13

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 10 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.Please 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):

WBT's answers
Confused Soul's answers
Em.'s answers
Nathan Tuggy's answers


  1. What is your view on editing a question to correct grammar and style issues? Do you think we should edit answers differently from questions?

  2. Sometimes people post comments on ELL that attempt to answer a question, in whole or in part. How would you handle these comments?

  3. It is quite often that questions from ELL show up in the Hot Network Questions section and attract quite a lot of (new) visitors. Do you think it is a good thing for the site? What would you do to improve its impact in the form of comments, answers, etc?

  4. 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?

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

  6. What is your view of the draft of the new Code of Conduct? What impact (if any) do you think the change will have on ELL and your responsibilities as a moderator?

  7. When is it justifiable to sanitise a comment? I am not referring to vulgar or offensive language, in those cases it is right that comments be deleted, and the user be given a formal warning. I am referring to comments that some users may find disagreeable (not offensive). Do you believe that a user should be informed when a comment of theirs has been redacted or modified in some way?

  8. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

  9. 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?

  10. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

| |
9

Em.

  1. What is your view on editing a question to correct grammar and style issues? Do you think we should edit answers differently from questions?

I personally believe in preserving the asker's post, unless the grammar and (writing) style mistakes make it very difficult for even fluent and native users to understand. Generally though, I think spelling should always be corrected.

I prefer to preserve the asker's mistakes because when I answer questions, if the asker's fluency seems low, then I'll try to write my answers with small words and simple sentences to make it easier for them to understand. If I can tell the asker is experienced, then I'll write naturally and use more complex sentences. However, I'm not opposed to others editing questions. If they feel in their best judgement that a question warrants editing, then they should do so. I think the current balance we have on ELL is fine.

Unfortunately, there is the possibility that a learner trying to study a particular question cannot understand the question because it was poorly written. Learners are encouraged to ask for clarification and request editing.

As for answers, I think it's agreed that answers are to be models of so-called good English and should therefore always be corrected for grammar and spelling. I assume the question refers to writing style. If the answer is so poorly posed that even experienced users cannot understand it, then it should be restructured into an understandable answer. Otherwise, the style should be left alone.

  1. Sometimes people post comments on ELL that attempt to answer a question, in whole or in part. How would you handle these comments?

For hints, I would just leave them alone. I can understand leaving those as comments. For more full-fledged attempts to answer the question, I would encourage users to post their comments as answers and refer them to the IPS Meta post Please don't write answers in comments for an explanation as to why comment-answers can be harmful. I would also consider posting the comment as a Community Wiki in rare cases. If it's particularly insightful, then it is preserved and beneficial for future readers. If it's incorrect, then it could be down-voted and others could explain why it's wrong.

  1. It is quite often that questions from ELL show up in the Hot Network Questions section and attract quite a lot of (new) visitors. Do you think it is a good thing for the site? What would you do to improve its impact in the form of comments, answers, etc?

I think it's great for the the site. The exposure keeps the site healthy. I think the best thing it does is attract new answerers. I think there will always be a steady stream of learners because they're specifically looking for this kind of site to help them learn English. However, answerers aren't necessarily looking for a place to contribute. They might not realize they can help too. That's how I joined ELL and I'm glad I did.

The only issue I readily see from the exposure is that the comment sections derail into discussions and arguments. In that case, I'd move the discussion to chat, leave a warning, and delete all future comments engaging in discussion or argument. Other than that, I wouldn't do anything differently. I think the site's doing fine as it is now.

  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 would evaluate the comments and flags. Then I would make suggestions to the answerer. For example, if the answerer tends to include some remarks that are opinions and not necessarily relevant to the answer, then I would tell the user to cut those kinds of remarks and try to keep the focus on answering the question.

If the problem seems to be more on the commenters' side, I would delete unnecessary and unconstructive comments. If the problem persists, I would consult the mod team. I would guess that a discussion on ELL Meta would develop.

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

I'd talk to the other mod to get their perspective. If they manage to convince, then the matter is settled. If I disagree, then I would try to support my case with my reasoning or with previous, well-received questions. If we continue to disagree, I would leave it to the community to decide.

  1. What is your view of the draft of the new Code of Conduct? What impact (if any) do you think the change will have on ELL and your responsibilities as a moderator?

