1. 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?

My initial response would be to reach out with a mod message in regards to the matter, and give my best attempt to provide them with constructive feedback on their comments. Tone in text can be very difficult to interpret at times, and when you also have a wealth of people who's first, second, or even third language may not be English, then it can easy for intention to be lost. I also know that my own emails at work at written quite tersely, and some people misinterpret that.

The type of the response the user provides to that mod message will likely be quite telling; a confrontational response will likely mean that the user isn't going to change their ways and so further action may be require down the line. On the other hand, if the user replies with a constructive response themselves then this is a hopeful sign that they will improve, and maybe they just need a "nudge" in the right direction.

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

Discussion is important. If this is a mod that has been around longer than I am (which obviously, would be all of them apart from a fellow elected), then learning their reasoning would be key. Are they an SME in the area, or am I? Even if it's a fellow elected, we should still discuss and hopefully come to a consensus, and if continue to be "at logger heads", then I am sure that the rest of the mod team would be happy to contribute to the discussion. The mods are a team; they can disagree, but that doesn't mean they can't all learn from the experience.

3. Given many moderators and curators left the site in recent times because they disagree with the direction things are going on the site/network, why do you want to be a moderator? What motivates you to keep cleaning up garbage, when many previous "janitors" felt it's not worth it anymore?

Stack Overflow is still extremely valuable, despite what some believe and publish. The site is still, and will almost certainly, continue to be one of the first places, alongside documentation, I look at when I have a problem. I don't find it often that I don't find the solution I'm looking for once I end up at Stack Overflow as my "second stop". Continuing the "clean up garbage", supports that goal of providing users like myself, you, and future readers with useful and helpful content. I trust the content I read on Stack Overflow, especially when it comes with good explanations which I find vital.

Yes, I do agree that the direction of the company is questionable at times, but I don't believe that the goals of the community at large has, that's the area that I think needs to be protected the most, and moderating the site to retain those goals I see as being a important role.

4. Community moderators operate under shared principles; however, they are ultimately individual participants. A consensus may form within the team about how to handle discretionary matters not covered by established policies—for example, how to handle a specific kind of flag, or how long of a suspension to issue for some kind of inappropriate behavior. Would you consider this consensus to be binding and, in case you weren’t already doing things that way, adjust accordingly?

I think that if the entire team agree with little debate, then yes, this is likely to be quite binding and if I was initially on the "other side of the fence" would adjust. On the other hand, if a scenario creates a lot of discussion then even if 100% of the mods end up on agreeing, if that scenario comes up again it would likely be worth revisiting the conversation. I suspect that the prior scenerio has a few "if, buts and maybes", or was very case specific, and so even a small difference could result in a different outcome.

5. Stack Overflow moderation is a nontrivial time investment due to its scale. Do you think cleaning up Stack Overflow is an appealing way to spend your free time? If so, why? If not, what makes you want to be a moderator anyway? (Copied from this post by Ryan M, originally from 2022 suggested moderator questions.)

Yes and No. I won't lie, the clean-up probably isn't the most "thrilling" or "engaging" task at times, especially when going through what could be monotonous NLN flags on "Thank you" comments. On the other hand, cleaning is still important and making sure that readers (including myself) have a good experience when doing so is appealing.

6. Stack Overflow sometimes asks moderators to offer feedback on things that they are planning (features, network software changes, etc). This feedback can sometimes alter what Staff does. What do you think about moderators being the "bleeding edge" of feedback, and are you willing to participate?

I'm pretty vocal in Meta already about features/experiments from the company; if you check my profile on Meta you'll probably see that many of my recent answers on those experiment annoucements. I don't expect to change my behaviour in engaging with them if I were to be a moderator.

7. The mod team is completely split over a controversial issue. They are cordial with each other, but they disagree over what they should do, and it looks like they'll have to agree to disagree (which wouldn't work out great). How do you handle this?

I'm going to make an assumption here that the discussion is entirely internal and the result means some kind of action my the moderator team; that could be against a user, if could be to state a new policy, or it could be to strike as a group (it's all or none). Regardless of what side I am on, if the team can't agree, I think the course action is to take the one that doesn't change the current state of affairs as they are now, or in the case of enforcement the lowest enforcement action.

