A couple of years ago, I noted such a demand to have the question answered by a native speaker when a much respected contributor had responded. I saw it as completely unacceptable and, given the immediacy of the slight, included a response in my answer. I felt this direct method justified as busy mods might take some time to reply. I also believe that it sent an important message of support and sympathy to the insulted member.
The 'busy mods' would very much prefer that you not do this, please.

As I mentioned earlier (post #29) we have been taking steps to eradicate this practice in the public forums and have certainly I think succeeded in reducing the incidence of it.
Clearly and obviously, posting a straightforward endorsement/confirmation of the previous answer is helpful in -
(a) Reinforcing to the person who asked the question that the previous answer was correct.
(b) Giving backing to the allegedly "insulted" member.
(c) Last but by no means least, providing information to anyone who may read the thread in the future that the answers are the correct ones.
However, adding a criticism of the type you describe, however well-intentioned, is not helpful. It -
(1) is off-topic.
(2) can provoke a counter-reaction from the OP.
(3) can further detract from the progress of the discussion if other members then start commenting on it, leaving the impression that members are 'ganging up'.
(4) leave us (the mods) the task of performing extensive 'surgery' on the thread in order to restore it to a fit state for public display.
It's
much better to simply report the problem and leave it at that. We aim these days for a fast turn-round time on reported posts, and in the vast majority of cases will be able take any necessary action before any real damage is done.
Non-native speakers who receive such messages might wish to try stating that they are bilingual in their profiles. In the circumstances, bothering about the precise definition of “bilingual” in the case of respected members is trivial.
I'm not sure I'd agree that anything to do with allowing members to label themselves as 'bilingual' is trivial. The word does have quite a specific meaning, which most people I imagine will interpret as signifying what is normally meant by the standard definition of it. We could, on the other hand, usefully look into the possibility of just allowing two native languages to be listed, as signifying near-native competency in the second one.
