- 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?
Any action taken must be proportionate to the relevance, validity and severity of the arguments and flags. If the dispute is irrelevant to the question or site policies the comments can be removed or moved to a chatroom. Assuming the flags are raised in good faith, these arguments would most commonly be due to a prolific answerer disputing the truth or validity of a certain post.
I would ask both sides to remain calm and remind them of the Code of Conduct. On-topic discussions are encouraged on this site so the discussions can stay as long as they are not excessive in length and non-insulting. Otherwise, I would explain the relevant guidelines to the answerer (and why they are there in the first place). Future violations of guidelines would be handled by warnings and penalties such as a temporary suspension, according to consensus and the SE framework.
Evidently the list above is not exhaustive and working on a case-by-case basis is something that moderators are expected to be able to do well. While the answers of the user are very welcome and appreciated, their behaviour must be treated in the same way as any other user on this site.
- How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?
I would discuss the case with the moderator(s) involved which can be done either in the public Operations Research chatroom or our moderator-only room. This would involve sharing our opinions on the status of that question and whether it fits within our site's guidelines and policies. Our meta site is always available to generate a wider discussion when it is deemed conducive to a resolution.
- In your opinion, what do moderators do?
As a current moderator, I have been accustomed to the key roles a moderator should take part in, such as maintaining a positive community and respecting users; resolving flags; tackling review queues; participating in our meta site, editing posts and tags. To continue my moderating position means that I can keep doing all of these things efficiently.
- 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?
(on a more serious note, I believe my answer to Question 3. covers this sufficiently, as there is no fundamental difference between a pro-tempore and a gamma-site moderator.)
- In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?
Moderators are in charge of site policies and direct management of site issues — sometimes involving community managers. They have greater access to site tools involving investigating patterns in the community that may need intervention; these tools have only been used when absolutely necessary. Reputation comes with knowledge (asking/answering questions), but whilst increased reputation comes with increased site privileges, these privileges cannot always fully accomplish tasks which involve exceptional circumstances.