[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary

[lcrocker at nupedia.com]

> 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.