In short, yes, it is occurring, but it isn't surprising that you wouldn't see it. Because the mods have backroom communication channels the "moderation of the moderators" mostly occurs there. We quite often query each other for feedback and input when and where appropriate, and that often results in changes to the answer, and even serious rewrites or scrapping! This is most especially true in the situations where you refer to that the topic might not be the wheelhouse of the mod but more the result of some dedicated research, and I'd go even further to note that often those answers are the results of collaborative research that occurs in the mod chat channels.

So to sum it up, we realize that we, as the mods of the sub, need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and that involves moderating each other, but we're mostly proactive.

Two other things I'd briefly touch on too. First, as regards those answers that are the result of 'dedicated research', it is important to keep in mind that the skillset of an historian isn't just 'knowing things', but also about the ability to research and parse information. This thread with a few comments, especially from /u/sunagainstgold amd also this thread where /u/mikedash discusses the creation process, might be of interest, and I know there are a few more threads which might be relevant and I could find if the reddit search wasn't so terrible.

Second is something that isn't directly related, but worth pointing out, namely that we don't mod where we post. Its bad form, so if we are working on an answer to a thread, we essentially 'check out' of that thread as far as moderation goes. This is a different kind of oversight than what you're discussing here, and it isn't really something that is obvious, but I felt worth pointing out.

The short answer is that in being a mod, with great power comes great responsibility - the most active and dedicated flairs are the ones that get invited to join the mod team, and being a mod gives you tools to notice posts that attract a lot of attention and backchannels to discuss issues with other mods, who often poke you to answer a question that seems to be in your wheelhouse - which is sometimes a bit broader than the area you're flaired for. For example, I sometimes get poked for questions on the occult, because while my normal flair is H. P. Lovecraft & Pulp Studies, I've got a decent working knowledge of the history of contemporary occultism, with access to certain specialist texts in my library and the ability to research more if needs must.

However, we do also have to police ourselves, and mods are subject to the same reporting features as regular readers - if anything, we as mods tend to be stricter on each other in terms of quality of answers, because we represent not only ourselves but also the subreddit as a whole. Case in point, several months back I had an answer on a question about the Malleus Malleficarium. And my initial answer wasn't good enough. Another mod (u/sunagainstgold) pointed out that while I may have gotten a lot of the facts correct, I was not presenting them as accurately as I could have - making it appear that the proliferation of the Malleus was an issue primarily of emerging printing technology, and neglecting the sociological impetus that provided the demand for the text. So I took the answer down, revised it, and we did a little back-and-forth to make sure it was up to our standards before I posted it again.

So yes, we're very aware of the potential for abuse that would come from having an "old mod's network" which clamped down on non-mod posts, or answered a lot of questions they weren't qualified to, or working to promote mod posts above regular users - and the thing is, we police ourselves. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We do. Always.

And if you see an answer from a flair or mod that doesn't appear to be up to snuff - report it. We will see it, and the reports are anonymous - we can't see who is making them. We're all adults here, and if we've posted something that doesn't meet our own guidelines, then that needs to be fixed.

Which I hope helps answer your question. Thanks for reading and participating.

So, I'm not the typical mod, because, while I'm a moderator, I'm not also a flaired expert.

To me, the main duties of a moderator are to keep order and uphold the mission of the sub. And we do so by enforcing the rules. While I will remove answers when I know they're inaccurate (e.g. suggesting that tomatoes were street food in Ancient Rome), it is not really a moderator's responsibility to ensure the accuracy of each answer: no moderator could possibly be more of an expert on all the subjects here than the people who are answering, and this is certainly true in my case. Therefore, if a comment complies with the rules - that is, is in-depth, cites credible sources, appears to be unbiased, and so on, then I let it stand. If no-one else in the thread takes issue with it, and no-one reports it for some violation, then I don't give it another thought.