For policy change, this allows extended conversations to go on, or (perhaps) for moderators to lean on a wider community; that could be to bring it up on Meta or perhaps to discuss it with mods on other sites (if that hasn't happened). Implementing a policy to the repeal it isn't ideal. If the action is enforcement against a user then the lowest agreed enforcement is still something. If the choice was to not enforce, then so be it. You can, if needed, enforce later if the group decides later they should have (By this I don't mean a retrospecitive ban, but some kind of communication that the stance has changed, so if said user does it in the future, enforcement would occur). If you suspend a user for a year, instead of not, you can't take that back.

8. Do you have any particular philosophies on moderation or curation that might set you apart from other candidates? (Copied from this post by D.W., originally from 2024 suggested moderator questions.)

I'll be candid, I don't think so no. The team already have a lot of high quality individuals, and I would say that many I look up to. If I were to be a moderator, I'd rather aspire to be able to meet the expectations I have of them.

9. While moderators no longer have a huge backlog of flags related to AI generated posts, plenty of AI generated content is still being posted and flagged on daily basis. What is your stance on AI generated and assisted content and are you willing to handle such flags?

I'm quite anti-AI. I recall the earlier days of when ChatGPT was being posted, and used, and the awful quality of content, and I still see content from people which is both clearly wrong and clearly generated by AI. For the content on Stack Overflow, my thoughts are that if I, or anyone, wanted LLM an answer they would go to an LLM. When seeking answers, I come to Stack Overflow because I want a human's response.

As for flag dealing, yes, I'm more than happy to deal with such flags. I admit I lack the full ability to identify the content, but the obvious stuff I'd handle. If I learn as I go, and understand the heuristics of identifying LLM content, then I'd handle the "harder" stuff too.

10. As an elected moderator, you can have an outsized impact on the community as a thought leader aside from the typical clean-up/moderation tasks. A diamond next to your name can lend weight or a sense of validity to your ideas, stances, and reactions. Do you plan to be a thought leader? If so, how would you seek to use your influence?

    Additional Context: Being a moderator means more than just getting expanded powers to do things like cast binding votes, delete comments, and issue suspensions. It also means that people tend to look to you as a thought leader. People may vote for you based on what they already know about how and what you think (and I suppose asking this question just reinforces that), but you'll also gain leverage with a diamond—like being a weak magnet, subtly aligning iron filings around you. Is there anything in particular you'd want to do with that expanded influence?

I don't suppose I would "plan" to be a thought leader, no. In areas like Meta I'm already quite vocal, so that may bring "weight" to such posts from the past, but I don't also think I would want to change the way I interact with Meta completely anyway; I would want to continue to provide constructive feedback to Stack Overflow (the company) on their experiments for example (which at the moment is really ramping up), and in truth once I have a better grasp of the nuances of certain moderator actions then I would reflect that in my posts.

Some of my interactions on Meta of assumptions of the "whys" of actions; we as users don't know why Moderator actions occur. Obviously, as a moderator, I wouldn't do those surmising any more.

As for on Main, there's only really a single area of tags that I actually partake in, and the answerers in those tags are well know and I would consider all of us "thought leaders" in that area; it's rare that we have disagreements, but we often see each others sides. I don't think my being a moderator would change that; the only thing that is likely to change is that I wouldn't be casting close votes as they would be binding (but I'd probably happily be the 3rd voter)

1. 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?

With some 20/20 hindsight from my experience on AU, I can say that it seems to help when I focus on improving the user's interactions with others (via private Mod-message) by pointing out:

• some examples of problematic exchanges
• ways that the user might (or should) handle it differently going forward, such as different wording or simply flagging the content for moderator assistance

In the cases I've dealt with so far, this has worked very well. However, if a user didn't improve, then suspension is certainly an option, even if the user is a frequent, even quality, poster. It's more important to keep the site from becoming toxic.

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

I usually check with them in chat:

• explain my reasons why I think the content might could/should be salvaged
• listen to their rationale on (if) why not

Reach an agreement or, if we can't, leave it closed in most cases.

3. Given many moderators and curators left the site in recent times because they disagree with the direction things are going on the site/network, why do you want to be a moderator? What motivates you to keep cleaning up garbage, when many previous "janitors" felt it's not worth it anymore?

I (probably obviously) believe there is huge value in Stack's (primarily) question-and-answer format, but keeping that value is dependent on how well we (as a community) curate and moderate content.