I think the new draft is good. It provides a clearer picture of the expected behavior in the communities. It will make moderation easier in two ways. First, I believe it will prevent issues because users will have a better idea of how they're expected to behave. So there will be less to moderate. Second, it provides a clear reference for mods to use when engaging an offending user.

  1. When is it justifiable to sanitise a comment? I am not referring to vulgar or offensive language, in those cases it is right that comments be deleted, and the user be given a formal warning. I am referring to comments that some users may find disagreeable (not offensive). Do you believe that a user should be informed when a comment of theirs has been redacted or modified in some way?

I think it's justifiable to alter comments when the comment was written in good faith, but the commenter unwittingly made a minor mistake. Since the edit was minor, I don't think it would be necessary to inform the user. Other than that, I'm not interested in sanitizing people's opinions or speech. If it clearly goes against our Code of Conduct, then the comment will be deleted. If the comment leads to a discussion, then the discussion would be moved to chat. In other cases, I would consult the mod team.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

They help maintain a productive environment for questions and answers. They do so by handling flags, closing and deleting content, and carrying out other administrative tasks. Like A Theory of Moderation says, "moderators are human exception handlers," and that's how I plan act as a mod. They also serve as role models for the community and lead by example.

  1. 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'm fine with that. I'm not particularly chatty, but I do try to intervene from time to time when I think a post could use improvements. As for my answers, they've been generally well-received by the community and could serve as one kind of model for others to emulate. I'm happy with my contributions and would carry myself the same way as a moderator.

  1. 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 able to handle the exceptions quicker than I can now as 30k member. I'll be another pair of vigilant eyes to help the existing mod team when they aren't available to handle the flags.

| |
  • Thanks for filling out the questionnaire! For question #2, why would you send ELL community members to an IPS meta post instead of a post here on ELL's meta like ell.meta.stackexchange.com/q/709? Do you think we need to have a better post explaining why answering in comments is problematic? – ColleenV Jul 15 '18 at 23:12
  • Thanks, @ColleenV. I remember skimming that post and thinking that the focus was a little different. While writing my answer, I had the problematic side on my mind (for example, lack of down-voting) and, as far as I could tell, we didn’t have a similar post dealing with that on ELL Meta. Ideally, we would have our own post, and if we had one, I would link to that instead. – Em. Jul 16 '18 at 0:28
  • 1
    What are all of your previous names, please Em? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 16 '18 at 21:47
  • Good luck, Em.! :) – shin Jul 19 '18 at 13:32
  • Thanks @shin :) – Em. Jul 19 '18 at 18:55
6

I'm Nathan Tuggy, and I approve this message.

  1. What is your view on editing a question to correct grammar and style issues? Do you think we should edit answers differently from questions?

Yes, we should edit them a little differently. Answers should reflect the best possible style that does not conflict with the answerer's intent, and it's rare to intend to use poor style, grammar, or spelling in an answer here. But if the answerer did mean to, for example if they need to explain a dialect that's considered less educated such as AAVE, then "fixing" their answer would not be a good edit.

On the other hand, questions just need to be understandable, since there's no expectation that anyone will learn how to speak or write English by reading them. So it's fine if they have a few quirks, especially if those can either be addressed and corrected by answers along with the main point (with explanations, instead of a quiet fix!), or taken into account when figuring out what background the asker has. In the past, I've rejected edits that were too aggressive in fixing mistakes in questions, but I've also thoroughly rewritten questions that were too hard to understand in their original form.

  1. Sometimes people post comments on ELL that attempt to answer a question, in whole or in part. How would you handle these comments?

I would like to move the site as a whole toward taking answers more seriously and being more careful with comments, which can't be voted on properly, can't be edited, can't have proper comments on them, and so forth. Because of all that, they're unreliable whenever they're used for anything but clarifying. Any time there's anything wrong with them, there are only two ways to fix it: 1) delete the comment (usually by ♦-flag) or 2) post another comment to try to debunk the first, which will hopefully be seen by enough of the people that saw the first one.

But good comment hygiene is something to ease into, as quite a few of our experienced users, including a ♦ mod or two, don't see as much wrong with posting some answers as comments. So I'm not going to go on a comment-deleting spree. I'll just keep politely asking folks to post real answers and checking back in case someone else does, so the comments can be cleaned up.