We as mods do have some duty to ensure that all flaired users (including mods) are representing the subreddit well, and are still meeting the standards that they were held to initially, so it is part of our remit to keep an eye on what flairs are saying. Mods have had 'talks' with users for lacking depth, for being rude, for speculation, answering amateurishly outside their specialization, and so on; some users have taken criticism on board, others have been de-flaired. Mods also have a continuous feedback loop from both users and other mods, because we see all the comments, reactions, reports, and mod mail, as well as discuss the sub endlessly amongst ourselves in the chat channel.

I have noticed in the last two years a number of the most upvoted questions being answered by a relatively small number of users, sometimes way outside their subject area: In almost all cases these users are also moderators of the subreddit.

True. There are multiple mods watching the sub pretty much 24-7, and we all see the posts that are rising because we have to batten down the hatches every time there's another /r/all onslaught. So we have a high awareness of the popular posts, and sometimes the mods' motivation to defend the thread can result in someone deciding to answer the question.

It seems likely that in at least a few instances where dedicated, but amateur, research was being employed to address a highly niche (but high-popularity by votes, as in when a question reaches /r/all) question, that those responses might occasionally fall below the required standard for expertise, and be removed. However, in the two years I have been reading AH, I have never once noticed this occurring...and in fact the "power flair" concentration appears to have increased over that time (fewer active flairs, but more questions placing greater demands on a small number of users), so it seems even more likely that this ought to be, statistically, more common.

I don't think that's the case, at least not generally. As mentioned above, I'm looking for rule compliance and a general impression of professionalism - if it appears to be ok, I can't judge further for completeness/accuracy. Truly, if there is someone expert in the subject who would like to refute/add/challenge the answer, that would be very very welcome. I personally enjoy seeing academic discussions and debate.

This line of thinking led me to wonder what kind of oversight was occurring at the general moderator-flair user level, and more specifically to this question, at the moderator-moderator level. Is editorial control within the moderators occurring, can it occur impartially when the groups are overlapping or when the most active respondents also appear to also be the most senior moderators

I mentioned above about about keeping an eye on quality. We also have a policy that mods may not moderate a thread where they've answered, that is, they cannot wear the hats of both flair and mod in the same thread.

, and finally are there examples where active moderator responses have been removed in the recent past?

Off-hand, I can't recall myself doing so recently: I would instead contact the person to discuss the issue. I have certainly removed moderation comments by other mods, and, looking through my comment history, I see that a few of my comments have also been removed -- although, given my mod-only role, those were not answers.

So, as a general response to your observation: yes, it's true that some mods answer many popular questions: they watch demand for a question growing, and become motivated to help. Are they getting a pass from the other mods? I don't think so: moderators are more aware than most what the goals of the subreddit are, and that by carrying a flair - particularly a moderator flair - they represent the sub. Certainly a flair on a username does influence me to be more prone to give the answer the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time, we mods also have to be on guard against users abusing their flair.

As you can see by the fact I'm mod #4 replying to this, this is something we do think about and try to get right. In addition to what everyone else has said, what I'd add here is that /r/AskHistorians is a little unusual in how we choose moderators. We select mods from amongst our flairs, generally; we don't have any 'professional mods' who moderate dozens of subreddits, and we don't have a moderator application form. Instead, we choose our mods from our panel of flairs; when I got the offer to become a moderator, it was out of the blue, and it was my choice to accept it.

And basically, the things we usually look for in a moderator - beyond that they already have an area of expertise as a flair - is a combination of maturity/levelheadedness/politeness, being pretty actively involved in the subreddit, and the ability to do relatively quick decent quality historical research (being Australian, in my case, also helped convince the mods at the time to choose me, because it meant I'm around when most Americans and Europeans are asleep). And generally, these qualities do typically mean that our mods often are the kind of person who could answer things outside their flair area if they chose, and who probably were doing so before they were a mod.