4. Community moderators operate under shared principles; however, they are ultimately individual participants. A consensus may form within the team about how to handle discretionary matters not covered by established policies—for example, how to handle a specific kind of flag, or how long of a suspension to issue for some kind of inappropriate behavior. Would you consider this consensus to be binding and, in case you weren’t already doing things that way, adjust accordingly?

This would be similar to the situation in question #2 above, where we'll need discuss and reach agreement (or agree to disagree). In general, though, I typically defer to the status-quo when joining a new team of any sort.

5. Stack Overflow moderation is a nontrivial time investment due to its scale. Do you think cleaning up Stack Overflow is an appealing way to spend your free time? If so, why? If not, what makes you want to be a moderator anyway? (Copied from this post by Ryan M, originally from 2022 suggested moderator questions.)

Yes, from my experience curating and moderating across the network, I'm pretty good at it (especially with AI-generated content). As mentioned above, I see immense value in the format of Stack Overflow and see moderation as an essential element in keeping that value.

6. Stack Overflow sometimes asks moderators to offer feedback on things that they are planning (features, network software changes, etc). This feedback can sometimes alter what Staff does. What do you think about moderators being the "bleeding edge" of feedback, and are you willing to participate?

Absolutely. While we love SO, it's clear that it needs to continue to evolve and grow in order to succeed going forward. I certainly want to (and do) provide feedback to Staff on proposed changes. I also try to view these changes from the perspective of:

• SE, who needs to make sure the company continues to succeed
• The existing users who have made it what it is
• New, and less experienced, users who can help us continue to grow

7. The mod team is completely split over a controversial issue. They are cordial with each other, but they disagree over what they should do, and it looks like they'll have to agree to disagree (which wouldn't work out great). How do you handle this?

Wait.

Over the next few days or weeks, watch for benefits or issues with either approach being taken. Look for ways to "tweak" the suggested approach(es) to (hopefully) demonstrate to the team how we can capitalize on the benefits as much as possible.

8. Do you have any particular philosophies on moderation or curation that might set you apart from other candidates? (Copied from this post by D.W., originally from 2024 suggested moderator questions.)

Most definitely. Stack has a lot of "rules" that new users tend to stumble over, and we have them for very good reasons. It's important to me to welcome new users in by gently helping them understand these rules whenever possible.

While I realize that things are much slower in the two-stoplight town of Ask Ubuntu, even when flagging here on Stack Overflow I've tried to make sure that I explain nicely to new (or just less experienced) users why their post is problematic. When deleting a post, I do my best to leave a comment with links to appropriate Help or Meta pages where the user can learn to improve either this post or their future posts.

And please, if you ever come across my comments and feel they can be improved in any way to make them more clear or kind, let me know.

9. While moderators no longer have a huge backlog of flags related to AI generated posts, plenty of AI generated content is still being posted and flagged on daily basis. What is your stance on AI generated and assisted content and are you willing to handle such flags?

As you may know from my Meta posts or the previous election, I've been focusing on AI-generated content (AIGC) for a number of years now. Since ChatGPT posts first appeared on the network, I've been working to have them removed. I've also been "collecting" them, with a current list of more than 15,000 posts that are likely AIGC.

I've been able to flag over 3,500 so far, leading to removal of thousands more from the same users.

Since "The Strike", I've been a member of the working group tasked with (from the strike-negotiations) developing new, approved heuristics and improving the handling of AIGC. I have been the most active contributor to the Team, both in rep and posts.

10. As an elected moderator, you can have an outsized impact on the community as a thought leader aside from the typical clean-up/moderation tasks. A diamond next to your name can lend weight or a sense of validity to your ideas, stances, and reactions. Do you plan to be a thought leader? If so, how would you seek to use your influence?

    Additional Context: Being a moderator means more than just getting expanded powers to do things like cast binding votes, delete comments, and issue suspensions. It also means that people tend to look to you as a thought leader. People may vote for you based on what they already know about how and what you think (and I suppose asking this question just reinforces that), but you'll also gain leverage with a diamond—like being a weak magnet, subtly aligning iron filings around you. Is there anything in particular you'd want to do with that expanded influence?

Nothing would make me happier than if I can help Stack Overflow become easier to navigate for new users. As mentioned above, I love helping users improve their posts much more than I do deleting them.

Also, my philosophy (with credit to @Zanna on Ask Ubuntu where I learned it) is to look for reasons why posts should be kept and improved rather than to just focus on the reasons why they should be removed. That's not to say that there's plenty of deletion to be done (even the bulk), but that there's also plenty to salvage as well.

