In the interest of participation, here's my take on the questions. Yes for the most part my answers are serious. I have no doubt others here would excel at moderating SF. However I would appreciate the opportunity to take a stab at it.

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

I'm not in the "Top X-Percent" of voters, but I do thoroughly read each question, answer, and comment, and vote/flag accordingly.

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"?

For the first, I can sympathize with the opinion that the quality of SF has declined. However, it's not just SF, it's everywhere. Once a forum gains enough popularity, the "lowest-common denominator" starts to grow.

How to encourage better questions? I'd suggest having a Hidi- and Chinese-based Captcha, and declining questions that provide the correct captcha. That should help.

Is the sight too mean/nice or just right? None of the above. I think it's "mean enough". "Mean" being the perception that started w/ the popularity the site began earning, and has "grown".

As the number of people that submit poor questions/answers grows, the number of people that get down-voted, questions closed, or otherwise get the Ax goes up. Along w/ complaints that people are being "mean".

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'm not a fan of term-limits or activity thresholds. The 'meat-world' gets in the way sometimes. I'm of the opinion that, barring aberrant behavior, once a mod always a mod.

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?

Since my current rate is "none" or "what's a review queue", I'd say yes. I will continue at my current pace.

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?

Someone who's "negative" actions far outweigh their "positive" actions.

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

IP banning most of Asia. However I expect that's outside the scope of Moderation. Anything with two or less tags, has no example code, is poorly formatted, will get a comment asking to follow basic "How to Ask A Question" etiquette. If it's not changed in a day or so, give the Question the Ax. If the poster has a single-digit history, ban.

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?

I would verify they're not just copy-pasta'ing answers from other sites (if they are, ban). If they're providing legit, relevant answers, I would message them to clean-up their commenting. (If they're being openly hostile/combative, etc.) If they persist, give them the a__-Hat badge.

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

If a more-experienced-than-I moderator (read: anybody else) did that, I would read/re-read and determine the criteria used. If I still felt it should not have been Ax'd, I would contact them. If they're justification did not suffice, I would attempt to re-open.

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?

Sure, a moderator's here to help everyone play by the same rules. Just because the rules change a bit isn't a reason to pack-up and go home.

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)?

The only requirement I think there should be on SF to post is that of curiosity and basic proficiency to ask questions. I have seen too many "Please help me with this, need solution ASAP" posts from employees of a company who's actual troubleshooting policies include "Step 3: Post in the forums online"