As a mod who does answer questions that are seemingly outside my flair, I'd also say that "20th century pop music" and "history of psychology" are both complex, interdisciplinary topic areas. The history of psychology goes back to Ancient Greece; until the 19th century, psychology was seen as properly simply a part of philosophy. And psychology's current status as a science of sorts, which is related to biology and medicine in a variety of ways, also means that the history of psychology is often related to the history of science and the history of medicine, as well as being influenced by currents in intellectual history in general. And so I have some understanding of the debates within those fields, as well as plenty of knowledge about the stuff you'd probably think of when you think of the history of psychology (Freud, Skinner, etc).

Similarly, 20th century pop music as a topic area overlaps with a lot of different things, because it's such a product of the culture it comes from, of the technology of the era, of the political and cultural debates and trends of the era (e.g., so I've read a bunch of stuff on the rise of consumer culture in the 20th century, and on American race relations in the 20th century, because both matter to 20th century pop music for pretty obvious reasons). Additionally, I took enough Australian history at university to have a sense of the debates within that field and the broad overview of how historians view that history, and to have read a bunch of primary and secondary literature. So since being a mod, I've started answering Australian questions where I feel comfortable doing so, and where I can find relevant literature to base it on - half because I became more confident about my historical research abilities and my knowledge in the area, and half because questions about Australia were going unanswered and so I wasn't stepping on anybody's toes.

When I am on the outer rings of my knowledge, I'm consciously more careful with my research and writing - for example, I'll be more careful about what I claim and I'll probably specifically refer to so and so making an argument rather than asserting that it's true. And if a fellow moderator removed a post of mine and could justify why, I'd be fine with it, and would just do more reading and edit the thing until I was confident that I could write about it more accurately.

As a non-mod flaired user, I want to chime in and share my own observations. I'm not a mod, so nothing I say is gospel or approved by the moderators. I've noticed the same trend, but I've also noticed that it often comes on threads with no other replies. I rarely go outside of my subject area, but the past couple of times where I've done it, it's not because I chose to research some unrelated topic I've never looked at; often it's because, as a hobby or side-project, I researched something in the past and have the ability to easily recall and research deeper into that subject. I really make the effort to only do so if it's a popular thread on something I already know about in a thread with no one else around. I figure I can provide a legitimate, accurate answer, and that's better than nothing. I imagine other flairs, and mods, feel the same. Historians do leave their subject areas for forays into other things for their own sanity from time to time. Some choose to comment on politics, others on different historical questions, etc., but I think what we're seeing is the same happening on this sub.

So that answers, for me at least, the why of this happening, and why users like myself do it sometimes, and often rarely.

The second question is the quality assurance question. This relates to whether these answers should be removed due to quality. I think, here, there is a slight disconnect. Your initial post says that the answer would otherwise be removed because they might fall below the required standard for expertise. I'm no mod, and I'd like to forcefully reiterate that in light of what I'm about to say, but I don't know that there is a required standard for expertise per se. The rules and responses from moderators when they remove questions, which typically talk about the quality of an answer, tell users to ask themselves if they have the required expertise to answer the question. But this is not because their credentials are called into question; it's because their historical method and accuracy of the answers has. I've read that question of "do I have the expertise to answer this" as a question users should ponder in terms of knowing the subject before responding, which requires less credentials than historical research ability and the commitment of time necessary. Should it be a very niche question, something only a true expert in that field could flesh out, I don't see many flairs or mods jumping into that thread, and many threads go unanswered (including, sometimes, very popular ones). I personally haven't noticed a moderator or flair answering a question with less than the required expertise in historical research: sometimes, I disbelieve an answer, but look into it myself and find the same results. And we do regularly see sourcing in those types of threads, which can also always be asked for and checked, and I've seen some posts be removed (including by flairs) when rules are broken, so I don't think there's a bias in that sense. If a flair can have their post removed due to violating politeness rules (I have seen it; flairs are not infallible), then I'm not sure there's any special treatment for us when it comes to historical analysis and accuracy either. And flairs have, in the past, had historical disagreements and fleshed them out politely in threads, including on ones where a previously-inactive flair comes back to add politely to a flair outside their subject area's answer. If the answer is truly inaccurate, I've seen it be removed. It happens excruciatingly rarely, but it happens. Users police each other, because we all care about the quality of the answers you see here. I myself do it all the time through reports, because I do care about this subreddit deeply.

