What have you personally done to make Server Fault a more enjoyable place for professional system administrators?

Mainly answering questions, a lot of voting and a bit of reviewing. I believe that asking good questions and providing good answers is the single most important thing to do on Serverfault.

There is a lot of discussion about the quality of questions on SF; this is a topic that comes up regularly in meta. In fact, meta sometimes feels like the same two questions over and over again: "Our site is dying! How can we encourage better questions?" and "Why are you guys so mean?" Do you believe that site quality is really a problem? Do you believe the two questions are related? If so, where do you stand on how to encourage better questions? and is it your opinion that our site is "too nice," "too mean," or "just right"?

Yes, I believe the quality of a lot of questions is a major problem (I think it is the most urgent problem we have) and that this is also a major contributing factor to people becoming less friendly then we would like them to be, as seeing a steady stream of crap has the potential to make people angry.

The sad thing is that this problem is at least as old as the Usenet and BBS systems and that we are in fact still in the Eternal September. It's a simple but unfortunate fact: If you don't enforce it by effective and strict limitations on what can get published, there will always be a large number of people ignoring every hint, help and regulation as long as they have a chance to get their crap published. For some reason, StackExchange was modeled in a way that just ignores this and only provides tools to deal with it afterwards.

I don't see how I really could encourage better questions in the current system. I just can try to deal with the bad ones and as a moderator, I would have more powerful tools to do that.

Do you as a nominee feel that moderators should have term limits or be required to be re-elected? Do you feel there should be a way to formally ask a moderator to "step down" for inactivity based on a vote of the users or is this something that should only be handled by other moderators and/or SE staff?

I don't think term limits are really necessary, but I have no real preferences regarding this. Regarding a formal "please step down" vote from users, I dont' think it's a good idea. Life has many ways to make other things more important and getting told you are not wanted as a mod anymore while dealing with a major situation in your life is something I wouldn't want to experience. However, communication is key - you should tell at least your fellow mods if you are out for bit and step down on your own accord if it gets clear you are not coming back in the foreseeable future.

Since mod-decisions remove questions and answers from the review-queue which can become later audit-items to trip up other reviewers, will you continue to delve the review-queues at your current rate?

I can't really say, as I don't know what other tools would be at my disposal as a mod. I will however hijack this to say what I always say when the review audit system comes up: Please get rid of this now. In my opinion, this is the most absurd and outright stupid feature StackExchange has. Just stop handing out useless internet points ("badges") for clicking the same button 20 times a day and you don't need to insult real reviewers anymore.

As a moderator you can see how other people are reviewing content. What would it take for you to consider a review-ban on someone for persistent over/under reviews?

I don't know what "over/under review" means but I would consider a ban when I get the impression someone wants to get a few useless internet points by clicking the same button 20 times a day (why can he still get those?) or he is out to wreak havoc.

What is your strategy for improving the quality and professionalism of questions users first encounter when visiting Server Fault?

See above. We have no real tool to prevent crap from being posted, but I think about how outright deleting instead of just closing it might help. That's something I often thought about in the past: Why not insta-delete this garbage? I have some other ideas, but those would require changes to how the site works, which I can't influence as a mod.

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?

It's a cost-benefit consideration really. Is he more worth than the trouble he costs? Try to make him play nice and clear up behind him when necessary. If things get out of hand, send him into the sin bin for a bit. If even that doesn't help, show him the red card.

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

If it's an obvious error, reopen it. Otherwise: If I feel it's important, likely get in contact with the other mod, but not every question is worth doing this, even if I wouldn't have closed it.

Do you agree with this proposal? Would you believe it to help us? Would you still want to be a moderator if this became effective?

Yes. I managed to completely misunderstand it when first reading it (and strongly disagreed with what I thought Shane proposed) but to a large degree I do agree with what he really proposes.

I would likely draw the line at something like the hobby project on the VPS though.

Is there an administrative requirement to post on Server Fault? Do you need to be in control of policy, or is it enough to know your job (as a sysadmin)?

I really don't get what is asked here, but I believe this question comes originally from someone disgruntled with our "no firewall/policy/whatever circumvention" rule, which I consider important.

Other than that: Of course, your role in your organization must allow you to implement what you have learned here.

Thanks for reading all this and for participating in the election process. Are things unclear? Do you have further questions or remarks? Please feel free to ask.