Is MSE understaffed in terms of moderators?

@JJforTransparencyandMonica with the current drama on MSE, even Tinkerbell seem to have stated the same in a comment to the OP, that MSE is understaffed;. We don't really have the time (or the energy, or the spoons) to look at everything else too right now. I used to do it that here, when moderation loads were lighter, but currently it's just not feasible if we want to keep up with flags

My comment was never meant to mean 'we can't keep up with things, we're understaffed'.

We're relying more on flaggers to bring problematic content to our attention instead of checking ourselves. The complaint that comment responded to was one of 'but there's comment threads on other answers left', and that's probably true if no one brought those to our attention. But just because we're not actively spending time looking at what's happening everywhere, we're not at the point where we can't handle the flag load.

For me personally, it also takes a load of energy to see all the anger on here and keep a steady hand/mind while moderating. I'm here to do what I can to fix some of the problems people have pointed out, like trying to make this a site again where community managers and other employees actually like to post about stuff because they don't have to worry about unrelated hurts that they can't do anything about either being dragged into things. It helps me personally to not spend time looking at even more things I can't fix if they aren't flagged.

Besides all that, the community managers can also step up (and have done so, and are still doing so) when we're getting behind or getting flags that are 'above moderator paygrade' (think serial voting, status tags). And if things ever progress to a better state, a bigger moderator team will get bored very easily on here.

So all in all, no, we're not understaffed right now. We might be getting tired, but that's more because there's so little progress in all of this than because of unbearable flag loads.

If Meta Stack Exchange is understaffed then my understanding is that the existing moderators of this site need to request that their number be increased. It is usually they who make the call because they are in the best position to judge their existing and upcoming workload.

In the past, for a site I moderate, I felt overloaded, and got agreement from my fellow moderators to increase our number from six to eight. Stack Exchange organised an election soon after our request reached the Community Managers.

Although moderators have been appointed here previously the decision on how to increase the number of moderators may only be needed after the moderators decide their number is insufficient.

MSE is a special case because moderators here are appointed rather than elected.

It's really up to the current moderators of MSE to indicate whether they want to increase their numbers or not. Obviously, they need to weigh this against the current and ongoing situation.

In a now-deleted answer to Warning potential new moderators?, it was made fairly clear that parts of the community would not feel comfortable allowing for free and fair elections of new moderators until the current situation was resolved. And that deficit of moderation places more pressure on Stack Exchange to that end.

With regard to the other sites, elections aren't normally scheduled for November/December due to the holiday season. So, in the best of times, we wouldn't see new elections scheduled until January.

Does the community or its moderators feel there should be more moderators?

Not really. I think we are observing "extraordinary" times for the last 10 weeks or so. Leading to a massive increase of sometimes heated, emotional exchanges on zillions of questions, answers, comments.

I guess you would need anything between 10 and 20 volunteer moderators to be able to cope with such a storm.

But that comes with multiple issues:

• As Snow explains, few people would want to see such a change at this point in time. I see it the same way: there is enough churn already, and rest assured: any candidate that SE Inc. appoints would be under a lot of pressure, and any wrong decision could lead to another s..t storm ("See, now SE Inc. appointed user X as moderator, and X just censored me for valid criticism of SE Inc."). Such accusations happen today already, I really don't want to see the reactions to 5 or 10 new moderator appointments.
• Hopefully, things calm down. It seems that the "crucial" questions have been asked for now. So hopefully, the current moderators will be able to handle traffic without going burnout soon again.
• You then end up with 10+ moderators, that do what exactly? Meaning: the number of present moderators should reflect the average moderation efforts, not absolute peak times.

^{And just in case SE Inc. is actually listening: simply stop digging, and get out of that cornered hole you put yourself into.}

^{That is what the community kindly asks for. New moderators, at least me, not so much.}

^{Thus note the relationship: SE Inc. annoying community drives moderation efforts. So, if SE Inc. wants to help, they have it in their hands.}

I've been trying to express what's the root of the problem.

As appointed moderators - back when we first were appointed, one of our first goals was to build up a good, solid working relationship with the folks here and be able to work with them, and in a position of trust.

While the current corporate position seems to be that meta is toxic - and certain recent actions have made the issue worse, not better. We'd really want to rub their nose in it by making meta a constructive place again, or at least get back to where it was before.

I don't speak for the company. At this point, I suspect that I don't speak for many of you. I do speak as someone who wants MSE to work and continue to be a useful resource for the community.

On the other hand - well, we spend more energy fighting each other than we do actually on the business of meta. We have open/closure wars. Arguments over every little action. Just a lot of drama. This makes it difficult for us to do what we need to. We'll try to do better, of course, but to a certain extent, this also relies on folks working with us.

We could have 20 moderators, and if our every action gets undone, and questions and fought over, they'd all burn out.

Y'all need a visionary hero. Someone who can inspire and get people to fight the good fight. I'm not that guy. I'm more Zathras than Sheridan, to pull out an old Babylon 5 metaphor.

What you got is well, what you got. On the other hand, all the moderators want meta to work. We also want y'all to work with us. Someone said meta's the only place that folks can vent - but it was and can be so much more.

So, if you want somewhere to get angry at corporate decisions - take a look at the responses. This might not be the right place for those folks to hear you. If nothing else - it feeds that narrative that meta is toxic, and hurts our ability. If you want to resist change - make meta work.

To an extent, some parts of the company are still using meta as a communications tool; work with them. Help the moderators - keep calm, try to help us handle the worst of it, and work with us. We're pretty accessible and will try to talk to folks. However, we also need y'all to be considerate and nice and not be at each other's throat.

So, consider those votes - up, down or close. Consider the folks around you and their feelings. Be excellent and we'll get through this.