Zoe-
I wrote this:
I think Graham's comments can be characterized as attacks, but Anthere & Martin seem to be trying to understand what happened. Graham seems to have some personal problems with you, which is unfortunate. I suggest ignoring him.
Then you wrote that:
GrahamN: Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be honest, open and straightforward in what they are doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act like that, they should lose their sysop status
GrahamN: I am astounded at the casual attitude that is displayed in so many of the comments that have been posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain truly free and democratic then it is vital that all sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that real consensus is always demonstrated before any deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia Constitution, these two principles should be in big capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind of complacency that so many users are demonstrating here.
GrahamN: What you are telling me is that there is some terrible external threat to us, and the only way to protect ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere
Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.
I can just repeat what I already said: Ignore GrahamN.
Regards,
Erik