I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main
wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the
wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for
specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
might do wonders.
1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators,
will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will
moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?
2) As for specific moderators, I would object especially to making Larry
Sanger a moderator (who has proposed himself). Larry has repeatedly shown
himself to resort to insults and ad hominem arguments whenever people
start to disagree with him. During his tenure as Wikipedia's editor, he
has driven away quite a few contributors because of his inability to
accomodate opposing views. His paranoia about "subversion" of NPOV is
proof that his mindset hasn't changed. I'm sure I've made his personal
"black list" by now, the top position of which is currently occupied by
Cunctator. Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project
like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.
I would, for obvious reasons, also object to Julie, but she isn't likely
to do it anyway.
Other than that, I can live with most nominations. I don't trust Ed quite
enough to have him the only moderator of a list, but if he was part of a
group, that would probably be OK.