I've just been wondering. I know moderators are elected but my question is when you create an area 51 proposal and the site gets launched, Are you made an auto-moderator on the site or do you have to pass through some election or something.  Sorry if this question is a duplicate. If it please point it out to me
121195
When an Area 51 site goes into public beta is the person who created the proposal one of the pro tem moderators or not?  They are talking on Area 51 about combining all the sports proposals into , including one I proposed. Would I still be one of the pro tem moderators on the merged site?  Is the proposal creator afforded any elevated status or perk?
66770
So I was playing around on Area 51 hoping for further news on the private beta for ebooks, and noticed that my avatar (a hand) was missing. Also the Area 51 has the old toolbar. So I looked at the flair page. The network flair has my hand, the Area 51 flair has a quilt. OK, so time to upload a new image, and WordPress -- WordPress -- I don't want to login to WordPress. Any idea what's up with that?  The following questions did not help, and have different causes and symptoms:
106265
One thing that irks me is redundant controls. For example, there was a game I used to play that had a "disable IP check" option, but if you enabled it without Game Operator permission then you would be permanently banned. I have no idea why they couldn't just give the GO that option instead of giving people a "ban me now" button...  Anyway, back to SO. Since a user cannot vote on their own questions or answers, what is the point of the arrows being there? It seems wasteful to have buttons that I cannot use (and it's annoying when I accidentally click them when trying to expand my vote score, but that's probably just me), and I think they should be removed.
42175
When we flag questions and answers as spam, abuse or requiring attention, how exactly do the moderators use the information? I'm guessing there's a shared queue somewhere that moderators can all see. Is there some method of knowing whether something that has been flagged has been addressed yet? How do you make sure that two moderators swooping down to fix an edit war don't get into an edit war with each other? How do you see and use the details we enter when we flag a post as requiring moderator attention? Do you see the name of the user who submitted the report, or just the report? Can we see a screenshot of the flag queue? I guess the whole flagging mechanism seems pretty opaque. I'm hoping a moderator can outline the details of what they do with the reports. I know we have the details of , but I'd find it easier to use if I knew what is done with it.
17894
Possible Duplicate:          In Stack Overflow, I saw  badge saying that its awarded to "Followed the Area 51 proposal for this site before it entered the commitment phase". What do this mean? No user is there having this badge.
121161
Is there a limit on how long a flag (on a question/answer, not on a comment) can wait for a moderator's attention?  Does it vary from site to site (I believe it may take longer on SO)?
55491
It's been more than a month since I have started using . It has these users with user names in the format of "user-random number". I have observed them in some of the stack activities, most of the time asking questions.   Does the moderators create them for their own purpose. If yes what purpose do they serve?   I mean a user is free to have any user name. But it's just a hunch that such users are actually moderators. I may be wrong; just need some clarification.
19058
Post-split, Meta's moderators are (we've been told) the CMs and maybe a few other employees.  And, sure enough, those folks have diamonds.  However, something's missing:    Where are all the moderators??  Also, while I'm here, see the underlined text -- I know it's boilerplate, but since Meta doesn't have elections, you might want to change that.  (Lest you say that per-site metas have that text too, at least their associated sites have elections.  Lest you say that betas don't have elections, at least they can aspire to do so in the future.)
44875
Look at  edit. I didn't really expect that I would able to suggest adding  tag, but I could!  How is it possible? (seems that usual users can add mod-only tags without moderator help!)  Edit  Oded removed  back :-(
56844
A  appears to have been deleted, and deletion is attributed to a moderator,  deleted by Sathyajith Bhat♦ 12 hours ago , however,  (however, they did previously (unsuccessfully) tried migrating it to another site in the network where they're also a moderator, but migration was rejected by another moderator, it was then on hold on webapps, and then the hold was removed, which was supposed to have been the end of it).  Can someone explain what's going on here?  And restore the question that clearly wasn't meant to have been deleted, was a HNQ, and has 75 votes on the question, plus 74 votes on the top answer, and 56 on second answer; and 19 on third?  There's a lot of links to this question, too, and now they're all broken, making SE look like a community hostile to a popular question ontopic for the site it was on.
84006
Most users seem to vote mostly on answers. How can users be encouraged to vote on the questions as well? (This was discussed in podcast 62.)
69917
Is it possible that, when you flag a moderator's actions, they can action the flag themselves? Or does it get escalated even higher to staff? I suppose the question then is, who would deal with the staff's flags?
34964
If you vote to undelete a post that was deleted by a moderator, you will get the message  A moderator has deleted this post and it cannot be undeleted  Interestingly, this extends to posts that a user voted to delete prior to becoming a moderator. For example here's a question that is in that state.  The reverse can also happen. Once a user is no longer a moderator, posts that the moderator bindingly deleted become available to be undeleted. For example, I just voted to undelete this answer and it worked fine
18545
I was just reading , i.e., stop moderation and similar type duties, for some period of time to get the attention of the SE staff. It was only on the site for a few minutes, and I was just about finished reading it, when it was deleted. I assume the OP didn't delete it, so I suspect it was likely done by a moderator. I realize having somebody ask other people to take such actions would not be appreciated by SE, but I don't believe such censorship is warranted. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert), it didn't break any rules here.  I have seen from various recent posts and answers there's a lot of confusion, frustration and anger here, with people going to reduce or stop various moderation type activities regardless of whether or not any posts explicitly asking people to take such actions are removed. Actually, I would not be surprised if this post will also be removed just for me asking about it.
39422
Per , it seems like the beta phase of sites is continuing much longer than previously. Currently, pro-temp moderators are nominated when a site is only a few weeks old, when the site is still very new and unshaped. They continue until they are unable to moderate, or the site graduates to a full site. The problem that I'm seeing is that there are now sites that have been in beta for over a year, which is a time period sufficient that many changes can be made in a persons life, that the community has started to take ownership already, and as a whole, seems to be ready to start taking at least some ownership.  So, the question is, should we allow elections for beta sites that have crossed over some considerable amount of time, perhaps 6 months or something around that mark?
34927
I've noticed over the few years that I've participated on Stack Exchange websites that moderators and moderation behavior in general is rather secretive, in that moderators take action with little or no explanation.  While this has been remedied a bit with explanation boxes detailing why a thread was closed or moved, there are still plenty of actions being taken that leave no paper trail.  For example, in a closed topic that I was participating in, I asked in a comment why my answer was still being down voted.  I return a day or two later to find my comment was gone.  Why was it removed?  I don't know.  And I can't find out.  I'm not upset that my comment was removed, I am upset that action was taken with NO communication routed back to me.  If my question was removed because of some specific undesirable quality, then I'd like to know that and what policy it violates.  But nothing was provided.  That in itself can create bitter, rebellious users, which leads to trolls, ranters, and other detestable behavior.  My feature request is this: moderators regardless of rank should always have to provide an explanation for any action they take that affects a user or group of users, and that explanation should be routed to those who are affected by said actions.
58747
On Philosophy, one of the elected moderators has since deleted their account, and they're shown as "Departed" on :        However, , one of the elected moderators still has their "previous" flair shown in place, despite the fact that they've already resigned and left the Network completely in the wake of the recent events.        , the same happens (old flair remains), but without the clickable &lt;a&gt; around the image, and with a noticeable :        This looks inconsistent, so when exactly will a placeholder image showing "Departed" replace the flair for a departed election winner?