- Moderation takes time, and dedication. How much time do you plan on setting aside for moderation, what is your expectations for moderating, what time zone do you live in?
I appreciate all the time spent by moderators, and other users, keeping this site what it is - a structured Q & A site, and not a free-for-all forum. Forums aren't bad, just different. If I was elected, I would intend to spend time helping to keep the quality of both questions & answers high, as that is a large part of what differentiates Stack Exchange from the more informal forums.
For the last 3 and a half years, I have visited the site every day and I would expect to do that (give or take the occasional day) for the foreseeable future as a moderator. (I've only missed something around 5 days in total, in the nearly 5 years since I joined the site.)
I am based in the UK, mostly Southern England, so that's UTC timezone (UTC+1 during daylight saving time). This fits in nicely with a gap between the two existing moderators, to help give moderator coverage during that part of each 24 hr period.
I am usually able to make several, short, site visits per day. I have been using those visits mainly to read questions for my own interest, to improve questions & answers via edits (over 2800 edits so far), vote where appropriate (over 9000 votes cast) and also to flag issues (over 4700 flags, with less than 2% declined by moderators). If I was elected as a moderator, I expect that my time would be redistributed to focus more on things like the flags queue and Meta, in order to be respond quickly to issues raised by site users.
- How do you plan on working with existing moderators and the community to make EE.SE a better place? What are things you think need to change or stay the same?
I believe the moderators should work as a team, be open to feedback from users, and I would look forward to doing that. Overall, I don't see a radical need to change direction on this site. However I would be open to listening to suggested improvements that could be made, including to moderation (either generally or to me specifically), or regarding change requests to take "upwards" to SE (although obviously changes at that level are outside of what moderators can directly affect).
I would continue to guide new users via comments & edits, where I think a question or answer can be improved, while having a zero-tolerance for spam or abuse.
I believe the current site consensus, that homework questions need to include a genuine attempt by the OP and a clear explanation of where they are stuck, is a good approach.
One change I would like to discuss with the other moderators, would be re-introducing the chat room where users can chat to a moderator e.g. for advice on a topic which doesn't reach the level of opening a question on Meta, and also doesn't fit with raising a flag on a specific posting. When I used that chat room before, I found it useful, so perhaps other users would find it useful too.
- How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
It would depend on what the flags are.
If the person is being genuinely abusive then that needs to be dealt with, quickly, via the existing mechanisms - irrespective of their valuable answers. We can't allow the site to degenerate into a "slanging match", just because people give valuable answers. That situation would drive away other people and the site's value to all users would be reduced.
For non-abusive flags, then calm de-escalation would likely be my approach. Some people are naturally more abrupt than others and, within the limits of the site's Code of Conduct, we can't expect everyone to behave the same.
If the arguments are technical but polite, then that shouldn't be flagged. If people disagree with the technical contents of an answer, that's what downvotes are for.
- How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?
It depends how strongly I felt that it shouldn't have been closed/deleted/etc.
As I've got older, I have learned more to "pick my battles". I have occasionally seen moderators close questions where I would probably have left it open a while longer, in case things improved, but mostly I think the balance is about right. So in most cases, I expect I would (like now) accept that the existing action was "good enough" and move on.
If I felt really strongly about that topic, I would contact that moderator privately to understand their motivation behind what they did, and explain mine in wanting a different result. Perhaps I misunderstood something, or perhaps they did. Communication is key.
As a moderator, I know that I could reverse their closure/deletion/etc. of that post, but that may result in a reversal of that action by the original moderator. Such "public fighting between moderators" doesn't help the smooth running of the site, as nobody "wins". So I would avoid that where possible. I believe that advice & guidance would be available via private moderator chat and, eventually, via the Stack Exchange Community Manager.
Similarly, not everyone will agree when I close things as a moderator. Moderators are human and can only do what they genuinely believe is best for the site, while being open to feedback if enough of the users feel that a decision should have been different.
- In your opinion, what do moderators do?
They help other users by keeping the site running smoothly, and improve it where possible & where needed. That means being responsive to user's flags and concerns.
As I know someone has said before, a moderator is "more janitor than king" (or something like that). I enjoy helping people and solving problems, and I expect to be doing both, if I'm elected as a moderator.
- A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?
I don't have a problem with that. I post using my real name anyway, so anything I post can already be associated with me.
- In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
I would be more effective, because I can help the site and its users more as a moderator. As a moderator I would be actioning flags from other users, which I can't do as a 10k rep user.
Also instead of just flagging a problem that I see myself, and adding to the moderators' workload to deal with it, I can fix that problem immediately. Less than 2% of my flags have been declined, so I think my judgement has been confirmed as broadly matching site moderators overall.