1. 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?

I don't believe any special treatment is warranted; all users must follow the rules, regardless of past contributions. However, I acknowledge that highly active users may encounter more friction. My approach would depend on the severity and frequency of the issues. A friendly warning for a minor and less frequent incident can go a long way compared to suspension, for example. But more serious offenses definitely would require taking a firmer stance, most probably a discussion with another moderator (or moderators) to determine next steps. I think I even heard of at least a couple of instances where issues were escalated to Community Managers.

Ultimately, while we appreciate valuable contributions, maintaining a healthy community environment is paramount, and disruptive behavior can quickly overshadow even the most helpful answers.

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

This isn't an uncommon scenario; I've found myself both taking actions that others (moderator or not) questioned and questioning actions taken by others. My first step in such a situation would always be to have a discussion with the other moderator. Through it, one of two positive outcomes typically occurs:

• I gain a new understanding of their reasoning, which broadens my own moderating perspective for future similar situations.

• Or I'm able to present my argument, leading them to reconsider their initial decision.

There are no downsides to prioritizing this kind of dialogue; it only strengthens moderation team's understanding and consistency.

3. Given many moderators and curators left the site in recent times because they disagree with the direction things are going on the site/network, why do you want to be a moderator? What motivates you to keep cleaning up garbage, when many previous "janitors" felt it's not worth it anymore?

I understand the frustrations that have led many moderators and curators to leave; I share many of those concerns and have been vocal about them. However, I don't see myself giving up. I am deeply invested in this community, constantly learning from both the technical and non-technical aspects of being here. I still believe this platform is worth fighting for and maintaining. As I don't foresee a 'magical tool' emerging soon to replace human expertise, our collective (no pun intended) effort as a community remains the best way to ensure the continued existence and quality of the library of knowledge.

4. Community moderators operate under shared principles; however, they are ultimately individual participants. A consensus may form within the team about how to handle discretionary matters not covered by established policies—for example, how to handle a specific kind of flag, or how long of a suspension to issue for some kind of inappropriate behavior. Would you consider this consensus to be binding and, in case you weren’t already doing things that way, adjust accordingly?

I've had disagreements with other curators and moderators before. In some cases, one of the involved parties was convinced by the other side's perspective and adjusted their approach. In other situations, we might not fully resolve the differences, even after finding common ground. However, I believe that engaging in back-and-forth actions over disagreements is counterproductive and unwise. If the team has had a reasonable and rational discussion and decided on the best way to handle something—which I trust is how our moderation team operates—then my personal agreement or disagreement becomes secondary. Consensus should be upheld for the sake of consistency and effective moderation.

5. Stack Overflow moderation is a nontrivial time investment due to its scale. Do you think cleaning up Stack Overflow is an appealing way to spend your free time? If so, why? If not, what makes you want to be a moderator anyway? (Copied from this post by Ryan M, originally from 2022 suggested moderator questions.)

I believe I've partially addressed this in my answer to question #3, but to speak directly to spending my free time on moderation: I already do, and I genuinely enjoy it.

While I'd love to address the underlying issues that lead to chaos and noise on the network (and I advocate for features and fixes on Meta), I won't stand by when I see things like NAA posts or NLN comments. My motivation to clean up isn't easily quantifiable, but I can say that, "M-- likes order". For me, contributing to a well-maintained and organized Stack Overflow is an appealing and rewarding way to spend my free time.

6. Stack Overflow sometimes asks moderators to offer feedback on things that they are planning (features, network software changes, etc). This feedback can sometimes alter what Staff does. What do you think about moderators being the "bleeding edge" of feedback, and are you willing to participate?

I am a firm believer in early   feedback. While I understand that not every piece of feedback will result in an immediate change, providing informed input on planned features or experiments (can) significantly increase their chances of success and reduce the risk of disrupting existing workflows. I have consistently offered my "two cents" in the past (as is evident from my meta profiles), and I'll continue to be a proactive source of feedback.

7. The mod team is completely split over a controversial issue. They are cordial with each other, but they disagree over what they should do, and it looks like they'll have to agree to disagree (which wouldn't work out great). How do you handle this?

It is certainly a tough situation when the mod team is completely split on a controversial issue, especially when a consensus isn't forming. As I mentioned in response to question #4, engaging in back-and-forth actions over disagreements is counterproductive and cannot persist.

