2016 Moderator Election

On Stack Exchange, we believe the core moderators should come from the community, and be elected by the community itself through popular vote. We hold regular elections to determine who these community moderators will be.

Community moderators are accorded the highest level of privilege on our community, and should themselves be exemplars of positive behavior and leaders within the community.

Our general criteria for moderators are as follows:

  • patient and fair
  • leads by example
  • shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words
  • open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track and resolve (hopefully) uncommon disputes and exceptions

Every election has three phases:

  1. Nomination
  2. Primary
  3. Election

Please participate in the moderator elections by voting, and perhaps even by nominating yourself to be a community moderator!


This election ended Aug 23 '16 at 20:00.

Anyone may download the election data. Voters have access to pre-built OpenSTV software to audit the results; all others may use this source distribution


8,457 voters were eligible, 2,245 visited the site during the election, 1,977 visited the election page, and 716 voted

I am running to give the community an “outsider” option in what is turning out to be an “outsiders’ year” in the US, UK, & elsewhere. I value being polite, firm, & fair.

I agree with the Stack Exchange Theory of Moderation, and see moderation duties as "human exception handling."

As a regular user, I visit the site most days, most often quietly, and read for a while before even registering. I have “only” 2K reputation on this site, which is a fraction of my >15K SE-wide rep total (but is still within the top 1/2 of 1% of users on the site. It’s well over the 300 minimum held intentionally low because the highest rep users do not necessarily make the best moderators: Objectivity can be harder for folks who are more personally invested in more of the answers and content on the site, and it’s harder for users to distinguish between actions a prolific participant takes as a regular user and those they take as a site mod. For these and other reasons, I offer the community a chance to elect a non-establishment moderator candidate.
Questionnaire answers here.

I'll throw my hat into the ring. My interest in this is to build community.

By this, I don't mean marketing.

EL&U is a large community, yet it feels like a cosy group. People banter light-heartedly in chat and discuss site issues in meta while engaging seriously on main.

We have a diverse community including English-language enthusiasts and linguists. Yet it's often those who don't have such a good command of the language that bring out the most interesting nuances or corner cases. They also, quite understandably, sometimes have a hard time expressing themselves.

Regardless of how well they speak the language, I'd like the EL&U community to encourage those willing to work at refining their questions and answers.

Sites like ours depend on their volunteers coming back. EL&U regulars share an interest in the usage, quirks, nuances and mechanics of the language. Regardless of who gets voted in as a moderator this round, I hope we can provide a warm and welcoming place for the pool of people who can, and who choose to, engage positively in the overall EL&U experience, to the benefit of this community at large.

For the past 36 years, I have managed computer installations for large communities in education, software development, and manufacturing. I do volunteer work and serve on committees. I believe in justice, inclusion, and tolerance.

Moderators protect the site and the community. Interventions can range from gentle explanations to locking posts or users, depending on the harm and the intent. Explanations are important and help prevent drama. Moderators do not make policy or decide which answers are right.

Moderators should have a history of adding and curating content, bettering editorial processes, supporting the site mission, and showing improvement. I have been active for over four years, except for a hiatus after a death in my family. I hold 12 gold badges. My reputation is in the top 0.1% bracket. I have written 396 posts and 64 meta posts, edited 815 posts, and cast 11,264 votes. My meta article “Chat:etiquette” is included in the chat FAQ series. I have raised 1,022 flags, of which 82% are helpful, and the others are nearly all over two years old.

I am easy to reach in the chatroom. My favori— AIEEE! A BALROG HAS COME!

