# The unofficial 2020 elections nomination thread

We will have an election soon to elect 1 new moderator. Continuing the tradition from past elections (2014, 2017, 2018) we have a thread where people can nominate other people. Since candidacy is always voluntary this thread is only meant as a show of interest in possible candidates. You can still join the race even if you weren't named here, and you can decline participating, even if you were nominated by others.

Guidelines (Taken from quid's 2018 thread):

Some guidelines:

• Don't nominate Martin Sleziak.1
• In case there could be confusion, link to the profile.
• Try to give some details, don't only post a name.
• Even if you do not like some nominee, try to show restraint about it. Critical points can be raised. But this is not a thread to "grill" potential candidates, before they even decided to run.

Note that this is not an official thread. Everybody that wants to be a candidate must go through the official process. "Accepting" or "declining" a nomination here, does not mean anything in the end.

1 The point is, don't nominate somebody that said they do not want to be nominated. If you want to approach them do so elsewhere.

• Out of curiosity, is someone stepping down? Or are we simply in need of more hands on deck? – Theo Bendit Jul 14 '20 at 8:12
• Nobody is stepping down to my knowledge. It's a combination of more hands on deck with "time to inject some fresh blood into the team". – Asaf Karagila Jul 14 '20 at 8:13
• In case of confusion, does @Martin Sleziak himself confirm that he does not want to be nominated this time? – user9464 Jul 14 '20 at 17:40
• @T.S. There you go – Arctic Char Jul 14 '20 at 18:55
• I'm slightly confused by the first point/footnote. Is it entrapment, given that the person in the 2018 version is now a moderator? (More seriously, I'm interested to learn what happened then.) – user1729 Jul 14 '20 at 21:30
• @user1729: I nominated Zachery Selk, who happily accepted, but in the ensuing discussion something got triggered and Zachery left the site. I had a weird feeling in my gut that I should step up and I did. I regretted that ever since, but also not at all. :-) – Asaf Karagila Jul 14 '20 at 21:32
• @TheoBendit not to my knowledge. (Visibly some of us are not really active at this point in time but that's neither here nor there.). – quid Jul 14 '20 at 21:50
• Back in 2014, a user made a "Citizenship score" SEDE query that rates users' math.se citizenship based on rep and badges, many relating to editing and tagging. More details in their answer here. – Viktor Vaughn Jul 14 '20 at 22:47
• @RichardD.James: This information is now a standard part of the nomination page. – Asaf Karagila Jul 15 '20 at 0:08
• – amWhy Jul 15 '20 at 23:11
• Question : Is there anyway I can calculate my "candidate score" if I wanted to run for nomination? For example, I have $18$ badges on meta now, along with $+20K$ reputation on MSE, so does that make my score $28/40$? (Note : Basically, I would like to run for nomination sometime later, but I would like to know the details now anyway) – Teresa Lisbon Jul 25 '20 at 16:35
• @астонвіллатересалисбон: data.stackexchange.com/math/query/1080450/… – Asaf Karagila Jul 25 '20 at 16:37
• It's 32! I will get better and apply next time! Thank you @AsafKaragila – Teresa Lisbon Jul 26 '20 at 4:50

# I nominate joriki.

He is a long-time user of math.se and participates regularly in meta. I find his posts and comments to be polite and measured, even when expressing disagreement.

Here are two of his recent meta questions:

Are questions about ideas in preprints off-topic?

• Great nomination. Is there some way to notify joriki of this? – Theoretical Economist Jul 14 '20 at 11:41
• When joriki is active they make good contributions to all aspects of the site (we do not always agree, but that's not a problem). However, while they were quite active again for the last few months, they had very extensive absences, and it seems their activity is fading again. To come and go, that's perfectly alright for a user, but it is not ideal for a moderator (to be). – quid Jul 14 '20 at 22:20
• @quid That's a fair point. It looks like he has been active most recently from November 2019 to the present, but was inactive during October 2018 - October 2019, and also September 2016 - May 2018. – Viktor Vaughn Jul 14 '20 at 22:38
• I'd like everyone to slowly take a deep breath in, count to five, and even more slowly release the air (1:2 ratio of in:out length), and repeat four times. Let's avoid hostility in this election cycle. – Asaf Karagila Jul 15 '20 at 17:53
• I prefer not to lock this thread in case there are remarks on separate matters; please do not reignite the old discussions or engage in meta discussion about it. – quid Jul 18 '20 at 18:13

# I nominate hardmath.

@hardmath has been a member for 9 years, 8 months in the site. This is a user who "will solve math problems for food".

