Comments
(I started this write-up before the election started thinking we'd just get the usual boring election questions, but then things got rancorous, so this is partly my take on the State of ServerFault and partly answers to the questions.)
Overall, SF is working - questions get asked and answered, bad ones get downvoted and closed. There's a core of extremely knowledgeable regulars that participate widely in the site (except they never vote enough!) and a trickle of new people coming in and becoming regulars. As a moderator, I'd expect to contribute to this: respond to flags, delete unneeded comments, clean up bad posts.
As to the problems...
I vehemently disagree that SF is a toxic, hate-filled community. It's incredibly disheartening to hear multiple SE staff throw those terms around, lumping all of us together as being responsible for SF being that way.
I see complaints about questions being closed or downvoted unfairly on every SE site I follow, whereas here on SF, I'm sure we've had fewer accustions of "you guys are mean!" over the past year or so. Maybe the flag stats will show me to be wrong, and I'm sure some will dismiss this opinion with "you guys have scared everyone away," but I stand by it: ServerFault is not any more horrible than other SE sites.
OTOH, if I were a moderator, I would see the flags and just as I clean up as much stuff as a normal user can, I'd be quick to get rid of crappy, unconstructive comments. In addition to using the moderator tools, I'd continue to be active on meta, explaining how the site's intended to function.
The thing that most of the regulars - including me - think is the biggest problem with SF is that the site is swamped with lousy questions. Clear, interesting questison are drowned out by (just to mention a couple common examples) questions from people who are in way over their head ("Could you give me a complete step by step guide to do...") and questions about how to use a certain tool to solve a problem, but it's the wrong tool.
To be clear: "lousy" doesn't mean beginner questions, and it doesn't mean simple ones. The most common thing that identfies a lousy question is that the person asking doesn't really understand what they're doing and why. So if you try to clarify a question, they don't understand what you're asking them in comments, or they won't consider a different approach. Regardless of the exact definition, the result is that good content is hard to find, which for many people is a turn-off. We've had regulars disappear completely and we've had others drastically cut back their participation. Although new people do come along, it's harder for them to find good questions and then even though they give some excellent answers, they don't get the same acknowledgement because there are fewer people voting.
Can anything be done about the flood? I really don't know, and it's not obvious to me that a moderator can make a huge difference. Being able to mod-hammer questions closed might help a bit: I'm currenly slowly chipping away at old, questions by downvoting or voting to close (which then lets the auto-delete faeries get rid of them) but I regularly use up all my votes. It's been a couple years since I regularly read every single question on the site, but when I do go through them all, there are certainly a lot that could do with swift closure, so I think I'd focus on that: trying to make the good questions stand out as much as possible.
It's been suggested that iffy questions can be cleaned up and turned into gems, and maybe that would help, but I don't think that's a job for the moderators. Mods can encourage this sort of behaviour, but the bulk (and it's a huge bulk) of that work has to come from the larger community.
Specific Questions
What have you personally done to make Server Fault a more enjoyable place for professional system administrators?
I vote. A lot. The most. This election focussed on what to do about bad posts, but don't forget that voting up good posts is also important - it makes the good posts visible and motivates people to participate.
do you as a nominee feel that moderators should have term limits...
No, I'd let anyone who's ever been a mod, stay a mod. I'd like to see some of them participate more, but if the load on active mods gets too high, SE has shown they'll add more mods.
will you continue to delve the review-queues at your current rate?
I don't think that's possible. I'd step back from the review queues and give someone else a chance to do the most reviewing. :) As one close or reopen voter in 5, I've got no problem being pretty quick to judge, but if I were hammering questions closed or open, I'd be more circumspect. Since I'm not sure which questions become audits, I can't answer that part of the question, I'd have to wait and see how that works.
What would it take for you to consider a review-ban on someone for persistent over/under reviews?
I'm not sure what you mean by over/under reviews, if you mean incorrect reviews, I'd certainly consider banning people. I'm only active in close and re-open reviews and haven't seen too many signs of bad reviewing there (with one very noteworthy exception.)
Katherine's question(s) - "too nice," "too mean," or "just right"?
I think I've mostly answered these, but to be clear - I think we're close to "just right." I'd nuke unpleasant comments, I'd continue to vote, I'd try to give little nudges to improving the questions that have a hope of being salvaged.
The boring, standard SE questions:
The Q&A from the last election in early 2013 had similar questions if anyone wants to check them out: 2013 Moderator Election Q&A - Questionnaire
Do you agree with this proposal?
Is there an administrative requirement to post on Server Fault?
I think these are covered by my previous comments.
