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"