I find no reason to believe the same is not true for the moderators. Which brings me to question 3, which is the, "is there preferential treatment due to capture" question.

For those unfamiliar, capture is the phenomenon by which a regulator (in this case, moderator) is effectively neutralized because they are convinced (through bribes, friendship, etc.) not to effectively pursue regulation. This can also apply to monopolistic structures, where moderators are both answering and moderating questions. However, the moderators have not been captured in my view. For one, there are extraordinary checks and balances described in this thread to avoid bias in the structural sense. Mods do not moderate or check moderation in threads they participate in. Mods operate as an effective group and discuss issues. Mods regularly quit and recruit, meaning that fresh pairs of eyes cycle through the moderation system. The question then becomes one of cultural capture. Are mods captured by their association with one another, and therefore reluctant to enforce the rules on one another? I can already tell you they don't hesitate with flairs. I can't say how mods discuss things internally, but I think it's a fair question to ask. However, I can also say that anytime I've had any concern with moderation, the moderators have been quite kind and understanding, and the moderators do give me the impression at least that they care as much about each other's reputations as their own, because of how it reflects on such a large and (frankly) influential subreddit. Still, it's a fair question to ask, but a hard one to measure.

I think that leads to question 4, which is one type of measurement. Are moderators concentrating power flair status amongst themselves, particularly among questions not answered but that are popular? I think there you may have it backwards: I think those moderators who participate on those threads only became moderators because they were already power-flairs. But even if they have "concentrated" over time, I've noticed the same thing done that I do. Moderators do not answer a question quickly that is popular unless they have a true, legitimate answer that they have dedicated adequate time to resolving. I do at least a few solid hours of research on subjects outside of my area if I already am fairly acquainted with the subject due to prior research, and I've never noticed a flair (including moderator) writing a quick answer. I think they all do these types of things. To give you a personal example, about a week and a bit ago I answered a question about a package sent to MLK encouraging suicide. The question went unanswered for over 6 hours, before I put up my answer. I had recently read a good few books on MLK and the United States and remembered coming across this subject, which was actually a fairly specific "yes or no" question. I saw the question from the moment it became popular, which was about an hour after it went up. I spent 3-4 hours researching, and another hour writing an answer and refining it with additional research on finer points. And I'd already read up on the subject. I just wanted to be careful. But even before hitting submit, I refreshed the page periodically throughout this process to see if anyone else would answer, or had an answer. No one did. I had done the required research, knew enough about the subject, and submitted the response. I think all moderators and flairs outside of their area follow a similar process.

These are just my views, but I think this is a great question and one I've pondered in the past. Hopefully my perspective can add a bit to the discussion.

It's probably worth noting that the community still has a responsibility to police itself to an extent. If an answer by a mod isn't good enough, you can downvote it. Better yet, you can comment on why you think it doesn't meet the quality requirements of this sub. Furthermore, if you think an answer by a mod (or anyone) needs mod intervention, you can report it.

What I'm saying is that the community has ways to influence threads. Between downvoting, commenting, and reporting, one can express to both the community and to the mods one's opinion an an answer. Obviously it's still up to the mods to decide what stays and what doesn't, in the end. The mods seem to care, try to stay honest, and fix mistakes when/if there are any, though.

There is still the issue of other historians not posting when there's ready an "accepted" answer. Should moderators not provide answers just in case someone else comes along to answer later? Moderators are selected in part due to their consistent high quality answers, so that would just cull the best posters. I think it's unavoidable that the first decent answer will be the winner in the thread, barring moderator intervention.

I agree that there are real problems inherit in this kind of community, so if you have an idea for a solution, you should share. Otherwise, what we have seems to be the best we can get right now. AH is already one of if not the highest quality subs, so pushing the quality to be even higher will be a challenge.

Has hiding usernames but showing flair been discussed? That could potentially help alleviate some of these problems. I could be wrong though.