  1. It is quite often that questions from ELL show up in the Hot Network Questions section and attract quite a lot of (new) visitors. Do you think it is a good thing for the site? What would you do to improve its impact in the form of comments, answers, etc?

I don't believe HNQ is generally a very good thing for the site, or indeed almost any Stack Exchange site, since it draws in large numbers of visitors that have voting abilities but only the most passing interest in English learning. It's especially bad for sites like ELL that look as though just any native speaker is enough of an expert to be able to vote or answer well. I've experienced this myself, visiting sites and voting, then realizing after a while that I probably wasn't knowledgeable enough to actually be helping the site. So I stopped using HNQ years ago.

As a ♦ mod, I will have the tools to clean up bad answers, delete irrelevant comments, or protect questions. I plan to create or adapt some notifications so I can keep on top of questions that are entering the Hot list.

  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'd start out by sending them a mod message to let them know that ELL does not want comments that start quarrels, and doesn't even really want comments that provoke a lot of discussion even if it's not very heated. (I assume there are templates for the purpose, although I don't know the exact catalog of mod message templates off-hand.) If the user was unable or unwilling to tone down their inflammatory comments, then the mod team would need to escalate to suspending them for a little while to stop the immediate problems and allow everyone involved to gain some perspective and cool down. If that still doesn't work, suspending them for longer periods of time is pretty much the only option left. No one can be allowed to keep on routinely provoking others forever.

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

I would talk it over with them in a private chatroom. Hopefully one of us would come around to the other point of view. But if not, then having a general discussion between all the mods would be the next step. It's highly unlikely a single post would be important enough to keep pushing things beyond this point. It's much more important to get broad agreement on trends and patterns and guidelines and value balances than to get every single post handled exactly perfectly.

  1. What is your view of the draft of the new Code of Conduct? What impact (if any) do you think the change will have on ELL and your responsibilities as a moderator?

I have a lot of problems with the CoC draft, most of which have been fairly well explained by others. The largest is probably that it appears to have the wrong idea about what Stack Exchange is for.

ELL is likely to be affected to some degree if the draft is adopted without fixing these issues. However, ELL is much less vulnerable to the issues of scaling and moderation efficiency than SO is, so while the CoC could cause confusion, wasted effort, and some general quality problems, it's unlikely to bring the same risks of moderation breakdown, users refraining from posting any comments, and so forth. If we keep in mind the flawed nature of the draft and exercise good discretion I believe ELL can survive fairly well.

All that said, ELL may be peculiarly vulnerable to another problem: the CoC draft forbids discriminating on the basis of English fluency. Now, obviously, this is a site for people who don't know English very well to learn it. So I don't think we actually have much of a problem with the sane interpretation of this: We don't have people saying "Go learn some English" or sneering at typical Indian English idioms or anything like that. (We have had a few askers try to get answers only from native speakers, but that's already handled well by pretty much all the long-time site users.) But if someone wanted to cause trouble, they could probably stir up some nonsense about how our requirement for learners to post in English, or to use a dictionary instead of asking a question that's just a dictionary lookup, or whatever else is somehow discriminating against some learners who don't have enough skill in English to be able to do those things reliably. Hopefully, we would be able to defend the site against this kind of dishonest attack if it ever came, but even better would be to make sure the CoC doesn't contribute to it.

  1. When is it justifiable to sanitise a comment? I am not referring to vulgar or offensive language, in those cases it is right that comments be deleted, and the user be given a formal warning. I am referring to comments that some users may find disagreeable (not offensive). Do you believe that a user should be informed when a comment of theirs has been redacted or modified in some way?

I'd be very hesitant before editing a comment. If it's very easy to tell where the worthwhile part ends and the lousy stuff begins, I might trim it as cleanly as possible. But otherwise, it's no longer their comment, it's mine, under their name, and no one can tell for sure what they actually said. This is especially important in cases where not everyone would agree that they said something definitely wrong in the first place.

But if I do have to take unusual actions like editing comments, deleting a string of rude comments by the same user, etc, then it's appropriate to send a mod message to let them know that something is wrong with the way they've been acting — and that we aren't just going to sit idle while they do more of that.

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

A little bit of everything. They're inspirational for new and experienced users as the most visible face of the site. They influence the way the site works by their direct actions, their suggestions in comments, their meta posts, their chatting, their answers (and questions). They handle folks who are trying to push the boundaries, who are having a bad day, who are just bad apples, or who are very confused about how everything works on ELL. And they take care of the edge cases where the site machinery doesn't run as smoothly as we'd like.

