There is nothing wrong with looking at a newbie's contributions more carefully than you would at those of a known contributor, but the yardstick that you apply in evaluating those contributions must remain the same one.
I don't see any evidence at all that KQ's action was anything but a sincere and restrained attempt to protect the project from an action that appeared to be dangerous, and both he and Neil worked it out admirably. This episode is, if anything, a testament to how /well/ the process we have works. I find your suggestion that KQ's motives were personal in any way offensive, and I think you owe him an apology.
Sysops are here for good reason: because some people can cause damage to the project, well-meaning and otherwise, and someone has to take responsibility for guiding the project toward its stated goals. So far, everyone has done that in a an honest, fair, reasonable, and restrained way. The continued harping on by some about "cliquism" or "cabals" is as tiresome as it is completely falsified by the evidence of the actual actions here. The Wikipedia process we have works very well--if you want to fix it, you'll have to first show me where it's broken, and I just haven't seen that today.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org