My approach would be highly case-by-case. For less serious issues, like deleting or not deleting a specific post, I'd be much more lenient to settle for a middle ground or even concede my position for the sake of team cohesion and avoiding prolonged deadlock.

However, for more serious issues with significant community impact, I'd likely hold my ground if I felt strongly about the correct course of action. In such cases, the goal shifts from immediate consensus to ensuring the right decision/precedent for the community in the long run, even if that means extended discussion or seeking external guidance. Cody's conduct regarding the election incident is a great example of this, demonstrating the importance of upholding principles on critical matters, and that's an approach I'd aim to adopt.

8. Do you have any particular philosophies on moderation or curation that might set you apart from other candidates? (Copied from this post by D.W., originally from 2024 suggested moderator questions.)

Honestly, no! We've been talking about the importance of consensus and coherence, and I don't believe an entirely new approach is needed, nor would it be productive. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. For years, a lot of incidents and issues have come up, and moderators have considered different scenarios and developed sound solutions and strategies. While everyone will naturally have a slightly different approach for practical cases, the underlying principles don't need to change.

Let me give you an example: I believe in conserving valuable content and not deleting posts with historical significance, and I think all moderators generally share that philosophy. However, we might not always agree on the specific significance of a particular post. So, while the "philosophy" is the same, how it translates into action can vary from time to time.

9. While moderators no longer have a huge backlog of flags related to AI generated posts, plenty of AI generated content is still being posted and flagged on daily basis. What is your stance on AI generated and assisted content and are you willing to handle such flags?

I fully support the current policy on AI-generated content (AIGC) and am definitely willing to handle flags related to it; I've already been dealing with them, to an extent, within Discussions.

There are multiple reasons for not allowing AIGC on the network, and these reasons are independent of whether one is generally for or against using AI:

LLMs can generate "answers" in a matter of seconds and there is no guarantee that the user asking the question has the expertise to verify the answer; and there's no reliable way for moderators to verify each of these answers, as we aren't subject matter experts in every technology. Furthermore, such content is not the work of the person posting the answer, which makes it a form of plagiarism. And honestly, why would I want an answer from an LLM posted on Stack Overflow?! If I wanted that, I could go and ask a chatbot myself. Finally, even if you believe LLMs are superior to any subject matter expert, you should still be against AIGC on Stack Exchange websites. You certainly wouldn't want LLMs to be trained on their own output, creating a detrimental feedback loop.

10. As an elected moderator, you can have an outsized impact on the community as a thought leader aside from the typical clean-up/moderation tasks. A diamond next to your name can lend weight or a sense of validity to your ideas, stances, and reactions. Do you plan to be a thought leader? If so, how would you seek to use your influence?

    Additional Context: Being a moderator means more than just getting expanded powers to do things like cast binding votes, delete comments, and issue suspensions. It also means that people tend to look to you as a thought leader. People may vote for you based on what they already know about how and what you think (and I suppose asking this question just reinforces that), but you'll also gain leverage with a diamond—like being a weak magnet, subtly aligning iron filings around you. Is there anything in particular you'd want to do with that expanded influence?

I'm not entirely comfortable with the "thought leader" sentiment. I absolutely understand that a diamond next to my name brings additional responsibility and weight to my actions and opinions. So, I'll certainly be extra careful with how I express my views as a moderator, though I don't believe I've been careless so far. I'll continue to challenge myself, read existing posts, hone my ideas, and discuss them with others before putting them "out" there. My goal isn't to lead thoughts, but to contribute thoughtfully and carefully.

1. 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?

First, I appreciate anyone who produces high valuable content in this website. Since sometimes I'm the person who is searching for an answer but also sometimes I'm answering questions. So, i have been at the both ends, and being respectful in the comments towards new users or even existing users is very important as it promotes a relaxed environment under a specific tag for everyone to ask high quality questions and get good answers.

As a moderator, I would talk to the person privately and ask him to limit the arguments in the comment section and only focus on provide good quality answers. If that didn't work, then i would need to give that user a timed suspensions after giving them multiple chances.

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

I would discuss it with the moderator privately to get his point of view in the question. I'll also share my point of view with them and then would reflect on it. As i might also be mistaken and they might be right in the decision to close or delete it.

3. Given many moderators and curators left the site in recent times because they disagree with the direction things are going on the site/network, why do you want to be a moderator? What motivates you to keep cleaning up garbage, when many previous "janitors" felt it's not worth it anymore?