What they don't do is run the site. Steer a little, sure. Shout some advice. But the site is run by everyone with at least 15 rep.

  1. 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?

In some cases, people will see my posts as being more authoritative, more official, than in the past. That's a little awkward, and it's likely enough that I'll need to clarify one or two things a little bit.

In other cases, people will look at answers I've written and wonder how a ♦ mod could be so wrong. Embarrassing. But even J.R. has written one or two answers I've downvoted, so at least I'm not alone! I'll try to clean up mistakes, learn more about English, and live up to this perception as best I can.

Finally, there may be some times I said something I shouldn't have through impatience or carelessness, although I can't remember any of those. If someone has to flag something I wrote because it was rude, that's a real shame, and I'll apologize for it if this ever comes up, but I believe I've spoken the way a ♦ would need to for years.

  1. 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 briefly held 20k privileges before the site graduated, and while I was able to get somewhat more done than I am now, I still ran into a number of roadblocks. Sometimes I would need to repetitively flag for ♦ mod attention (such as in some cases where a user seemed to be creating multiple accounts to try to evade question bans, or to handle locked migrated questions that should be unlocked), and sometimes I didn't have the information necessary to even tell for sure if it was worth getting a mod involved (if I needed to look at deleted comments or IP usage or anything, that wasn't going to happen).

Also, it's only fair to confess that my current activity on the site is almost entirely moderation, so I'm gaining rep rather slowly. I might be a few good months away from 10k, but reaching 20k is likely to take years more at the rate I'm going at.

Finally, having binding votes and reviews will allow me to quickly take care of some of the more mundane, unexceptional close, reopen, not-an-answer, or very-low-quality cases, leaving the community to exercise good judgement to work out the more unusual cases for the most part.

| |
  • 4
    +1 because I liked your answer to question 2. I feel like you would make the ideal moderator. Good luck! – aesking Jul 16 '18 at 22:12
  • Good luck, Nathan! :) – shin Jul 19 '18 at 13:27
5

WBT

  1. What is your view on editing a question to correct grammar and style issues? Do you think we should edit answers differently from questions?

If the core of the question cannot be understood without editing, or if the focus is obscured, editing for style and grammar is needed. Otherwise, the level of grammar and style issues in the question can help answerers see the asker's level of English language knowledge and frame their answers appropriately to that level of knowledge. The grammar and style issues actually convey useful information. This is relatively unique to ELL.

Stack Exchange (SE) style, like getting line breaks or quotes or numbered/bulleted lists and links right, can be hard, and I'm generally supportive of formatting edits that make the question easier to read especially if it's reasonable to believe the original poster (OP) would have done those things if they were easier or had a more intuitive syntax.

Answerers' level of knowledge could be similarly assessed at first when an OP has no other information by which to assess the credibility of an answer but enough English language knowledge to make that assessment. However, the community assessment via voting and comments should quickly take the place of that, so I'm much more supportive of grammatical edits in answers. However, that doesn't mean I'll spend a lot of time making those edits myself.

  1. Sometimes people post comments on ELL that attempt to answer a question, in whole or in part. How would you handle these comments?

I discourage answering in comments and would respond with a comment requesting that they convert their comment to an answer, with a link explaining the importance of allowing the community to vote a particular answer up AND down AND make comments seeking clarification / offering corrections to the answer. This is important to our community-driven quality control. Comments on the question should be used primarily for seeking clarification about the question. My comments would likely also thank the commenter for their initial contribution and encourage anyone else who's reading to convert the comment to an answer (or incorporate it into an existing answer; example here), with a link to this meta post. The potential rep points could help encourage people to actually make that conversion, while the site still benefits from users who don't want to put in the time to contribute a full answer but know the seed of one.

  1. It is quite often that questions from ELL show up in the Hot Network Questions section and attract quite a lot of (new) visitors. Do you think it is a good thing for the site? What would you do to improve its impact in the form of comments, answers, etc?

I think it's generally a good thing. What I would like to do to improve its impact is to give new-to-ELL people who come in that way (the platform knows this) a bit more of a gentle welcoming tour about what's unique to ELL (as compared to other SE communities, not as compared to other Q&A sites as on the Tour page) and its community norms before they can jump into the conversation.