@hardmath has made not only a great number of contributions in the main site but also in the meta of maths.SE.

In lots of discussions in meta, @hardmath is gracefully neutral and "gets to the point" to help solving conflicts. This invaluable characteristic particularly shows @hardmath a good fit for our moderator team.

NOTES:

I nominated two other users, who kindly declined the nomination. The order of nominations does not represent a ranking in my mind.

• I agree that's a good candidate. – quid Jul 16 '20 at 0:22
• They are definitely a good candidate and I support this nomination. But it seems that last time when they were nominated in 2014, they just ignore it. – Arctic Char Jul 16 '20 at 2:34

Nomination declined

# I nominate user1729.

@user1729 has been very active, above conflict, on both the main site and meta of maths.SE for a long time. @user1729 is very patient in explaining things to the newbies as we can see from lots of @user1729 's comments under answers. @user1729 has also made many effective reopen/undelete votes in meta since 2013, which improves the site significantly.

I think @user1729 will be a very good addition to the moderator team.

• "has been very active" I wonder what your notion of "very active" is? The timeframe you may be aware is not all that representative. Actually they were quite active but that was a long, long time ago. There is some renewed interest it seems, but still I have a hard time to see them as very active. (That's maybe not even needed for a moderator, but still a nomination should correspond to something real.) – quid Jul 15 '20 at 1:33
• Flattered though I am by this nomination, this is not something I am interested in. (It would be one way to learn what kind of super powers the mod's have, like can they see your email address, and upon becoming a mod would I learn @quid's real name? I guess just asking them would be easier though.) – user1729 Jul 15 '20 at 15:04
• (Despite being "above conflict", there are 6 downvotes. Each hurts like a dagger to the heart!) – user1729 Jul 15 '20 at 15:08
• @user1729: that is a pity. Nevertheless, I appreciate your active participants of the site, although people may have a very narrow definition of "active". Even not having you in the mod team, I am sure the site, both main and meta, will benefit from your contributions, as it has had before. – user9464 Jul 15 '20 at 15:59
• @user1729 some users here seem not very good with nuances. It can make sense to avoid this form of expression 'dagger to the heart' and alike, except if you mean it really rather literally, in which case I recommend not to take it personally. I did not vote on this post, but as is likely clear at least this time around I have a rather clear preference for a constantly highly active user, which might be the case for others too. – quid Jul 15 '20 at 17:03
• @user1729: The word around the block is that quid's real name is in fact quid, and it is in fact a mononym. But we can neither confirm nor deny this. – Asaf Karagila Jul 15 '20 at 17:43
• @quid Although my comment was meant in jest, there is some truth to it. I feel uncomfortable with people giving downvotes directed at me, for something I did not put myself forward for. (I agree with your original comment, and I do think you should have posted it. I also agree with the "spirit" of this meta question. I just think that it should be positive and encouraging alongside sensible criticism; downvotes are not positive or encouraging or criticism.) – user1729 Jul 16 '20 at 8:50
• Maybe you don't do much "mod stuff" but I appreciate what you do on the site @user1729 – user29123 Jul 20 '20 at 22:25

Nomination Declined

# I nominate egreg.

He is a great contributor in both TeX.SE(838.6K) and Maths.SE(204.4K). He has been very nice and patient, particularly to newbies. Also, he is a moderator of Italian.SE.

• egreg is basically inactive in meta. I doubt if they even wish to participate as a moderator. – Arctic Char Jul 14 '20 at 17:47
• Thanks, but I don't think I'm accepting this. There are aspects of this site I don't go along with. – egreg Jul 14 '20 at 19:37
• Perhaps, @egreg, becoming a moderator would be a step towards changing the aspects of the site that you don't go along with? – Gerry Myerson Jul 14 '20 at 23:16
• @ArcticChar: Comparing to one of the existent moderators' activities, that is not true. Wishing to participate as an effective moderator is by no means equal to being very active in meta. – user9464 Jul 15 '20 at 0:14
• @T.S Bad example, because that mod hasn't been active much anywhere. And when he was active, he was active on meta, before and after his election. – amWhy Jul 15 '20 at 0:41
• @egreg: I am sorry to hear that. Being a mod of this site or not, your contributions are a great treasure of maths.SE. – user9464 Jul 15 '20 at 16:05