Note: Some of the answers here are copied from my Stack Overflow nomination post and there you can also find answers to some other questions.

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 of all, I think that users have to be treated equally regardless of their reputation or contributions. If the raised flags are valid and the user is clearly violating Code of Conduct, then such a situation would require intervention. First action would be issuing a warning, and then further escalation if necessary.

Having said that, there is a difference between obviously inappropriate behavior and a vested user having a hard time letting go in some discussion that went haywire. Additionally, there is a difference between well intended comments that are a bit rough on the edges, and being openly rude and insulting.

So, my actions would depend on the particular situation and if the user is having a history of similar behavior it could be prudent to check with other mods and collect additional insights.

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

This site is run by community consensus and there will always be differences in opinions on some questions. Most of the time, having slightly different opinion on how some post is being handled does not mean it would require any action on my part. If I would really feel that post is not appropriately handled, then I would first consult with the involved mod and possibly other mods and eventually, if really necessary I would ask Meta for opinion and reach consensus.

During that process, either I would change my mind based on presented arguments, or I wouldn't, but if most of the people think differently, then I am more than happy to accept a majority vote.

However, in situations where there is no consensus and community is divided, moderators can make the final decision. In such situations, doing no harm is priority, particularly with questions where there is no consensus about whether it is on topic or not, and preserving content that has been proven valuable takes precedence over other considerations.

3. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

Moderators are exception handlers: solving disputes, all kinds of abuse and Code of Conduct violations, handling spam, helping regular users in cleaning the site from inappropriate or low quality contributions.

4. 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 am fine with that, and this is nothing new to me since I am already a moderator on Stack Overflow.

When asking or answering questions on the main site, it is somewhat unfortunate that moderators have their diamond attached as that content should stand on its own merit and judging it should not be based on the diamond.

5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching enough reputation to access moderator tools or become a trusted user?

Besides being able to do actions regular users cannot do, moderators are better equipped for handling emergency situations more swiftly even when community itself has tools allowing them to deal with particular situations. That is especially handy for handling spam where moderator can singlehandedly nuke spam posts and destroy the user.

Also, rather important in the current AI era, moderators are also in better position to deal with AI and other kinds of plagiarized posts. While regular users can downvote, moderators can more effectively deal with such posts and users who post them.

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?

If the comments are otherwise constructive but slightly too argumentative, I would ask them that they tone things down a little, or maybe edit them myself. If their comments have crossed the line of rude or condescending, I may need to take stronger disciplinary action. If the comments are borderline, I would discuss the situation with other moderators. If the problem appears to be associated with specific posts, I might consider applying a comments-only lock.

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

I would look to see if there are comments/reasoning explaining why they took that action, or try to ask them why. I would provide my own reasoning why I disagree to the moderator team along with citing the reasoning they provide (if any), and try to get the opinions of the other moderators on if I would be appropriate to overrule the other moderator or not.

I might also consider starting a Meta question to transparently ask other moderators and the community for input on how to handle that kind of situation, and use the consensus for current and future reference.

3. In your opinion, what do moderators do?

They handle exceptional cases that require tools that normal high-reputation users do not have access to, such as handling patterns of abuse, issuing disciplinary actions to users who fail to follow the rules, and resolve conflicts. They are currently the only users that can handle comment flags.

In clear-cut cases where the community should already handle a post a certain way, such as deleting spam or closing blatantly off-topic questions, a moderator who comes across the situation could save the community work by expediting the process.

4. 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 understand that if a moderator posts about site policy they may be seen as more authoritative, so if I want to share my personal opinion I would make that more clear that is not policy and just my opinion. But for other things, moderators ask and answer questions too like normal users, so I would not really feel differently about that.

5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching enough reputation to access moderator tools or become a trusted user?

In situations with clear-cut outcomes, I could expedite the process without waiting for the community. For example, if I am watching Charcoal at hours with low activity from others, I could take care of spam or abusive posts instantly.

As for moderator-specific activities, hard to say, since the stats of how big that workload is is not available to non-moderators.