  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?

Upvote good answers, and add comments explaining what’s good about the answers. This is a positive reinforcement strategy that should help not only that user but others see what they should do, which I think is a lot more helpful to the growth of a site than just shutting down and blocking things folks shouldn’t be doing. It would also send a message to the user that I’m not against them personally, but that critical comments from me focus on specific behaviors and instances.

I would then pick the comments which are most clearly inappropriate and add comments saying so directly, with reason(s) why and links to appropriate meta discussion (or the code of conduct), which importantly acts as a signal to other readers and not just the offender. Once the offending user and maybe others who were affected has clearly read the response, I might delete the original comment (and if it causes my response to lose context, that too). If issues continue, I would recommend the user take a break from the site for a few days voluntarily. If issues still continue, and they are bad enough to have significant negative effects on other users, I would enforce that suggestion with a temporary block of the comment privilege.

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

I’d talk about it with them, in chat, asking them to explain in more detail why they took that action and also explaining in more detail my own differing perspective. I’ve been known to convince others and also to be convinced (change my mind) myself, and have in some cases been in disagreements that led to some creative outcome that wasn’t anybody’s position at the start but which addresses the concerns each person raised. I think I’m generally reasonable and hope the other mods generally are too. This doesn’t mean we won’t disagree - indeed, I hope we have enough diversity on the team that we sometimes disagree - but I do hope it means we’ll be able to discuss and work things out, and I'm quite optimistic on that.

  1. What is your view of the draft of the new Code of Conduct? What impact (if any) do you think the change will have on ELL and your responsibilities as a moderator?

I think it puts a lot more emphasis and explicit weight behind the general "be nice" policy.

I appreciate the SE mission statement in there, and think ELL is a big part of delivering on it: Our mission is to build an inclusive community where all people feel welcome and can participate, regardless of expertise, identity, or language.

In some ways, this will make moderation easier, by having a strong-language general policy that's easy to link to in explaining why a particular comment etc. doesn't fit on this site. Once there are enough reminders and pointers to that policy (not just from mods!) throughout the site, I think it'll make the site a nicer place to be with fewer issues that need mod attention.

  1. When is it justifiable to sanitise a comment? I am not referring to vulgar or offensive language, in those cases it is right that comments be deleted, and the user be given a formal warning. I am referring to comments that some users may find disagreeable (not offensive). Do you believe that a user should be informed when a comment of theirs has been redacted or modified in some way?

After some time, when the user has had a chance to cool down, I think they should be informed of the reason for the change and asked to correct this on their own in the future. In most cases, once people learn how the rules work in this community, good-faith participants will generally work harder to control themselves, and make less work for moderators in the future (so we can deal with new challenges that come up as new users come in).

  1. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

I'm going to answer the question "What do you believe moderators should do?"

I generally agree with the Stack Exchange Theory of Moderation, and see moderation duties as "human exception handling:"

The ideal moderator does as little as possible. But those little actions may be powerful and highly concentrated. Judiciously limiting your use of moderator powers to selectively prune and guide the community -- now that's the true art of moderation.

Dispute mediation is also part of a moderator's job. I see a lot of value in reasoned discussions where even parties who disagree each present the facts they see, the policies they think do or should apply, and the mapping they see between those. I recognize the validity of many views I disagree with, and I think I'd be fair moderating between two or more that I'm not personally invested in.

Note that among the non-mod users of this site with appropriate temperament and minimally sufficient experience, I am probably not the one with the most free time to dedicate to moderating. I hope other good candidates self-nominate. However, in the absence of other well-qualified candidates, I believe my having mod tools would be a net positive to the site, just not as much (time-wise) as what some others might be willing to do. Given snailboat's comment in the chat ("I think we've been handling the flags alright with the existing moderators, but there are times when not all of us can be active, so it'd be better if we had one more moderator to help out, in my opinion."), I don't see this as a major problem.

  1. 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'd be OK with that. I aim to be respectful and make appropriate contributions regardless of my privilege levels.

  1. 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 don't plan to reach top rep levels on this site soon, so the mod tools will enable me to make moderation contributions to this site that I wouldn't otherwise be able to make.

