Speaking personally, I see the duty of moderation (in the sense of a debate moderator) as not to put the thumb on the scale on any particular side of the issue, but to provide the structure and protection needed for the best arguments on both sides to surface.
I agree it would be nice, in a librarian-mindset way, for the debate over LLM use to be isolated to dedicated topics and not to flow over into others. I have a hard time seeing how to do that in a way that doesn’t effectively put a thumb on the scale, when those other topics are examples of people using LLMs in the community, and are therefore ipso facto pro-LLM arguments. So implicit pro-LLM arguments can happen anywhere, but their rebuttals are confined to a flame thread? That doesn’t seem like an effective way to get to the best arguments on both sides.
I will moderate personal attacks regardless of who makes them. The closest thing to a personal attack I’ve seen here is the thing about personal anxieties, which to my reading is less than maximally sensitive but it was in response to a person saying ‘my concern: […] I feel like I need […]’; characterizing that as a personal anxiety is not obviously an attack, to me. (Not to be dismissive of the person saying that it was interpreted as a personal attack — your reaction is also valid. Ideally your interlocutor would listen to your reaction, clarify their non-hostile intent, you each would extend good faith to each other, and hands would be shaken all around.)
And to keep this from being more off-topic: further personal feedback to me or @moderation-team in general is welcome via PMs, and if you have anything to say in public about these comments, please use the Meta > Moderation category.