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?

Oh, you mean someone like that Rand al'Thor guy who hung around here 10 years ago? :-)

Seriously, I do think that having been on both sides of the railway tracks, so to speak, has helped to make me a more effective moderator. Often, I can understand the viewpoint of problem users, which sometimes helps in getting them to understand my viewpoint as a moderator who needs them to act within the rules of the site. Over on my first mod site of SFF, I still remember proudly a couple of occasions where someone was ranting angrily on meta and I managed to get them to calm down without needing to resort to suspensions.

So yeah, that would be my first attempt in dealing with such a user, assuming there were no blatant CoC violations like direct abuse towards another user etc. If trying to make them see sense fails, I'd start mod messaging, and perhaps (after discussion with fellow mods) suspending the user if they failed to improve their behaviour. To summarise all of this more succinctly: communication to share viewpoints, if possible, before escalating to disciplinary measures only if necessary.

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

Have a talk with them to figure out why our opinions differ. I think I'm pretty good at understanding other people's points of view, although I don't know how good I am at explaining my own, so at least I'd be able to understand the reason for closure/deletion. If possible, I'd like such discussions to be in public, unless there's a particular reason for them not to be (e.g. sockpuppets detected via PII), so that the whole community can weigh in with their opinions on site scope and how a particular post fits into it.

3. Why do you want to be a moderator on PSE? What do you appreciate about the site, and what would you change if you were able to?

PSE has been a significant part of my life for over a decade, and I've learned a huge amount from being here. What I most appreciate is the incredible creativity and brilliance that goes into many of the puzzles here. If I were given a magic wand to change one thing about the site, I'd probably implement this feature-request - or maybe do something about the attribution close reason (on which more below).

4. How have you been involved in moderation issues in the past? Have you helped edit posts, been active in review queues, or provided help on meta, for example? How do you see your current moderation activity changing if you step into a more official and powerful role?

As mentioned in my nomination above, I've been one of the most active non-diamond moderators for the last 10 years:

• #1 all-time reviewer in all queues except Suggested Edits where I'm #2;

• #3 all-time voter;

• #2 all-time editor;

• #1 all-time helpful flagger (over 3000);

• #1 all-time most active user on meta.

If I get a diamond here, I might become less active in reviewing Close/Reopen Votes (due to not wanting to make binding decisions), but I could probably continue participating much as before in the other review queues. Obviously my flagging activity would decrease if I were on the other end of the flags, but I'd continue voting and editing much as before.

5. We have a very well used site-specific closure reason for puzzles lacking proper attribution. This is the most common site rule for new users to trip over. Often it is 100% obvious that a question posted in good faith lacks proper attribution. How will you treat these questions? If you encounter the question soon after posting, with few or zero votes to close, would you use your moderator super-vote to hammer the question closed? Or would you leave it open and simply comment to ask for attribution? Or something else?

I may as well admit that I personally don't like this close reason: I've always argued on meta that, if a puzzle isn't plagiarised (pretending to be self-made when it isn't) and isn't a cheat attempt (from an ongoing contest), there's no urgent need to close it just for failing to cite the precise source. As a moderator, of course I would uphold site policy and put my own personal feelings aside, but I'm not sure how fast I'd be able to bring myself to use a modhammer to unilaterally close such questions. I tend to feel that if there's any possible doubt, it's not fair to close a puzzle that might have been self-created, just because closers think it looks like it lacks attribution. Commenting to ask for attribution is something I already do, and probably I'd be able to bring myself over time to start close-hammering such questions (especially if they're obviously low-effort posts like screen grabs from IQ tests or such).

6. What are your most active tags as a poster currently - or in other words, what kind of puzzles do you specialise in creating or solving? Are there some types of puzzles that you wouldn't feel competent to deal with, if moderation issues arose that required subject matter expertise?

I'm the only person who has a gold tag badge in all of the top 4 tags (riddle, maths, logical-deduction, word), so I'm pretty much a generalist. In real life, I'm a professional mathematician, and I've always been a voracious reader and lover of wordplay, so I can deal easily with most types of puzzles. My blind spot is computer puzzles - I'm not tech-savvy at all, have no knowledge of programming, and have no hope of getting even a bronze tag badge in that area. But, this being Stack Exchange, most people around do have at least some programming knowledge, including I think both of the current mods, so I'm not too worried about computer puzzles going unmoderated here if I'm elected.

7. What is your communication style online? Even though tone/emotions are not always conveyed accurately through text, do you make sure to convey politeness to the other user as accurately as possible?

I found the answers to this main meta post very interesting and instructive. From the bounties I've awarded there and their relative sizes, you can figure out something about my strategy to communicate politely at all times: know when to disengage; don't overinflate the importance of internet arguments, and use the smallest tool that is sufficient to solve a problem; don't live on the internet; don't be pointlessly negative; and consider waiting before responding. I also like this reference (from a former Puzzling mod!): always try to speak in a way that satisfies at least two of true, necessary, and kind.

8. Since the previous moderator election happened, the introduction of generative AI has greatly changed the landscape of creating and solving puzzles, and while the arguments at the time stated it wasn't much of an issue as the models of the time couldn't solve most of the site's puzzles or generate solvable puzzles, newer models have changed that. What's your position on generative AI content? If a user makes a post that is confirmed (via the moderator-private strong or weak indicators) to be generated by AI, would you support deleting it on sight? Any difference on handling AI-generated puzzles vs. solutions? What if an AI-generated puzzle has gotten one or more good non-AI attempts to solve it?

This isn't really something that a single mod can decide on; it needs at least a mod team discussion, and probably a public meta discussion. That said, a few thoughts:

• Using tools to create puzzles isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the human posting the puzzle is sure that it's valid and solvable. (When I asked this question, I'd actually assumed that people would answer with tools they used to create puzzles, rather than by-hand methods.) If a puzzle was created with AI assistance but is still a genuine and decent puzzle, I wouldn't necessarily vote to ban all such puzzles.

• AI-generated answers are a total fun destroyer. Allowing people to just generate solutions by AI would take all the fun out of puzzle solving, which is supposed to be a skill that's both difficult and enjoyable to learn. I think I would support deleting all answers that were confirmed to be produced by AI, in the same way as answers that were found by some other form of "cheating" (e.g. the answerer knows the asker IRL, or helped the asker with creating the puzzle in a private chat, etc.).

Once again, these are just a few musings, and I'm far from an expert on AI, so I'm very open to having my opinion swayed by more information or better arguments.

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 an informal chat, then a formal moderator message, then a suspension. I would always emphasize communicating what the problem was and talking through options. As a non-elected power user I've headed off potentially problematic behavior plenty of times via polite comments. But if the issue persists, there has to be consequences. Puzzling is a fun site. It's where a lot of us come to enjoy delightful puzzles. A single user shouldn't be allowed to ruin the environment.

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

Chat in the public Sphinx's Lair. If we can't come to an agreement, take it to meta. I believe in my ability to explain my reasoning and change my mind if the other side is better-explained. Any situations on-site that I have doubts over, I already bring up in the Lair. It’s a great place to bounce ideas off of.

3. Why do you want to be a moderator on PSE? What do you appreciate about the site, and what would you change if you were able to?

Why do I want to be a mod? Besides that all my internet colleagues harried me into running?

Joking aside, I love Puzzling. I especially enjoy helping other people have fun here. That’s why I already gladly tidy up around the edges to keep the site running smoothly. I want to be a mod to have a little more janitorial power. I don't have any major issues with the site except maybe wanting better formatting in spoilers.

4. How have you been involved in moderation issues in the past? Have you helped edit posts, been active in review queues, or provided help on meta, for example? How do you see your current moderation activity changing if you step into a more official and powerful role?

How have I been involved in moderation? All of the above! Just check out my recent activity; in recent years, I have been the most active curator on the site. If I somewhat lack reviews completed, it’s because I encounter/moderate posts on the site itself, which disqualifies me from reviewing.

Most of my work wouldn't change. I'd keep editing, commenting, voting, etc. If anything, my public curation would decrease: I'd avoid using my binding vote (e.g. for closing) unless I was 100% sure. Instead I would just comment and/or post in chat.

5. We have a very well used site-specific closure reason for puzzles lacking proper attribution. This is the most common site rule for new users to trip over. Often it is 100% obvious that a question posted in good faith lacks proper attribution. How will you treat these questions? If you encounter the question soon after posting, with few or zero votes to close, would you use your moderator super-vote to hammer the question closed? Or would you leave it open and simply comment to ask for attribution? Or something else?

If there's reasonable doubt about originality, I’d comment and link to the attribution policy. If it seems like there's some effort put into it (recent example, though my initial comment is now deleted), then I'll comment and give it a little time for the OP to come back. But if I’m 100% sure that a puzzle is non-original & lacks attribution, I’ll close-vote and comment, e.g.:

Welcome to Puzzling, take our [tour]! We require puzzles to include [proper attribution](https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7259/). Therefore, I'm closing this question temporarily. But don't panic! Once you [edit] in attribution, please ping me, and I'll reopen the question immediately. 

6. What are your most active tags as a poster currently - or in other words, what kind of puzzles do you specialise in creating or solving? Are there some types of puzzles that you wouldn't feel competent to deal with, if moderation issues arose that required subject matter expertise?

I enjoy crosswords/cryptic-crosswords and grid-deduction. But I post only a few times a year nowadays, so that's largely irrelevant. I’m not competent with mathematics. Thus I don’t use the "math problem" close reason: I am not qualified to judge the line. Gareth and Deusovi, on the other hand, are great at math puzzles, so no worries there.

7. What is your communication style online? Even though tone/emotions are not always conveyed accurately through text, do you make sure to convey politeness to the other user as accurately as possible?

I clearly and directly state my reasoning, always assuming good intent. I might end with a possible action item prefaced by "Please" (e.g. "Please read ‘How to Answer’" or "Please edit in proper attribution"). If it's clear a conversation isn't going anywhere, I disengage, and then possibly call for an outside opinion. It takes two to tango. I don't want a helpful explanation to turn into a heated argument.

Check out my comment history for examples. (Though, I clean up my own comments once they get responses, so not everything is still visible.)

8. Since the previous moderator election happened, the introduction of generative AI has greatly changed the landscape of creating and solving puzzles, and while the arguments at the time stated it wasn't much of an issue as the models of the time couldn't solve most of the site's puzzles or generate solvable puzzles, newer models have changed that. What's your position on generative AI content? If a user makes a post that is confirmed (via the moderator-private strong or weak indicators) to be generated by AI, would you support deleting it on sight? Any difference on handling AI-generated puzzles vs. solutions? What if an AI-generated puzzle has gotten one or more good non-AI attempts to solve it?

"Newer models have changed that" needs a citation. GenAI models can spit out solutions to some puzzles (especially old chestnuts that are all over the ‘net) but not all (try a cryptic clue; it's really funny). For other puzzles, they can sometimes get lucky.

An analogy: ChatGPT is like your weird Uncle Bob. Uncle Bob goes on semi-random rants whenever given a prompt. If you show Uncle Bob a puzzle and then copy his answer word-for-word, even if it happens to luckily be correct, you haven’t really engaged with the puzzle. Puzzling as a site is at its best when it facilitates genuine, original, carefully-planned puzzles which receive genuine, original, well-reasoned answers. Giving Uncle Bob’s answer breaks that social contract.

As for questions…we've had puzzles formatted by genAI, and that’s fine if credit is given. On the other hand, the latest puzzle generated by AI was a duplicate of an old chestnut, and was thus summarily closed for being a duplicate. (Don’t ask Uncle Bob for puzzles either. He just mushes together stuff he heard before and tries to pass it off as his own.) I support treating genAI questions by their merits.