Thank you for reading this far!

profile for WBT on Stack Exchange overall

| |
  • 1
    Thanks for filling out the questionnaire! For #2 what would your approach be if a user ignores your encouragement to convert their comment to an answer and repeatedly answers (let's assume with useful and correct information) in comments? – ColleenV Jul 12 '18 at 11:45
  • 3
    @ColleenV Continue encouraging others to convert that to an answer. The contributor is adding value to the site with the seeds of an answer, and licensed the content to be reused, and the community is better off when that's (a) contributed and (b) explained in the form of an answer. Different people can do (a) and (b) which lowers the barrier to contribution and allows us to accept more value-add from small contributions, which add up to a lot. – WBT Jul 12 '18 at 12:25
  • For #4, while blocking the commenting ability would be great, it's not actually (currently) possible to do without suspending the user from the site entirely. :( – Catija Jul 12 '18 at 15:06
  • @Catija Yes, that's kind of an aspirational solution and a Meta.SE issue. I have upvoted this (not very well-focused) request for the feature; you can too. – WBT Jul 12 '18 at 15:46
-1

Confused Soul

This is my attempt to provide my honest opinion concerning the questions. If they seem unusual, it is because I am answering strictly based on my beliefs, rather than molding them to seem appealing.

What is your view on editing a question to correct grammar and style issues? Do you think we should edit answers differently from questions?

Well, this is an English Learner Site, so part of the identity of the question is the syntax and proficiency of its poser. And since this is a community, then those who ask questions are likely going to provide answers of their own. These answers will come with their own idiosyncratic and sometimes flawed syntax, which is characteristic of the learning process of any language. Editing questions and answers in an English Learning site for grammar is somewhat demeaning in my perspective, as it muffles the learning process in favor of presenting a polished image to the outside observer. Henceforth, I am strongly against editing questions and answers for grammatical purposes. If the question seems unclear, the asker should be prompted to explain and edit it himself/herself, rather than by imprinting grammar externally.

Sometimes people post comments on ELL that attempt to answer a question, in whole or in part. How would you handle these comments?

I encourage participation in all its forms To comment is to express ones' self with a lower risk of criticism and exchange (and downvoting). Perhaps a down-vote comment button should be implemented. However I find the rewards (reputation, and accepting) of posting an answer to outweigh the "risks"and most questions indeed go answered, sometimes incorporating previous comments. Each be to his own method of helping others, it is a matter of getting the answers to those who need it first and foremost.

It is quite often that questions from ELL show up in the Hot Network Questions section and attract quite a lot of (new) visitors. Do you think it is a good thing for the site? What would you do to improve its impact in the form of comments, answers, etc?

Exposure leads to helping more people. Helping more people is good. Therefore exposure is good. Enough said.

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?

This is a classic one. I myself love debate and friendly argument. In the case of that user, in order to solve the problem, we must realize the cause of the problem. Punitive measures are not sufficient. I would personally talk to the user, and inquire about their sentiments concerning their words and comments. Discussion is the key to change, and I would attempt to educate said user on the importance of respectful norms here. Of course, I would not try to alienate them. I would point to sites where more rigorous and heated argument is welcome, and encourage them to use the chat-room option away from main threads. Alternatives and dialogue are key to understanding. Finally, if the user does not cooperate, they are clearly a troll and must be done away with.

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

Dialogue dialogue and more dialogue. Then compromises, compromises, and more compromises. Finally, setting mutual standards and precedents to minimize further disagreements. We are a team that is part of a larger team, and discussion is key to the function of the entire ship.

What is your view of the draft of the new Code of Conduct? What impact (if any) do you think the change will have on ELL and your responsibilities as a moderator?

The "be nice" policy is clearly ineffective as their are plenty of jerks (sorry) flying around stack exchange and belittling other users, especially those less acquainted with the sites. Having a better worded code of conduct provides greater opportunity to enforce role-mode attitudes among everybody. Fortunately our community is relatively free from the toxic that is pervasive in some other exchanges, and as a moderator I will fight to the last flag and comment to keep this so. I will tolerate no attacks on anybody, and no mean spirit in general. I, myself was the target of mockery when I took up my 2nd and 3rd languages, and as moderator I will enforce the new policy to the comma. We are here to learn, and we should enforce a harsher, zero tolerance policy against the bullies who comment for the sake of putting down. Evidence of intent to harm should immediately be punished preferably with a ban.

