Howdy and thank you for considering me for the moderator position on SE. Just to be brief and concise, I'll be answering the specific questions posed in the base note.

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

Whenever I can I answer and comment on the questions that I am knowledgeable thus keeping this as a place for answers to questions. Where I see things that can be changed for the better, I have made requests and comments.

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"?

To encourage better questions, the first thing that this SE needs is do define more specifically what our charter is, i.e. who we are, what do we want to represent and then act via moderation, voting, and reviewing on these objectives. I know that this has been debated a number of times but the result has always been quite unfocused. The SF community are a informed and diverse group making specific consensus difficult. The communiity must decide what are "good" and "bad" questions for this forum. When SF started, there were fewer specific SE sites addressing more specific items. Now there are many more options that many of the posters are not aware of.

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?

Moderation is much more work than just being a user, or a reviewer. Moderators, based on what the community dictates, should be there to educate, inform and enforce. This being the case, it is appealing to have this be a rotating post, as long as the group charter and objectives are clear and precise. Personally, if the moderator is doing a good job, I'd let them stay in their position unless the user community had some issues. Maybe what is needed is a periodic vote of confidence of the current moderation staff by the SE community. As it stands now, unless the moderator steps down there are no procedures that I am aware of to address recall of a moderator by the SE community.

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?

Personally, I really hate the audit process as currently implemented. As an opinionated and informed reviewer, I disagree many times with some of the selections and some of the results. As part of a moderators' duty is review, I would continue to process entires in all of the review queues.

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?

SF is a COMMUNITY composed of a wide diversity of people with differing opinions and experience. That is why a vote of FIVE DIFFERENT people are needed to close questions. I think that with our informed community this is sufficient for control.

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

Good answers, constant reviews, constant comments and feedback to the community.

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?

Each case is different as are the many users in the forum. The question does not say whether these are valid arguments or flags. Of course, we cannot tolerate abuse but discussion and conflicting opinions can be something healthy.

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

The moderation team relies on trust between its members. If I personally felt there was a problem, I would contact the moderator directly to elicit some discussion. But undoing another moderators' actions is not something that should be done lightly.

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?

As a moderator, one has to take the community into account over the opinions of one single person. This would have to be a community decision and as a moderator, I'd of course follow any modifications in the guidelines.

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)?

A moderator has more credibility if they have been involved with the forum for a period of time. Also, they can do a much more effective job knowing how thing in the forum work.

Thank you for your time and hopefully vote for me. :-)