I do hope that those who will be implementing these changes do so soon (c'mon, Pete -- ignore your family! Be an absentee father!

).
My suggestion would be simply to make sure posts remain on topic.
Once a whiff of a personal post comes up, delete it and reprimand the person who did it. Give them a couple chances to reform, and then get into bans. If this is done consistently, the need for such aggressive moderation will diminish as well (I did this on my convention board, and all it took was 2 or 3 deletions and notifications for it to stop).
Similarly, if posts bring in everything and the kitchen sink, do the same there as well. It may be work for a while, but eventually folks might learn what it's like to make an argument that stays on track.
Of course, these are all subjective calls, but such calls need to be made.
Finally, I do think that something Charles' has regularly said is correct. This forum is largely dominated by more "traditionalist" types. But there are some who are much more "revisionist" who are able to post here without igniting ire because they make real arguments that are presented in largely reasonable ways. Such folks include, off the top of my head, Steve Sabin, Erik Doughty, Jim Krauser and the rare post by John Stendahl. While I disagree with them and think many of their arguments are fallacious, at least they can present them and engage in a discussion that remains on track. With these folks, there's an actual opportunity of not only at least improving our disagreements, but also the glimmer of hope of eventually coming to a consensus because they are willing to listen to and respond to arguments coherently. These are the types of interactions I love, and the types that I have been able to engage in for a number of years because they at least hold out the promise of being fruitful.
The problem is, as I see it, that the posting habits of the regulars from the "revisionist" perspective draw so much ire (Charles, due to personal posts -- when he posts substantively and not personally, I quite appreciate what he says whether I agree with him or not) or frustration (Brian, due to not following a coherent train of thought), that other "revisionist" folks who might be tempted to post do not do so. Who would, with so much negativity directed against the regular "revisionist" posters? But I don't see that same ire directed toward the folks I mentioned above, and more interactions with folks who post like they do might actually encourage a larger presence of the "revisionist" point of view. And folks who are willing to discuss and engage substantial issues coherently are always welcome.
My $.02.