Disclaimer: I'm the same David Still that wrote the blog post being discussed. :)
We are obviously only hearing one side of the story, but even so it's pretty crazy. Hearing from the former CZ editor in the comments backing him up helped, of course.
On this note, I strongly suggest that you read through as much of the thread as is available. The relevant links, in chronological order, go like this:
1. My original post at Ars Technica, under the username 'stigmata', in which I make many of the same points. I was responded to by Mike Johnson of the CZ Executive Committee ('johnsonmx'). http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/691002192831?...
2. The (criticism-only) blog post that followed: http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/03/and-yet-still-so-far-to-go/
3. My suggestions for change, based on the previous two posts, and the rejection email from Citizendium-L (be sure to read the forum thread I linked to): http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/03/and-now-the-suggestions/
4. My announcement that I'd put a proof-of-concept online, demonstrating one idea for improving the Approval process: http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/06/making-approval-not-suck/
5. My bitter response to Larry's rejection of the above idea: http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/07/citizendium-isnt-interested-in-your-opinion...
Those five links provide as close to the full story as is publicly available. I should note that a number of Citizendium contributors have taken a very agreeable stance toward me, as you'd see at my Citizendium talk page and the CZ forum thread linked above -- especially Mike Johnson, who's been very moderate and civil throughout the debate.
I'll try not to argue my point too much, here. I just sensed a need to point out a little more of the story.
Cheerio, David