked how much overlap between mods on C.SE and BH.SE is in the best interest of this site. I'd suggest that at most 2 and preferably only 1 mod should be in common. Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 15:17
  • 1
    I have the highest respect for Caleb--he clearly is very thoughtful and his work on C.SE is first rate. However, would this work overload Caleb's plate?
    – Ray
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 15:46
  • 2
    We should be looking for moderators that are (1) vested in the success of this site (2) active and contribute to the development of the community and (3) available. I believe that having overlap between the sites isn't a bad thing and could benefit us in helping define the distinction between the two. Furthermore, we are working on C.SE to actually remove this overlap between BH.SE and C.SE, making it very clear where questions belong. This makes two-site moderation less of a concern in my mind. Finally, I think we shouldn't exclude candidates because of their involvement in other sites.
    – Richard
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 15:49
  • @Ray This is up to Caleb evaluate his work load and decide whether he is up for the task.
    – Richard
    Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 15:50
  • @Ray - yes, Caleb will edit Richard's post to indicate whether he accepts the nomination or not Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 15:51
  • @Richard "Finally, I think we shouldn't exclude candidates because of their involvement in other sites" I think this deserves a meta post of it's own. Commented Oct 12, 2011 at 16:05
  • 1
    My interactions with Caleb have been pleasant and enjoyable. His reputation score is far more impressive when you notice that he hasn't answered any questions. (I'm curious why, but that's not relevant to his nomination.) I don't see any reason for him not to be a moderator and I concur with the reasons to support the nomination. Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 20:37
  • 1
    @JonEricson: I do plan on answering too as I have time, but as I noted I'm not an expert in the field as so I started off with some questions. Particularly during early beta I think good questions do more to set a stage for an expert site than almost anything else.
    – Caleb
    Commented Oct 15, 2011 at 21:18

I would like to nominate Jack Douglas

Using the criteria that I found on this post, I believe that Jack Douglas would make for an excellent moderator.

There is no doubt in my mind that Jack has a solid understanding of this community. His strong involvement in DBA.SE has shown me that he truly understands the purpose of the StackExchange network.

Furthermore, I believe that he has the personality for it (temperance). I believe, from my involvement with him, that he deals with people well and handles situations well.


My only reservation is that Jack hasn't been highly active in participating in asking and answering question so far. However, I believe that it is far to early in beta to fault him for that. Furthermore, his participation in chat dramatically overshadows this fact.

--edit by Jack:

I'd be glad to help moderate if I'm asked to do so.


I would like to nominate Soldernal

I believe he would be an asset as an a moderator due to his intelligent questions, such as:

Furthermore, he has taken an interest in the development of the site, as can be seen from his chat history and his meta posts:


My only reservations so far is that Soldernal hasn't been a major presence in the chat room or on either meta or main. This is his second strongest account (after his SO account). However, with only 4 posts on meta and 21 posts on main, it is hard to gather whether he would make an ideal moderator or whether he is fully vested in this project.

Having said that, the impression that I get is that he would make an intelligent and careful moderator.

Edit: Thanks for your kind words and for the nomination. I don't know if they have already chosen the pro-tem moderators or not, but I would be willing to moderate. I don't know if I would make an ideal moderator, but I am fully vested in this project and want to see it succeed.

  • I think it's fine if he doesn't ask too many questions. What's important is if he does his duty as a moderator well - noting from StackExchange's blog, he needs to be a human exception handler - as long as he can do that, I think he'll be a fine moderator.
    – stringo0
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 21:55
  • 2
    @stringo0 I agree. That's why I nominated him. However, at this point in the game (such an early time), it's hard to get a real "feel" for the temperance of a person--particularly without having a survey of a large number of their posts.
    – Richard
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 22:09
  • That makes sense. Could you expand on the temperance piece? As in, is there an ideal temperance we should be looking for? Just wondering.
    – stringo0
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 22:13
  • 2
    @stringo0 I go into my opinions in more detail here. But the idea of temperance is that you don't want someone who gets angry when provoked. You want someone who can handle trolls well.
    – Richard
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 22:16
  • That's an awesome summary. Thank you! :)
    – stringo0
    Commented Oct 13, 2011 at 22:21
  • 2
    My interactions with Soldernal and objective measures say "Yes". My reservation, which is both controversial and probably irrelevant, is that Soldernal has left few clues to an identity offline. I know that many people have legitimate reasons to maintain a wall between online and offline and I'm biased to the opposite extreme, but it does raise a concern in my mind. That said, I expect Soldernal to be an exceptional moderator if picked. Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 20:52
  • @Soldernal: I love the new Gravatar. Do you know, it really helps me think of you as a person with an offline identity. Thanks for changing it. Commented Oct 28, 2011 at 16:22
  • @JonEricson Thanks! It's funny, when you posted your reservation about my identity I had been thinking the same thing. Still thinking through what is helpful to share.
    – Soldarnal
    Commented Oct 28, 2011 at 18:22

I would like to nominate Ray for consideration by the SE staff as a possible pro-tem moderator.

While not one of the most prolific posters or highest rep users, I don't think those things are necessary indicative of what would make a good moderator. In fact my personal experience as a moderator lead me to think that it might actually be best if the most prolific users were not moderators. So what do I see as qualification?

Ray has been active in the formation of the site and has shown a vested interest. He has participated in meta, but he is also the most regular contributor in the BH chat room and judging from the stars his opinion there is valued. I have also seen comments across the site with insightful thoughts about site scope and good and bad posts. His own posts seem to be high quality and demonstrate some knowledge in the field of hermeneutics.

Lastly I want to mention is participation on Christianity.SE. He involvement there has shown several things. First he has been vocal in his encouragement when he sees other people doing things well. As a moderator there, I have been encouraged in my role by seeing his feedback and I have to think that as a moderator he would use the same encouraging tone in communicating with the community. He has also been an active participant in decisions about closing and re-opening posts and contributed in far more ways than just writing questions and answers.

Given his past track record of communication and involvement, I think he would make a good moderator.

You must log in to answer this question.

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