  • I'm sorry, but you lack one editing badge. – Cerberus Aug 10 '16 at 4:30
  • ATTENTION ALL VOTERS elections.stackexchange.com/#english.stackexchange here you can see a candidate's true history as an EL&U member. Most candidates seem to be fair in their upvote/downvote ratio. Others, however, seem to downvote questions and answers much more than they upvote them. There might be a vicious motive or a despicable trick behind that. I wouldn't vote for those. It's worth visiting the page and comparing the candidates. – Centaurus Aug 10 '16 at 14:09
  • @Centaurus Thank you, that's a great link. – MetaEd Aug 10 '16 at 14:49
  • @Centaurus That link is also in the announcement as "More information about the candidates". – Kit Z. Fox Aug 10 '16 at 15:25
  • @KitZ.Fox I just wanted to draw all voter's attention to the fact that it is much more informative and reliable than the political propaganda we read here. – Centaurus Aug 10 '16 at 15:28
  • @Centaurus It is extremely difficult to suss motives or temperament from statistics. For example, I cast a lot of closevotes, but that is because I tend to skip anything remotely questionable in the queue, and focus on the obvious ones. Someone with a high DV number may participate heavily in questions that attract many bad answers that deserve downvotes. And someone may edit, comment, or vote on posts that end up getting deleted, reducing their apparent activity level. – choster Aug 10 '16 at 15:53
  • @choster If one has a history of 250 upvotes and 5000 downvotes, there must be something wrong. That's what I mean. – Centaurus Aug 10 '16 at 16:00
  • @Centaurus: Nobody has that kind of a history. As for what you are probably relating to: If you spend a sufficient time in the review queues and bother to downvote doomed posts, you inevitably cast a lot of downvotes. Note that this statistics also includes votes on deleted posts. – Wrzlprmft Aug 10 '16 at 17:28
  • @Centaurus I find it interesting that you seem to be implying that this user has such a history... which is not the case. So, you're railing against political propaganda while creating it on your own. It's unfair to imply a ratio like that when the actual ratio is 2.4k up vs 3k down... – Catija Aug 10 '16 at 20:49
  • @Centaurus Anyone with 5000 downvotes is voting correctly, because there are that many unresearched questions on this site. The tooltip for downvoting explicitly says it is for poorly researched questions. Anyone who upvotes those questions are the "villains". – curiousdannii Aug 10 '16 at 23:46
  • I totally agree with @Centaurus, an excessive use of donwvotes to me is an indication of a negative attitude towards users and this site. I sometime see first time users with 5 or even more donwvotes!!! It that a welcoming sign? or do downvoters just want to turn them away. Do they think that a lot of downvotes are a good and productive way to "teach" new users how to use this site? I am speaking from personal experience and my impression is that there are users who appear to be too intransigent and hostile to new users. I do hope the new mods will take a softer approach to this issue. – user067531 Aug 11 '16 at 6:56
  • @Centaurus If you would like to see the vote ratio and how someone compares to other users, there's a handy query on the SE data explorer: data.stackexchange.com/english/query/466049/… I don't think 0.8 is anything to be concerned about. – ColleenV Aug 11 '16 at 10:35
  • @Saturana That sounds like you might have a good question for here: meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/9240/… – Kit Z. Fox Aug 11 '16 at 11:34
  • I approve of this candidate's mastery of the voting buttons. Some folks struggle to use both of them. – Shog9 Aug 11 '16 at 20:43

See my election Q&A


I’ve been a member for going on 6 years now, earning 20 gold badges and posting more than 1400 questions and answers. This accounts for why I have the third highest reputation of active users on the site, or fifth overall. I know the current mod team and most site regulars, and much of the site’s history.

I’ve the equivalent of a quintuple Marshal with over 2500 helpful moderation flags. I’m also the site’s top voter and its second most prolific editor after Reg — with almost 5000 more edits than the third-place editor. I’m the #1 reviewer in 4 review queues.

I’ve been a diamond moderator pro tempore on the Portuguese Language Stack Exchange site for the past year, so I already know the mod tools. I regularly work with other network moderators and the SE Community Management team, so there’d be little or no ramp-up time if I joined the ELU moderation team.

I’m usually active on the site for several hours a day, and often in chat as well. I’ve currently visited more than 200 days in a row. Because I live in Colorado, I’d be available on the site when most of our active moderators are asleep.

