Ward's (Not complete yet)(mostly complete) responses to the moderator candidate questions:
The ideal thing to have happen with an answer that could be improved by a bit of cleanup is for it to be edited, and moderators can do that as can many regular users. But the whole point of review queues is that it shouldn't be just moderators handling that sort of clean up, so I think most of those cases woudlwould be better dealt with by comments - suggesting what could make it a better answer.
I think moderators should mostly deal with the bigger problems: with accounts that are spamming, with voting irregularities, with comments getting out of hand, etc. I think the second special thing about moderators is that because their words carry somewhat more weight, they shouuld try to maintain a desirable "tone" for the site - leaving good comments, etc.
I'm comfortable with everything I've posted on SF, on meta.SF, on other SE sites, on Chat... I don't think there's anything that would look bad with a diamond after it, and at this point in ServerFault's life cycle it's unlikely that anyone is going to find much that's interesting in any 7 or 8 year old post or comment.
Moderators have a few tools that even a high-rep user doesn't: unilateral close or open voting, comment cleanup, banning... Those could all be used to greater effectiveness.
