[maemilius]

You're still centralizing a power. It would probably be better to have some rule that's based on quorum and consensus than specifically elected people. E.g. at least some percentage (say 60%) of active contributors must weigh in and some percentage of those (perhaps a simple majority) must agree that a violation took place.

Granted, that's still open to abuse if the quorum requirements are small enough (how small would depend on the quantity of abusers), but I feel it's more in spirit than centralizing the power into a sub-group.

I will further grant that it's likely that, in any group, only a subset will care enough about these things to police them, so the point may be moot.