When is it justifiable to sanitize* (I will not edit your post to correct the spelling keeping with my answer in question 1 :p ) a comment? I am not referring to vulgar or offensive language, in those cases it is right that comments be deleted, and the user be given a formal warning. I am referring to comments that some users may find disagreeable (not offensive). Do you believe that a user should be informed when a comment of theirs has been redacted or modified in some way?

I frankly do not see what you mean by disagreeable if not offensive. In general, anybody is entitled to whatever opinion he/she holds, irrespective of whether others agree. I am against modifying comments, as this borders on encroachment on free speech, provided the comment abides by the guidelines. If it does not, then it is a priority to discuss the root of the issue with the particular user, before resolving the relatively trivial issue of the existence of a comment.

In your opinion, what do moderators do?

My view is that a moderator should first and foremost represent the community. My judgement is derived from YOU, and before I set out to enforce rules and practices that are general to the stack exchange, I enforce rules that are important to you. Yes, this may differ from the "Stack Exchange Theory on Moderation", but a moderator is a position of leadership. And a position of leadership belongs to the people. Therefore I will be honored to moderate in the name of the people first, and then in the name of the stack exchange guidelines. I will serve as a mic for the underrepresented, and make sure none of your words fall on deaf ears, irrespective of reputation or badges. That said, all classic moderator duties stand.

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?

Cool, I like diamonds. I would have preferred a gold star, but a diamond works just as fine. Seriously though, what I say does not differ from the rest of the community; we are equals and I urge the community to ignore the sign and treat my words just like all others' words.

In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?

To accept an answer is to accept its for its content. To vote for a moderator is to accept him/her for his/her character. If I am voted moderator, I will be given the ability by purely the people's perception of me, and will be entitled to carry actions on their behalf, which will spurn me to act, and to act decisively for you.

If you plan to vote for me, I thank you. If not, I thank you double for reading this to the end.

| |
  • 2
    Out of curiousity, why do you think "sanitize" is not correctly spelled? – ColleenV Jul 12 '18 at 23:44
  • ah I see. Quick lookup reveal that’s the way you Brits spell it. My error :p Canadian ethnocentricity clouded my judgement – Confused Soul Jul 13 '18 at 0:07
  • 1
    You're interesting. Sounds like Donald Trump xD. Ehh, but 1 thing I disagree is the 1st one. Grammar matters, because the questions/answers are meant for public view, not individuality. (it's how this site is fundamentally designed) Other than that, I think you're an interesting candidate. I'll vote for you to stir up the establishment :D – XPMai Jul 16 '18 at 12:05
  • Since there are already a few comments about spelling and grammar, I'll throw this in as well: henceforth means from now on (but it probably didn't apply in the past); hence means therefore. Did you mean to say henceforth in your answer to Q1? :) – Lawrence Jul 16 '18 at 13:35
  • 2
    If you mean Trump by anti-establishment, you are right. But I do not in any means endorse discriminatory policies and twitter diplomacy. – Confused Soul Jul 16 '18 at 23:00
  • Thank you Lawrence, I got carried away and incorrectly, in my rush, used henceforth as a portmanteau of therefore and hence. I sincerely thank you for correcting me. – Confused Soul Jul 16 '18 at 23:01
  • I sincerely wish here the number of upvotes are NOT influenced by the number of each candidates' reputation. – user17814 Jul 18 '18 at 15:35
  • I don't understand why people associate you with Trump. Here so conspicuously people see only the reputation. – user17814 Jul 19 '18 at 4:01
  • 1
    Naturally the reputation probably does influence the voting outcome. I am indeed a "political outsider", and if the community is burning for a fresh perspective and autonomy from other exchanges, only then will I be elected. – Confused Soul Jul 19 '18 at 15:42
  • @ConfusedSoul Well, you seem to be under the impression that "sanitize" is the UK spelling. That is incorrect. "Sanitise" is the UK spelling, and "sanitize" is the most common spelling in North America. I don't know where in Canada you are from, but the vast majority of Canadians spell the word as "sanitize". See here. – Eddie Kal Jul 22 '18 at 17:33
  • Yes I, bein Canadian, spell it sanitize as I mentioned in my comment and answer, and acknowledged the UK way is sanitise perhaps you misinterpeted the chat. In all cases it’s interesting to look into these differences and their origins! – Confused Soul Jul 23 '18 at 6:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .