2 Added name
source | link
1
source | link

Do you have any pre-existing conflicts or points of tension with community managers or other moderators? This question draws rationale from this Meta Server Fault thread: Abrupt change in moderation staff

No, I do not.

What do you think Sec.SE's biggest challenge is? (E.g. question/answer quality/quantity, too many/few closures, too many/few questions of a certain type, bad tools/guidance, …) What do you think should be done about this (whether as a moderator, or by other users, or by Stack Exchange staff or anyone relevant)?

I believe we still have some uncertainty around what questions are appropriate for the site, and this results in some questions being closely incorrectly or at least too quickly. Specifically when questions move out of the realm of the theoretical and into the practical, we have an unfortunate tendency to close with prejudice. As to remediation, I think this is exactly what meta is for, and we as a community and as a moderation team should be leaning on this tool more than we currently do in order to provide additional guidance.

There are several proposals for new Stack Exchange sites that would overlap to a debatable extent with this one, in particular: HackOverflow, HackExchange (clearly a duplicate of HackOverflow), and in a different vein Privacy. What do you think of these proposals? Do they reflect different topics that merely overlap? Does their existence betray a lack from Sec.SE's part?

To some extent HackOverflow overlaps with this site, and to some extent it overlaps with ReverseEngineering.SE. I think there's a legitimate place for ReverseEngineering.SE, but for the HackOverflow questions that don't fit there, I think that speaks more to our neglect of some of the practical questions I mentioned earlier than to a need for a new site.

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 confer with the rest of the moderation team. My initial desire would be to ping the user to offer corrective guidance, but I would want to make sure that the mod team was on the same page before speaking on behalf of the 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 it with them, and let them know how I feel, much as I do in the DMZ now.

Do you have prior experience as a moderator, either on Stack Exchange or on an IT Security site?

No, not on StackExchange or an IT Security site. I do have 15 years professional experience building communities (both the software and the communities that use the software) and working with community managers and management teams.

Some have complained that people make close votes too easily. Do you intend to do anything about that?

I try to be careful about closing questions, personally, and vote to leave a fair number open. As I've mentioned in several previous answers, I think more extensive use of our meta site could allow us to offer better guidance to the community on when questions we're currently closing might actually be valuable to the site.

As a moderator on Information Security you will also become a moderator on all of chat.stackexchange.com - which has rooms for most sites (all except Stack Overflow and Meta.StackExchange). A heated discussion is flagged in "The Suspension" chat room which is associated with BridgeBuilding.stackexchange.com - there is swearing and name calling. What do you do?

I'm not particularly familiar with chat moderation, and I'm not active in that room, so I would probably just put the room in timeout for a minute (I think mods can do that) to allow the mods who know the room and the users to show up and provide more specifically appropriate guidance.

One challenge that Sec.SE experiences is that of repetitive questions for which there could be a canonical answer, but for which there often is no single canonical answer posted. Can you suggest a way for us to improve canonical reference handling of FAQs? The primary example might be new users posting obfuscated PHP code that they found in their Wordpress - there are a handful of good answers in the past, all narrowly focused on the code presented within the question that they answered, but rarely describing the principles and tools of de-obfuscation that would make for a useful canonical answer. New questions rarely receive solid canonical efforts because posters know that there are already many answers out there; old excellent answers get lost in the shuffle among so many of the same type of questions. People are going to keep coming with this question, and others like it - we can't pre-educate newcomers all that well. How can we handle it to both meet their needs and lower the repetitive investment of "good enough here and now" answers?

Well, we know which users have particularly good answers on a particular topic. In some cases it may be as simple as doing a little legwork to reach out to the them, to get them to add canonical answers. In other cases, it may be a good idea to spend the time to aggregate the answers from several different duplicate questions into a community wiki answer on the best question in the vein. In most cases including those about, the answer is that somebody, either a moderator or community member needs to commit to spend the time and energy required to drive the issue to resolution, and time and energy are often the shortest assets in supply in a part-time volunteer community. It might be helpful to be able to flag questions as needing a canonical answer and surface that in a visible and easy to access location, so it can be regularly reviewed and someone could knock one out when the mood strikes.

A question is flagged: Please delete this question – my boss has seen it and says it contains confidential code – he's freaking out and wants me to remove it, but I can't delete it. The question was asked 3 days before, it has 2 answers, one is accepted. How do you respond? I could imagine this might be particularly pertinent on this Stack, where somebody might post security-sensitive information (e.g. passwords hints/policies, crypto details) and land themselves in hot water.

If the information was sensitive enough, I may temporarily delete the question as requested, but in any case it would be escalated to SE staff to permanently redact the sensitive information from the question as the final solution, while leaving the question materially intact.