In response to Ed's questions, I'd say we should start with Wikipedia-l, and see how moderating that goes, and then if it's a success or if it's felt to be needed, we should moderate WikiEN-l. I think it's entirely possible that the new sobriety of the "master list" will have a positive effect on other lists.
I think there should be 2-4 moderators. I made the suggestion and I am willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as the only moderator. That's how much I would appreciate a polite, non-trollish, non-flamebait, non-flaming list. As a co-moderator, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the workload, and maybe we shouldn't try her patience, but I'd love to have Ruth Ifcher, who has a low tolerance for BS and a high appreciation for what we're doing. My next choice would be KQ, who would make an incredible moderator, I think. Ed would be great too. Other people who I think would do a brilliant job include (since I think they could be extremely fair, because they're smart, and because they have a deep respect and understanding of what we on Wikipedia are doing):
Julie Kemp Mav April Axel Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the software) Magnus (ditto) Lee Crocker (ditto)
There should also be a French language moderator. :-) Actually, I did have four years of French in high school, so I could do an OK job but I think I'd probably miss things like (the French equivalents of) "your mother wears army boots."
This is just the short list--I'm sure I'm leaving off many people who I think could do at least as good a job.
If we go with moderation, maybe KQ will come back and help moderate the list so that it becomes something he feels he won't have to quit in disgust. ;-)
Anyway, there's an important question you left off of your list of questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?
I've written two or three moderation policies before and I've given them a lot of thought. Roughly speaking (this would need fine-tuning), I suggest the following:
* When in doubt, approve the post. Don't block posts that are on the borderline. * Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect for others. There can be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss a problem troll on Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among other things) are totally on-topic. This implies reject of the following: * Plain old insults. * Slightly subtle implications of something highly insulting. (Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an art form.) * Really obvious condescension and other disrespectful attitudes. * To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to spammers, for instance), always give some explanation of why the post is rejected. If the software doesn't do it (I think it does, though), include the full post with the rejection so that the author can revise it. * Reject all spam without comment. * On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to WikiEN-l (I happen to agree with this rule that was foisted upon us without much discussion ;-) ). * Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that Wikipedia should be radically changed in some particular way. This is to be distinguished from reasonable and well-supported suggestions, from anyone, that Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some particular way. Bear in mind that people can disagree about what is "reasonable." The point is that we should not have to listen, for the umpteenth zillionth time, to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for example. Moderators should direct offenders to the relevant documents and ask the poster to rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've probably heard it all before.
Larry