I understand some people might get burn out or disagree in the direction that Stack overflow is going, but personally I'm nominating myself because I believe that the community here can still provide great value and also because I benefited just like everyone else. I'm at a place now were not only I want to contribute by providing answers but also by moderating and making sure we are still a community that is growing and that is welcoming to new users.

4. Community moderators operate under shared principles; however, they are ultimately individual participants. A consensus may form within the team about how to handle discretionary matters not covered by established policies—for example, how to handle a specific kind of flag, or how long of a suspension to issue for some kind of inappropriate behavior. Would you consider this consensus to be binding and, in case you weren’t already doing things that way, adjust accordingly?

Yes I believe it should be binding, since as moderators we need to be consistent in our practice. But ofcourse if i disagree in a situation then I would raise my concern internally and see what other moderators in the team think about that. But even in that, I would still follow the normal moderation flow until we reach an agreement regarding any changes after my concerns had been discussed internally.

5. Stack Overflow moderation is a nontrivial time investment due to its scale. Do you think cleaning up Stack Overflow is an appealing way to spend your free time? If so, why? If not, what makes you want to be a moderator anyway? (Copied from this post by Ryan M, originally from 2022 suggested moderator questions.)

It's not about being "appealing", but more about giving back to the community that has given us alot over the years. I don't see this as a chore, but as a way to protect a platform that helped me grow over the years.

6. Stack Overflow sometimes asks moderators to offer feedback on things that they are planning (features, network software changes, etc). This feedback can sometimes alter what Staff does. What do you think about moderators being the "bleeding edge" of feedback, and are you willing to participate?

Ofcourse I would be willing to participate in giving feedback, as the future of the website is important to me and it's important to the dev community. So I see it as my duty to offer feedback that would help the Staff. But i also would ask the Staff to ask the other active members of the community on Meta about their feedback, since in that way we can build a community that care about the future of Stack overflow.

7. The mod team is completely split over a controversial issue. They are cordial with each other, but they disagree over what they should do, and it looks like they'll have to agree to disagree (which wouldn't work out great). How do you handle this?

I would try to understand why there is a disagreement, and then act accordingly. So if the disagreement is about a mod action toward a specific user. First, i would check if them mod is following along the moderation guidelines and not acting on his own decisions or thinking. Then if the specific mod is actually following the guidelines, i would see why they would disagree and discuss it internally and ask for staff input if needed.

But if a moderator had done some action, that is against the moderation guideline in that case i would also disagree because it's important for us as moderators to stay consistent in our work toward the community.

8. Do you have any particular philosophies on moderation or curation that might set you apart from other candidates? (Copied from this post by D.W., originally from 2024 suggested moderator questions.)

I'm not sure about that in all honestly. My philosophy would be first to follow the moderation guideline and then if i think that some guidelines need to be changed or we as moderators need to be acting in a different way toward the community, then in that case i would discuss that and see if we can have a different approach to the community.

9. While moderators no longer have a huge backlog of flags related to AI generated posts, plenty of AI generated content is still being posted and flagged on daily basis. What is your stance on AI generated and assisted content and are you willing to handle such flags?

I'm not against not using AI at all if it is done in a proper way. I don't mind if someone asks a question and then the answerer would check it using AI and give his own customized answer. So for example if an answerer usually answers under a specific tag and he saw a question in which he didn't understand a certain part of the code or a certain library, then in that case if the answerer checks AI to get the full picture and then tries it locally and answers then it's okay, but I suspect not many would be doing that.

What's not okay, is just copying an answer from AI and pasting it here, because in my opinion what makes Stack overflow unique compared to using AI is the humanly touch and interaction that we would have between questioner and the answerer. Therefore I support ban that was done [AI ban](Policy: Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) is banned) as currently it's very hard to verify if the user is actually using AI in the proper way that I specified above.

10. As an elected moderator, you can have an outsized impact on the community as a thought leader aside from the typical clean-up/moderation tasks. A diamond next to your name can lend weight or a sense of validity to your ideas, stances, and reactions. Do you plan to be a thought leader? If so, how would you seek to use your influence?

    Additional Context: Being a moderator means more than just getting expanded powers to do things like cast binding votes, delete comments, and issue suspensions. It also means that people tend to look to you as a thought leader. People may vote for you based on what they already know about how and what you think (and I suppose asking this question just reinforces that), but you'll also gain leverage with a diamond—like being a weak magnet, subtly aligning iron filings around you. Is there anything in particular you'd want to do with that expanded influence?

