|2||"Please consider putting your name at the top of your post..." Certainly|
We should appreciate and listen to long time members—they have put a lot in to growing this site and making it what it is today. How much a user has contributed to the site shouldn't give them any more entitlement than any other user though. Site policy, scope etc. should be decided through community consensus and not decided by any specific users based on their rep or anything else. Disruptive behaviour shouldn't be any more acceptable from long time users than new users either...
So while long time users will by their very nature have more influence in the community and may be given the benefit of the doubt in any disputes; they aren't necessarily any more "entitled" than any other user.
If we aren't happy with the quality of questions then encouraging users to ask the types of questions we would rather see is a complete no brainer to me. That in itself isn't going to stop the low quality questions but it will increase the number of "good" questions.
Downvotes and close votes are an important part of filtering out low quality content... that's exactly what they're there for. For clearly off-topic questions that works fine; for some of the more edge cases where the questions aren't off-topic but do see a lot of low quality questions I would much prefer the community come to a consensus via meta on what exactly a "good" question would be, we can then use that to guide users on exactly what is wrong with their question and how to improve it (much as we've done with e.g. font-id and critique questions)... rather than just piling on the downvotes, which isn't a nice experience for a new user who doesn't necessarily know what they've done wrong. That helps us improve question quality and be more welcoming to new users at the same time. Win-win.
I'd encourage everyone to be active in any and all communities that they're interested in.
There is a definite overlap of disciplines and interests with a few other sites and encouraging users active on other sites to participate here is a great idea. Community ads and meta posts on other sites are probably the easiest and most obvious ways to attract users from those sites but I'd like some input and advice from active users on those sites first. Engaging with those sites in chat first is probably a good idea (any users active both here and on related sites would be in a good position to liaise or advise on how to approach the subject too).
Contact the user in private to try and diffuse the situation and deal with any issues. If the user's behaviour doesn't show any willingness or effort to improve over time then a day in the penalty box...
Positive contributions are more than welcome and appreciated but they don't excuse any ongoing disruptive behaviour.
Discuss it in private with the mod. Hopefully we can come to an agreement, either way. If we can't come to an agreement then I may ask another mod or another user for an opinion, depending on the situation... I certainly wouldn't reverse the action publicly without discussing the issue first and I'd prefer to leave it as-is if we don't come to an agreement.
Where the post is clearly off-topic or otherwise inappropriate then I have no problem in unilaterally closing (or flagging/deleting/etc). I'd prefer to seek a consensus through meta on how to handle certain posts if there is none.
More generally and for posts that aren't so clearly off-topic I'd prefer to leave the voting to the community. If mine is the last vote (e.g. there are already 4 close votes) I'd be more willing as my vote would weigh no more than any other user's.
Moderators are human exception handlers.
Ideally, moderators do as little moderating (and I'd hope as much non-moderating stuff) as possible. The community can moderate most things without the need to call in extra help. There are of course situations which can't be dealt with so easily and there are things that (as a site with a relatively small number of high-rep users) take a long time to be handled by regular users...
Moderators should also be able to respond to support issues and liaise with the Stack Exchange team if needs be.
...and cook a mean Chilli. That's important.
I look forward to it!
I always try to be professional and respectful and I can't think of any contribution I've made that I wouldn't be happy to have my name against. Being a moderator means being a representative of the community and being held to a higher standard—which I am more than happy with.
Being able to instantly deal with inappropriate content. As a 20k+ user, it's frustrating to see spam, offensive or otherwise inappropriate content sitting there after I've cast my delete vote just because there's no one else around to see it.