# current (active) moderators



## perpend

Hi---Is there a way to see or link to who is actually a current/active moderator on WR?

I don't mean in a certain forum.

I mean, is there a link to "these are active/current" *official* moderators *now*.

It seems like it gets wishy-washy, and some non-mods have privileges.

Thanks for guidance. perpend


----------



## perpend

No, I just think more moderators than the ones listed have "powers". Thanks, bearded

It makes WR confusing, from time to time.


----------



## Peterdg

Here is the list of moderators.


----------



## mkellogg

I guess in the sense of openness, I'll tell you that there are a few more people who have privileges than those who show in the list.  The first group would be moderators in training, who haven't been announced yet.  Also, some former moderators retain their abilities even though they are no longer moderating.  Being former moderators, they really shouldn't be actually moderating, but they can help out from time to time.


----------



## Loob

Perp, what prompted you to ask the question?


----------



## perpend

mkellogg said:


> I guess in the sense of openness, I'll tell you that there are a few more people who have privileges than those who show in the list.  The first group would be moderators in training, who haven't been announced yet.  Also, some former moderators retain their abilities even though they are no longer moderating.  Being former moderators, they really shouldn't be actually moderating, but they can help out from time to time.



Thanks, Mike. That answers my query/question.

Thanks for the link, Peter.

No particular reason, Loob.


----------



## Loob

No, seriously, I'm intrigued, perp.  I'd have thought that mods-in-training are usually quite careful not to display their trainee-mod activity.  So what, in particular, was it that made you feel that there are people who are not listed as mods but have mod-powers?

EDIT: typo​


----------



## perpend

You know how there are bylines for the moderators? Well, I just had the impression that some people without bylines were moderating, and maybe others.

From Mike's explanation, I see the grander picture of who can potentially moderate, and am happy with his reply. My query/question has been answered. It's all good.


----------



## velisarius

mkellogg said:


> Being former moderators, they really shouldn't be actually moderating, but they can help out from time to time.



Er...what does that actually mean, Mike? 

I think that if I see anyone who doesn't have "moderator" next to their username bossing people around in a thread with mod-like instructions such as "Do not bump your thread" or "Please go back and edit your over-long quotation", I would need to report that person's post - just as I would with any other member.

On the other hand, if I see anyone at all (ex-mod or non-mod) asking a member politely for necessary source/context, or even reminding them that a new question will need a new thread, I think that would be within the scope of our rules.

I'm really puzzled about what is puzzling perpend here, and why - if he sees someone assuming mod powers when they aren't officially entitled to, he doesn't just report their offending posts. (Also if a member is being harrassed by private message by anyone, he should ignore that person or even report them if necessary - whoever they may be.) 

If I'm wrong at all, I hope you'll put me right, Mike.


----------



## velisarius

Perpend, I wonder whether you have seen posts deleted by people who aren't moderators from the forum in question. I think the answer may be that spam or very offensive posts may be deleted by any moderator who happens to be around. I saw that happen just now in EO, though for some reason the mod in question has "senior member:" on their profile. I share your puzzlement now.


----------



## merquiades

This might be a good place to bring out a concern of mine.  In a forum or two I frequent I have noticed that there are non-active moderators.  In one instance I can tell that the sole moderator hasn't been around in nine months. The result is that no one is taking care of the forum.  That causes all sorts of problems you might imagine.  Over-moderating might be a problem sometimes, but under-moderating is even worse in the long run.  Are there regular checks to see who is around and who is gone?


----------



## Sowka

Hello 



merquiades said:


> This might be a good place to bring out a concern of mine.  In a forum or two I frequent I have noticed that there are non-active moderators.  In one instance I can tell that the sole moderator hasn't been around in nine months. The result is that no one is taking care of the forum.  That causes all sorts of problems you might imagine.  Over-moderating might be a problem sometimes, but under-moderating is even worse in the long run.  Are there regular checks to see who is around and who is gone?


I haven't been very active in the past months, either, due to commitments in my "real life" -- some of them chosen, and then some of them imposed on me by Life herself -- that have required a lot of time and energy. So a moderator, though still committed to the forums, may have other factors that make it difficult for them to participate as much as they did at other times.

If you find that certain issues might need moderation, then please click on the "Report a post" button. The report will appear in the moderator forum, and thus the team as a whole will be aware of it.


----------



## perpend

I'll say it, frankly: the "report" button is infamously thrown out there by moderators. Results are few and far between, shall you choose to use it. I can't even recommend using "report a post", and I'm nearing 18,000 posts.


----------



## velisarius

It's "report a post" button, perp - not a "give the mods instructions what to do" button. If they don't act on your complaints it probably means that your complaints are unfounded. 

I say that because it's rather difficult for a current mod to come out and say that unpalatable truth. You seem to think you are above criticism, yet entitled to bash the mods at every opportunity. Your whining about being ill-treated is getting a bit boring.


----------



## perpend

velisarius said:


> It's "report a post" button, perp - not a "give the mods instructions what to do" button. If they don't act on your complaints it probably means that your complaints are unfounded.
> 
> I say that because it's rather difficult for a current mod to come out and say that unpalatable truth. You seem to think you are above criticism, yet entitled to bash the mods at every opportunity. Your whining about being ill-treated is getting a bit boring.



No, I'm happy. I just think there should be checks and balances. Don't you think the same, velisarius? You have been a moderator.


----------



## velisarius

I have been, yes, and I'd say that the current mods are more balanced than some members, who seem to lack a sense of proportion and in my opinion should be checked.


----------



## perpend

I just checked myself. I'm good.  Take care, veli

The topic: Current (active) moderators


----------



## mkellogg

velisarius said:


> Er...what does that actually mean, Mike?


An ex-moderator or moderator of a different forum might get rid of spam or a spammer if the normal moderators are not around. It would mainly happen in emergency situations.



merquiades said:


> In a forum or two I frequent I have noticed that there are non-active moderators.


This is a problem, especially if we haven't been able to identify a new moderator.

I make efforts to clean up the moderator list from time to time. We are long-overdue for another one!


----------