  • We have several members who have been around longer than five years and most of them are high rep guys who sport all kinds of badges. They participate on an almost daily basis, editing, voting and answering questions. However, to be a candidate and be elected a moderator, a member needs more than that. They need a past history or having been friendly to everyone. Arrogance and bad manners should never have been in their dictionary. Most of all, they should never have acted as if they owned EL&U. We have a few members who would make good moderators and tchrist is certainly one of them. – Centaurus Aug 10 '16 at 1:38
  • Wait, wait, wait. You're not a mod? – Tucker Aug 10 '16 at 16:34
  • tchrist, impartial? I haven't seen an apology from you for the belligerent, not to mention ignorant, hostility I encountered from you when I started participating here. In truth, I've seen more behavior just like that from you instead, although directed at other participants. – JEL Aug 12 '16 at 6:27
  • @Tucker one of the founding principles of SE is that there should be little difference between a high rep, long-time, heavy reviewer (like @tchrist) and being an official mod. – Mitch Aug 14 '16 at 17:17
  • @tchrist: You once closed a question as a duplicate which was clearly not a duplicate. It never occurred to me (as it did to the commenter) that it was done either in jest or in sarcasm. Why did you close that as a dupe when it clearly wasn't? What does that say for your judgement in a position of increased ability to moderate? – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '16 at 13:44
  • @medica The question in the post that you said is clearly not a duplicate is marked as a duplicate by five community members who are not tchrist. – Kit Z. Fox Aug 15 '16 at 13:55
  • @medica If you look at the revision history for the post it shows that the original question was, in fact, a good dupe candidate for the Q tchrist closed it as. Subsequent edits clarified that it was not a dupe and the Q was reopened. Isn't that how the site is supposed to work? In any case, tchrist already has the dupe close hammer for SWR, so how does his being a mod change that? – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Aug 15 '16 at 15:33
  • @Kit Z. Fox - The original (closed by @tchrist) asked for a word for someone who could spot "double meanings, especially of the racier sort, in messages whose intent was probably innocuous." It was closed improperly as a dupe for "someone who is highly empathetic..." etc. That's not a dupe. It was closed as a proper dupe for [word to describe a person who catches the sexual overtone in a normal conversation](english.stackexchange.com/q/88030/58761]. That is a proper dupe, and I have no problems with proper closures, just bad ones. – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '16 at 16:22
  • @Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 - I looked at the revision history and don't agree. The site worked properly, I agree, however, the that the site worked as it should. However, this person would have a mod hammer for every question on the site, that's the difference. – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '16 at 16:24
  • @medica I disagree with your assessment that it was a bad closure. I think it was a suitable dupe, especially given that the salacious aspect of finding double meanings wasn't emphasized. I also agree that the current dupe was closer to the intent of the question. In either case, I think it's a stretch to imply that the closure was a mistake in judgement. The two duplicates aren't all that different from each other. – Kit Z. Fox Aug 15 '16 at 16:29
  • @medica I think it'd be better to discuss the particulars of the question on your meta post or in chat. Suffice to say that I don't feel that the question was closed through malice or incompetence on tchrist's part and I think it's a stretch to imply that that one example has any bearing on tchrist's ability to close questions. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Aug 15 '16 at 16:36

See my election Q&A here.


I'm always calm and composed. If I had moderator privileges, I would do my level best to bring peace when there's any unrest in the community.

Joined almost 3 years ago, but I became a high-activity user only since this January. I've got only 12k rep because, as a non-native speaker, I feel it's best that I don't answer serious questions. I'm here and on other SE sites mainly to read and learn. I also participate in meta and chat.

Most of my time here has been spent on keeping the site in good condition. I do this, in good faith, by:

  • flagging posts/comments that fit certain criteria (2800+ helpful flags)
  • reviewing posts (3500+ reviews)
  • leaving constructive comments wherever needed and removing them later to reduce clutter (1000+ comments)
  • editing posts to help others (300+ posts edited)
  • voting on posts (2300+ up, 1100+ down)

24-year-old non-resident Indian. Knows English, Malayalam, Hindi, Urdu, and Arabic. Master's degree in Constr. Engg. and Mgt. I'll be online while most mods aren't, since I'm in India.

