In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&A thread for the candidates. Questions collected [from an earlier thread]( have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. 

Due to the submission count, we have selected all provided questions as well as our back up questions for a total of 9 questions.

As a candidate, your job is simple - post an answer to this question, citing each of the questions and then post your answer to each question given in that same answer. For your convenience, I will include all of the questions in quote format with a break in between each, suitable for you to insert your answers. Just [copy the whole thing after the first set of three dashes]( consider putting your name at the top of your post so that readers will know who you are before they finish reading everything you have written, and also including a link to your answer on your nomination post.

Once all the answers have been compiled, this will serve as a transcript for voters to view the thoughts of their candidates, and will be appropriately linked in the Election page.

Good luck to all of the candidates!

**Oh, and when you've completed your answer, please provide a link to it after this blurb here, before that set of three dashes. Please leave the list of links in the order of submission.**

To save scrolling here are links to the submissions from each candidate (in order of submission):


> 1. If you look at the front page and see a question from a new user that clearly cannot be satisfactorily answered in its current form without additional information would you instantly close it or leave it be for a while? Can you explain why you'd take that particular course of action?

> 2. 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?
> 3. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc a question that you feel shouldn't have been?

> 4. In your opinion, what do moderators do?
> 5. 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?
> 6. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

> 7. If a large part of the community disagrees with a particular action you took (migration, closing, ...), but you still feel, deep in your heart, that you made the right decision, how are you going to address this? Corollary: If the community clearly says (e.g. by a poll on meta with a clear vote result) that it wants to interpret some rules differently than what you wish, what position would you take?

> 8. What sort of time per week would you be able to dedicate to moderation and would it be something where you'd be in a position to keep your eye on things for a large portion of the day or would you be limited to after work / school / weekends etc? It might also be useful to know your timezone and any other information about your availability.

> 9. Stack Exchange sites can largely be moderated by regular users with sufficient reputation. If you've performed a relatively low amount of work handling review queues and voting to close / reopen questions in the past it can make it hard for the community to evaluate your moderation style. If you fall into that category can you explain why you'd like to be a diamond moderator when you haven't performed much community moderation in the past? Otherwise if you feel that you have done your fair share of moderation either here or on other SE sites feel free to highlight the work you've done.