there are many factual and insightful things you write, but then from time to time cringe-worthy statements I wouldn't expect from a student ("you have to have rocks in your head to put people under the age of 40 in positions of power"). I had a similar start like you on SE, some sites here like skeptics.se or philosophy.se don't fit at all my level of scientific skepticism and critical thinking. I left such sites instead of trying to improve them, it's pointless trying to yield my desired level on it by contributing q&a. I explained here why some proposal work and some not. The quality/level of a single site is strongly linked to the amount of experts attracted during area51 process. You can only make minor improvments to such sites by clever moderation and attracting more experts afterwards (e.g. theophys user don't want to participate here for the same reasons you try to improve this site). The level of necessary background knowledge is just to different among user to waste here their time.
You seem to have a usenet-background, I too. That is unfiltered anarchy, thats also the system most uni's run in my experience innofficially. But SE is democracy, hierarchy, filtering, ranking, sorting (why do you think there are no downvotes/rep for comments? To stop endless discussion and force competition and several answers. This is the most important non-feature of SE), elections of poor and good mods,..... you know all this stuff that happens in democracy too. It's a imperfect system for imperfect people. But have you seen a better one for big communities? Why did you stop posting on usenet, wikipedia and joined this system. Ask and answer this yourself and I'm sure we all can save a lot meta time and useless discussion with/about you here. I already told you that your bio's (while entertaining on christianity and philosophy :D ) are not really productive for you. Also yelling for new mods on physics.se and phil.se is really naive, what do you expect. "Hey our german 38 year old vice-chancellor is in my opinion not qualified for his job. Can we please try somebody else (I really think this)". But he was elected by the majority. Just stop this, how can a smart guy like you think this can/will work??? You're biting on granite and wasting your and our time here. Invent a better system. Contribute answers here, discuss in forums like usenet of physicsforums.com. There are physicists who don't like for mentioned reasons usenet (too much spam and crackpot-theorists), q&a boards (moderation, no discussion), forums (too lengthy discussions)... There is no perfect system that fits everybody's needs and philosophy of communication.
You look to me like on a crusade. Trying to correct all bad answers on SE sites whichs seems at a first glance admirable and worth supporting ) but also pretty naive if one knows a little bit about human and group psychology and has participated in internet discussions since a decade. The problems of wikipedia authoring are well-known, lenghty discussions with arrogant mods, SE resolves this problem by competing answers. And with all your comments & corrections you are trying to re-introduce this wikipedia editing style here again. Maybe unconsciously as you are still in your trained usenet and wikipedia modus operandi. Well, quit this, or you end like Georg. I'm sure a physics.se site with 10-20 Ron Maimons and Georg's wouldn't work (most agreed that tolerating the escapades of one Ron Maimon is ok) and would end in even worse overall level of tolerance and respect than on usenet and wikipedia due to the rep thing and real names, thats why I asked user here to think about if such bios are really helpful. You see how fast people can change their mind and ask you to calm down.
I made quite some meta posts on science SE sites recently. Because I would like to see open science really working and I'm interested if and how super-moderation of autarchic communities can work, when become things uncommunicable, how can meta user and mods find common set of values, level and scope of a site (we make a similar experiment in germany currently, direct democracy with liquid feedback community software in the pirates party). SE and Quora are a important steps here. Maybe there will come even better hybrid systems. If you want to create high quality communities, you need a clever system like here (area51, voting, meta, filtering), ranting about content, bad and wrong answers here a lot is a drop in the bucket and even more in forums, usenet and wikipedia, where users like you already failed with their demands. I come to SE to read different views by different users, not wikipedias common denominator stuff, commenting or editing an answer towards subjective "correct" content here is the huge misconception you seemingly have and brought over here from your wikipedia days.
I wonder why you aren't blogging. Well I'm aware without publications, university position, PHD a physics blog doesn't attract a lot of comments/views nowadays anymore. You probably too. Without credentials only few would read Motl's blog imho. So this is probably the best place to invest your time. Nonetheless I'm still wondering why you didn't participate more in theophys.se if the quality of some answers here is so terrible? I begin to think you are trying to find out how much power your rep here gives you and the responses you get are not really surprising. May be start a Ron Maimon proposal? The SE system allows this ;)