I have been a member of ELU for quite some time now and I very much enjoy working within it. I feel as though I have a firm grasp of its rules and expectations and I make sure that new users are aware of these through friendly comments.

I am extremely passionate about the English Language and I always do my best when answering a question.

Despite not having the dazzling 20k rep that other moderators and nominees usually have, I believe that my qualities make up for this.

I am a huge believer in fairness and I always put this into practice on the site. Additionally, I am respectful of others and I do not participate in "flame wars".

I'd also like to humbly bring to attention my editing statistics. As a grammarian, I like to see that all questions are neatly formatted and grammatically correct and that any questionable posts are flagged. As a moderator, I would be able to continue this duty more effectively.

I'm not sure how many of you have seen me hanging about, but it would be a great honour to wear the diamond with pride.

And in the words of linguist David Crystal, 'The only languages which do not change are dead ones.'

Although I don't have a high reputation (because I'm picky with the questions which I'll answer) I am a big believer in community moderation. I have three gold review badges, and I'm a 4x Marshall (2178 helpful flags).

If I am elected I will work to ensure that our community standards (as decided by the community) are upheld and enforced. Where there is disagreement over what those should be, I would work with all interested parties to try to come to a new consensus. I think some of the close reason texts could be clarified - what kind of proofreading questions do we really want? We currently close most of them with the one close reason text even though they do identify issues.

But I would also like to work closer with the SE staff to add subtle things to the site to communicate what we expect better (such as form placeholder texts, and better examples in the tour page.)

Read my election questionnaire answers here

  • I am sorry curiousdannii but I feel I have to step in here. Judging by the way you acted on linguistics.se, I don't think you are quite ready to be entrusted with moderator powers yet. I have seen you systematically downvoting OPs as if you appeared to believe the OP did not belong to that forum. ESE doe not need "Marshalls" as you put it, it needs learned and culturally opened leaders. As a matter of fact, I'm led to believe that the curious in your pseudo refers less to openmindedness than to how curiously you behave. – Alain Pannetier Φ Aug 9 '16 at 3:29
  • @Alain I do not know what you are talking about. I do not systematically downvote anyone. – curiousdannii Aug 9 '16 at 3:59
  • @AlainPannetierΦ Stack exchange sites do need marshalls—that badge is a direct representation of how involved a user has been in community moderation activities. Being heavily involved in flaging is about as good an indicator as you can get as to how well a user understands the SE system and the site, how well they are going to get along with the toolset and existing moderators, and how interested they are in the actual work. As a moderator having handled this user's (many) flags on two other sites my observation is that they would be well suited to wear a diamond. – Caleb Aug 9 '16 at 11:21
  • I feel that curious would be better served by spending some more time as a regular user before being entrusted with moderator powers. While curious' community moderation is generally good (and has certainly helped me immensely on Open Source recently), I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of moderator-curious. – ArtOfCode Aug 9 '16 at 12:50
  • Really appreciating these vague critiques... I got frustrated once on OS.SE and that's it for me @ArtofCode? – curiousdannii Aug 9 '16 at 12:52
  • @ArtOfCode We can follow this up in the OS chat – curiousdannii Aug 9 '16 at 12:59
  • @ArtOfCode: Being pedantic here: Of course, this is an ad hominem attack. But this is not about some position that happens to be proposed by Curiousdanii; this is about Curiousdanii and their suitability for moderatorship. So, just this once, it’s fully legitimate to make ad hominem attacks. In fact, there are nothing but ad hominem arguments to be had in an election. (Note that I do not want to and cannot comment about the validity of this specific argument.) – Wrzlprmft Aug 9 '16 at 19:17
  • @AlainPannetierΦ Marshal is a badge awarded automatically by the Stackexchange system, not something curiousdannii came up with. Also since we're being pedantic, it's Marshal with one L. I always get that wrong too. – barbecue Aug 9 '16 at 20:55
  • @barbecue. thanks for the correction :) I must have passed directly from the amps of my teenager years to marshalling objects into xml! I'm not refering to the badge of course but to the state of mind. Professional psychologists having studied the topic will tell you that some forum moderators often compensate a perceived lack of peer recognition in real life with an easier to get responsibility in the cyber agora. During the Golder Age of ELU, a few years ago, moderators were outstanding in both knowledge and tolerance. I just wish that this initial momentum can perdure in the years to come. – Alain Pannetier Φ Aug 9 '16 at 21:18
  • @curiousdannii I am somewhat curious about the fact that you have never asked any questions on EL&U, only answered them. That of course does not disqualify you, nor reflect poorly upon you in any way, but I am just... well, curious about it. Might you care to comment on this? – Ellie Kesselman Aug 10 '16 at 7:09
  • @EllieKesselman I'm a linguist by trade, and so when I have questions about English I'm more likely to ask them at Linguistics as I'd be wanting more of a highly informed grammar-based answer. If I did have questions purely on meaning, usage, or dialectal differences I'd ask here, but I haven't had any in the last couple of years... (I have used this site to look up questions, but they've already been asked and answered.) – curiousdannii Aug 10 '16 at 7:11
  • @curiousdannii Fair enough answer; I am satisfied. I noticed that some of the other candidates for moderator have not asked questions either. I do appreciate the extreme promptness of your reply to my inquiry. That sort of vigilance is a positive sign, to me, as responsiveness if you were to be elected moderator. – Ellie Kesselman Aug 10 '16 at 7:17
  • @EllieKesselman ELU is a funny site, in that many of the users are heavily weighted towards answering or towards asking. This makes sense, in that it's a relatively narrow subject area where once you reach a certain level of proficiency there is less for you to ask about, and if you have a question, you can often answer it yourself. Contrast this with StackOverflow, where it's easy to be, say, a Java expert, but know nothing about C, or be an SQL expert but know nothing about Facebook API, etc. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Aug 12 '16 at 13:17
  • @Wrzlprmft An ad hominem is an attack against an argument or position based on the person making the argument or taking the position, rather than the evidence and logic for or against said argument or position. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious by their nature and have no place in rational discourse. Perhaps you mean a personal attack, which may or may not be apposite depending on the characteristics mentioned and their relevance to the situation. – deadrat Aug 13 '16 at 15:28