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?

This is situational, but I would just gently remind them as soon as possible that their behaviour is a downwards trend.

Feedback should also ideally be constructive where possible, not just "hey, I noticed you said X," but to also say, "consider that Y would fit better to avoid misunderstanding", this of course requires discretion.

If they continue in that manner, despite multiple warnings we can then start to go down the typical further escalation points.

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

There may be a simple misunderstanding, and I recognise that either party might be right, but the best way forward is to first understand why the other mod did what they did; ask the other mod to clarify.

Since it's closed or deleted, there shouldn't be any urgency to act right now, so I'm happy to wait a reasonable time for their explanation.

3. Why do you want to be a moderator on PSE? What do you appreciate about the site, and what would you change if you were able to?

I love puzzles, they've always fascinated me from a young age, I appreciate the high standards and the approachable community here.

I desire make the community much more welcoming for new users and convey the rules of the site with as much clarity as possible. If given the opportunity, I would make the welcoming process much smoother so that every member feels happy to contribute.

4. How have you been involved in moderation issues in the past? Have you helped edit posts, been active in review queues, or provided help on meta, for example? How do you see your current moderation activity changing if you step into a more official and powerful role?

I help fight spam across Stack Exchange on occasion, As I said before I'm a member of Charcoal - a community team who designed a bot to detect spam on SE. I have been active in review queues also, when they still have things in them.

If I were to step into a more official and powerful role, as a moderator I would try to work effectively with the existing moderators, helping lessen any burdens on the existing mods where help is needed, and co-operating as much as possible.

5. We have a very well used site-specific closure reason for puzzles lacking proper attribution. This is the most common site rule for new users to trip over. Often it is 100% obvious that a question posted in good faith lacks proper attribution. How will you treat these questions? If you encounter the question soon after posting, with few or zero votes to close, would you use your moderator super-vote to hammer the question closed? Or would you leave it open and simply comment to ask for attribution? Or something else?

Puzzling Stack Exchange, along with the other SE Network sites, all have a Tour and Help Centre, since I'm already familiar with the Tour and Help Centre's content, I'd make sure that the user is at least introduced to that. I'd rather make sure that we both know what's right and expected from us before coming down hard. If said user choses to continue to ignore the rules many times, then since I've already given them multiple opportunities, I'd be more willing to use a "super-vote" in the case of deliberate bad-intent.

6. What are your most active tags as a poster currently - or in other words, what kind of puzzles do you specialise in creating or solving? Are there some types of puzzles that you wouldn't feel competent to deal with, if moderation issues arose that required subject matter expertise?

My most active tags as a poster would be logic and mathematics and computer science, and I would typically delegate riddles and less clearly defined problems to someone else.

7. What is your communication style online? Even though tone/emotions are not always conveyed accurately through text, do you make sure to convey politeness to the other user as accurately as possible?

Emoticons can only help convey a tiny fraction of the missing social cues. It helps to view both sides of view, and to remain calm, even if the other person is or becomes aggressive, and to use clear language.

8. Since the previous moderator election happened, the introduction of generative AI has greatly changed the landscape of creating and solving puzzles, and while the arguments at the time stated it wasn't much of an issue as the models of the time couldn't solve most of the site's puzzles or generate solvable puzzles, newer models have changed that. What's your position on generative AI content? If a user makes a post that is confirmed (via the moderator-private strong or weak indicators) to be generated by AI, would you support deleting it on sight? Any difference on handling AI-generated puzzles vs. solutions? What if an AI-generated puzzle has gotten one or more good non-AI attempts to solve it?

Woah there, so much question! [sic] I'm only a human. ;) I do agree that the rate of acceleration of AI is astonishing, I don't know what exactly is meant by moderator-private strong or weak indicators, so here's a general answer: Jude each post by the other non ai indicators first, and if there's nothing else wrong with it, (which even if a perfect AI generates perfect text, it might plagiarise a bit) then proceed with caution.