Honestly I'm not aiming to be a thought leader in a traditional sense. I just care about this community, it helped me grow as a developer and i would to give back to the community in a way that would feel meaningful and helpful! If a moderator badge gives my words more weight, then i would encourage calm and honest conversations, especially when things are getting tense or political. I would like to encourage new users to contribute and also guide them on how to contribute in a good and meaningful way so they feel included in the community and so it keeps growing.

1. How to handle user with helpful answers but problematic comments?

I have no reservations with confronting problematic users. Arguments aren't necessarily bad and flags can be incorrectly submitted. Never be disrespectful. Focus on the content and the behavior, not the user. I have had an SME rudely engage me (as a non-mod), and I reminded them (without needing to mod flag) that their activity is too valuable to lose to a suspension. Suspension is necessary when reasoning fails.

2. How to deal with another moderator's closure you disagree with?

This has already happened several times. If the argument is a deadlock with both parties having valid points, additional parties should be invited to weigh in until some tie-breaker is found. Generally, I prefer to be consultative. I don't always need to win, but I do like to be heard. With every discussion I recalibrate my philosophies.

3. Why be a moderator despite others quitting over site direction?

Regardless of SO's bleak future, I enjoy doing tedious and thankless chores. Perhaps I curate everyday for the simple fact that so few do. I've been tirelessly laboring alongside fellow curators and moderators for years, I understand the slog and the expectations.

4. Would you adhere to moderator team consensus on discretionary issues?

I know many of the moderators on some level and none of them are foolish. I cannot imagine a scenario where I am unshakably opposed to a consensus. We all inherently want good things for this platform.

5. Is moderating Stack Overflow a good use of free time?

Good use or not, I've been doing hours of non-mod curation every week for years, promoting those efforts to the diamond level just feels like a natural progression.

6. How do you feel about providing early feedback and participating?

Yes, moderators should be a trusted bridge between the community and Stackers.

7. How to handle when the moderator team is split on an issue?

There is always a tie breaker somewhere. As programmers, we are all problem solvers by nature. Break it down, talk it out (with the community, if desirable), research if relevant, find common ground, minimize harm.

8. What unique moderation or curation philosophies set you apart?

I have spent weeks doing what I call "heap curation". I don't know anyone else doing this.
Heap Curation 1 and Heap Curation 2
I'll drop some more of my opinions in the election chat room.

9. What is your stance on AI-generated content and flags?

AI generated content does more harm than good.

10. Will you use moderator status to influence as thought leader?

When I was a Joomla Stack Exchange moderator, I attended IRL events and advocated for JSE engagement because the community was underdeveloped. With Stack Overflow, the community is already larger than I can effect personally. If the opportunity arises for me to thought-lead, I will do so. Generally, I plan to employ servant-style leadership. If I can encourage other users to do good things, then I am performing well (this is how you scale goodness).

1. 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?

In general, I'd provide feedback illustrating undesirable patterns in their behaviour, appreciate whatever positive intent I see behind it, and suggest ideas for more constructive behaviours with reference to the Code of Conduct. I'd also warn of escalation if the undesirable patterns continue.

But, I don't think I'd plan or take that action alone- at least- not the first few times. Mod messages are sent on behalf of the mod team. I'd want to discuss this with at least one other mod so it's not just me judging those many arguments and suggesting changes in behaviour.

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

I'd ask them about it, share my thoughts, and ask to hear theirs. Maybe they did it by mistake. Maybe I have something to learn, or my mind will be changed about something.

3. (and 5.) [What motivates you to keep cleaning up Stack Overflow given the non-trivial time investment, when many previous "janitors" feel that it's not worth it anymore?]

I could preach the value of what we do here, but all I have to say there is pretty standard. On a personal level,

• I feel invested / attached. I'm proud of my contributions, and I enjoy being in the company of some of the people I've met along the way. I look forward to more of that.
• There are certain things I enjoy tidying up and this is one of them (I don't know what the pattern is; tangentially, I do know that I like patterns, technology, and wiki-like information resources).

4. Would you consider [moderator consensus on how to handle discretionary matters not covered by established policies] to be binding and [...], adjust accordingly?

Given the pre-condition of consensus, in general, I don't see why I wouldn't. That's how I already operate when it comes to the moderation activities I currently perform:

• I try to read up on rules, guidance, and norms, interpret as best as I can, and align myself to them.
• When I don't understand why something is done in a certain way, I ask.
• When someone tells me I'm doing something wrong, I try to learn why, and then adjust (there have been some hard-to-swallow pills, but I think I've come out better from taking them).
• When I feel convinced that there's a better way, or think I have a compelling alternative, I propose it and seek feedback and others' points of view.

6. Stack Overflow sometimes asks moderators to offer feedback on things that they are planning [...]. What do you think about moderators being the "bleeding edge" of feedback, and are you willing to participate?

It's important, and you can count on me to speak my mind.

I ask design questions- especially where I see gaps in preparation, or non-robust assumptions. I seek transparency of analysis and offer my own data analysis. I suggest considerations for community and platform health. I warn about potential negative consequences of changes. I care about the details (sometimes more than others think necessary). I advocate for the foundational goals and overarching methodology of this platform.

I take my analysis a layer deeper than most people go. I can be forceful and opinionated, but I think deeply more than I react. I intend to work on gentler and more effective delivery these coming years.

If you want to see what my feedback looks like historically, read my meta posts :)

• MSE search: user:997587 [announcement]
• MSO search: user:11107541 [announcement]

Aside: I also beta-tested and offered feedback for Staging Ground.

7. The mod team [disagrees over how to handle a controversial issue] and it looks like they'll have to agree to disagree [...]. How do you handle this?

I feel like I can't give a personally satisfying answer without a more concrete example. If you want to give me one in chat, please do.

Depending on the issue, I might suggest raising discussion on meta to seek community input. Otherwise, I think I'd just agree to disagree. The reality is that mods are a diverse bunch. Everyone's people, and people can disagree- each side with good intentions. This community itself is diverse and has plenty of its own disagreements.

I'd ask myself what I personally believe is best for this site and its users. If you want to see what that looks like, read some of my recent meta posts or talk to me in chat.

8. Do you have any particular philosophies on moderation or curation that might set you apart from other candidates?

I don't know! My general approach to moderation has been to seek to understand how and why things are done, and follow that (see my answer to question #4). But throw me some conversation-starters in chat and I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

9. What is your stance on AI generated and assisted content and are you willing to handle such flags?

I support the ban on AI-generated content (AIGC). It prevents behaviours and content antithetical to this platform's core goals. We want useful Q&A with minimal noise. Ex. LLMs at their core are language generators- not truth communicators.

If "assisted" means the content author used AI more like a research tool and wrote the post themselves and followed our referencing requirements where applicable, then to me, this is comparable to what I do when I do research via web to answer questions. If you want more clarity on my personal thoughts, find me in chat. In any case, I support the existing ban.

I did some heuristic development work last year that I'm quite proud of (during a period when I had relatively much more spare time). I'm definitely willing to handle AIGC flags and continue advancing my prior development work. It'd just have to be at a slower pace. I don't have as much free time now, and it's not easy work!.

10. As an elected moderator, you can have an outsized impact on the community as a thought leader [...]. If [you plan to be one], how would you seek to use your influence?

I suggested this question and... it's a hard one. Really because some of the things I now want to model are things that I only recently started wanting to be.

• I want to speak with more gentleness. The reality is that I'm not there yet. I'm often blunt. I don't think that's wrong, but I appreciate it when others speak gently with me, so I want to try becoming more like that. I hope to become to others a bit of what I see in people like Spevacus, Mithical, Journeyman Geek, Ryan M, and others I look up to when it comes to communication.

I have more thoughts about this question, but haven't really fleshed them out. Apologies!

Thanks for reading this, and once more, please don't hesitate to come chat with me :)

Bonus FAQ from the comment section:

[Why do you downvote so much, and upvote so little?]

I mentioned that I find satisfaction in seeking out and handling patterns of issues, right? I downvote a lot because I downvote textbook cases of bad content that should be removed (like non-answers), and I encounter a lot of that because I actively seek it out (like by monitoring /tools/new-answers-old-questions).

I generally only upvote posts that are personally useful to me. I have a feeling I enjoy reading docs more than the average person, which maybe makes me benefit less often from Q&A here. On the flip side, I've used that trait of mine to contribute many answers that others have found useful. For whatever it's worth to you, I cast upvotes way more than the average user.