I have learned, and continue to learn, far more from the site than I could ever hope to impart from my own meager understanding of the language. Cognizant of that, I have devoted an increasing proportion of my time here over the last several years to the review queues and flagging. I believe my statistics reflect as much. If I have nothing to ask or answer, I reason I can keep the site clean, and thus the environment more conducive to others' doing so.

Beyond the numbers, I do try to stay abreast of trends within the EL&U community as reflected on Meta and in comment threads, but also at ELL, and across a number of the other "soft" Stacks (i.e. non-technology) where I participate or lurk.

It is difficult for someone accustomed to a discussion forum environment to move to the stricter regime here, and I try to encourage new users stick with it. But comments can be seen as hectoring, or patronizing, and I will often edit directly to add context or citations, so that a better example is set from the getgo. As for community moderation, I have tried to stay above the fray when there are conflicts— but we are fortunate in that our fray is limited, and lingers at a low altitude.

  • Huh. I could have sworn you already were a moderator. – Kit Z. Fox Aug 8 '16 at 23:22
  • The only flaw I think anyone could find in you is that you've only posted on Meta five times in the past year. Have you been keeping abreast of the discussions there? Which problems would you champion solutions for? – curiousdannii Aug 9 '16 at 13:07
  • @curiousdannii While I have not posted an answer in every discussion, I am a daily reader, and have voted. The community as a whole can establish policy and convention; the moderator need only enforce those policies and conventions, not create them. – choster Aug 9 '16 at 14:16
  • That's what we want to hear :) – curiousdannii Aug 9 '16 at 14:17
  • I consider choster a good candidate: his comments are usually helpful and never aggressive, his upvote/downvote ratio seems fair enough, he's been here long enough and has a good candidate score. – Centaurus Aug 10 '16 at 15:57

I’ve been active on this site for two years now. I started out submitting answers, and then began participating in other ways as I gained more privileges. I think I’d be able to help even more as a moderator, and I’d be honored if other members of this site agree.

Reasons to vote for me:

  • I have experience with flagging posts and going through the review queues.
  • I’ve participated in many Meta discussions and I read almost all of them.
  • I am on the site often (usually every day).
  • I also visit chat fairly regularly (although I lurk more often than I post).

I strive to be polite and patient at all times, with all people. For the most part, I think I've succeeded in this. I'm aware that I have sometimes been blunt or argumentative, but whenever I notice this, I try to figure out a better way to deal with similar situations in the future. As a moderator, I know my behavior would reflect on our community and I would take special care in all of my interactions with other users.

Questionaire answers here; please ping me in the chat-room if you have any other questions!

  • Well, you've got the kind of edit, flag, and review stats I like to see. I'm a believer that the most diligent moderators are ones who've already well-used whatever existing tools their reputation affords them. (Good moderator == one with track record of moderation-like activities.) – Brock Adams Aug 8 '16 at 22:27
  • sumelic, impartial? I've yet to see an explanation, much less a justification, for your self-professed practice of downvoting good answers to what you consider bad questions. These are questions which you consider bad for reasons at odds with the history and practice of the site, and certainly I understand your downvoting the questions, but downvoting answers because you consider the question bad is to my mind beyond the pale. I've asked why you would do such a thing, and you've stonewalled in response. These are not traits I find desirable in a moderator. – JEL Aug 12 '16 at 6:34
  • @JEL: Thanks for voicing your concern. I'd appreciate it if you give a specific example (or examples), since I cannot remember when you previously asked me about this. (I reviewed recent comments but I wasn't able to find it.) – sumelic Aug 12 '16 at 7:13
  • ancient history, sumelic, and the time for addressing the specific examples, long past, even if I were to think it profitable to dig them up. If you were sincere in asking, you would address the point: do you downvote answers because you consider the question bad? Because you continue to sidestep that point, I assume my memory is not playing me false. – JEL Aug 12 '16 at 7:20
  • @JEL: I've explained my viewpoint here: Downvoting an answer because the question was bad? – sumelic Aug 12 '16 at 10:34
  • Well, thanks for that, sumelic. The way the game is played here, downvotes for any reason are your business, not mine; it's only when downvotes for useful answers to what you consider (even flying in the face of site history and practice) bad questions are the systematic response of a moderator that I find it objectionable...otherwise, it's just how the game is played, one of the stinky things you step in when you put your foot down here. – JEL Aug 12 '16 at 17:00
  • Well if sumelic is elected mod you'll be able to delete all the answers to bad questions, which may be less objectionable to some. – curiousdannii Aug 13 '16 at 0:49
  • @curiousdannii eeek! That would only remove good content. If a bad question elicited good answers, then those answers were the only good to come out of a bad situation. How would removing them help? – terdon Aug 13 '16 at 12:49
  • @terdon Well I only meant the non-good answers - no one's been suggesting penalising good answers to bad closed questions, only taking steps to allow bad questions with mediocre answers to be garbage collected – curiousdannii Aug 13 '16 at 13:03
  • @curiousdannii well, I don't know the details or why JEL feels this way, but the accusation leveled against sumelic was that they "[make a] practice of downvoting good answers to [. . .] bad questions". – terdon Aug 13 '16 at 13:06

Hello fellow Exchangers! I've been on various SE sites for a few years now, and participate in several fairly regularly. I lurk here at EL&U, and try to help the community wherever I can. I've never moderated a Stack Exchange site, but have had considerable experience moderating public forums on a variety of topics.

I believe that my grasp of English -- both language and usage -- is fairly good. Aside from being a native speaker, my degree is in writing and rhetoric. Because of this, I'm also familiar with MLA and APA styles and with resources online to help people understand them as needed.

I'd like this opportunity to serve a Stack Exchange community since the SE community has helped me so much over the years in so many facets of my academic and professional life.

Thank you.

  • In my opinion, I think you're the least qualified to become a community moderator. – haykam Aug 8 '16 at 22:50
  • That may very well be, and I appreciate your candor. But it certainly never hurts to provide options for the community. – Jesse Williams Aug 8 '16 at 22:55
  • I'd encourage you to get started in community moderation now! Have you seen any typos you could fix by editing posts? Have you flagged off-topic questions? – curiousdannii Aug 8 '16 at 23:39
  • @Peanut Nah, Jesse's been around a bit, made at least some contributions, and has at least some idea of what the site's about. This user is probably the least qualified to become a community moderator (or near tied for that title). – WBT Aug 9 '16 at 3:54

I think there are far-better candidates than myself — but I want to be sure this community stays healthy, and so I offer my support to maintain EL&U.

I've helped launch several SE network sites, and have worked the queues heavily. I've also been around long enough to read and understand the principles behind Theory of Moderation.

I've written published articles, developed online communities, edited books, and moderated many forms of discussion.

Thank you

  • TO ALL VOTERS - Most of what has been written here is political propaganda where every candidate tries to sound as if you had all motives to vote for them. But if you really want to get information from the horse's mouth, see it here elections.stackexchange.com/#english.stackexchange You'll see that some candidates are very competent, dilligent and friendly, whereas others seem to get a kick out of close-voting and downvoting questions. (see their downvote/upvote ratio) – Centaurus Aug 15 '16 at 13:18
  • That's a great link for everyone to read. I cannot imagine why it isn't the format of people on this page. Also, did you attach the comment to mine because you think I do particularly poorly? I would be fine to withdraw if there is a common-sense standard I don't meet. – New Alexandria Aug 15 '16 at 13:39
  • I think @Centaurus link is great because the profile cards on that page are transparent. I also think it is interesting that years-on-site and overall rank seem to positively correlate with a trend toward downvoting more than upvoting. – New Alexandria Aug 15 '16 at 13:41
  • No, it has nothing to do with you, please don't take any offense. It's just that I don't want to engage in any heated discussion and I believe that's what would have happened if I had attached the notice to those candidates who meet the negative traits I mentioned. – Centaurus Aug 15 '16 at 13:54
  • ".....seem to positively correlate with a trend toward downvoting more than upvoting." I don't disapprove of someone with a hx of 500 downvotes and 300 upvotes. I find that reasonable. But what about 500 downvotes and 70 upvotes? I've been here long enough to be able to identify a vicious habit of some members (fortunately, they are few) like no sooner has a question been posted than they are trying to find a motive to closevote it. (instead of helping the OP to improve it) – Centaurus Aug 15 '16 at 14:15
  • I think my reply to this old Meta post sheds light on why length of time on site tends to correlate with more downvoting, but also keep in mind that down-, close-, and delete-voting requires higher reputation, which also means spending more time on the site. – Kit Z. Fox Aug 15 '16 at 15:28
  • @KitZ.Fox I've read your Meta post before. I won't mention names but a few members have a downvote/upvote ratio more than three standard deviations from the mean. Even when you separate them in groups by length of time on site, that big difference still shows. Any statistician (I'm not one) would find their voting pattern strange. Fortunately they are by far the exception and not the rule. Likewise, someone who often upvotes and never downvotes is also acting strange. – Centaurus Aug 15 '16 at 16:32
  • If I had sought election, I would definitely have fallen into the "acting strange" category because I don't downvote. In my view, harmful posts should be deleted—and I either flag them for deletion or vote to delete them (or both). For the rest, it seems to me that you can effectively differentiate good answers from not-good ones by upvoting the former. If more people upvoted good answers, those answers would gain separation from the not-good ones without anyone's ever having to cast a downvote. That, at any rate, is the rationale for my aberrational conduct: Upvote good answers—it works. – Sven Yargs Aug 15 '16 at 17:45

This election is complete.