What you and Trout fail to realize is how lucky we are that a few people even contribute at all.
So I have a better idea, why don't we leave it up to the people that actually bother to take their time and effort to make contributions? And then try not to hinder them to much with all sorts of restrictions and regulations. A little courtesy goes a long way and the success of this community largely depends on people adding to the wiki.
This is not the wikipedia, and it would be stupid to expect people to read a whole rulebook before making an edit. It is already a pretty big step for most people to take, by making policy like this you will only scare them away more. These pages are in a constant state of development, having comments on them is a natural part of the process. And we desperately need more information and experience, way more then we need all the pages to be "clean".
Vandalism in my opinion should always be condemned, no matter how much you agree with the point they are trying to make. The message you have been sending here is that it's ok to put a rant somewhere and then you will come in as the wiki admin and condemn the person the rant is addressed to, I think that is a very dangerous prescedent.
I added something, somebody else doesn't agree and (re-)moves it, I don't agree and move it back. That should of been the end of this. The rest could have been discussed on the talk page. I don't see any need for somebody (who had nothing to add to that page in the first place) to keep messing with it just because they don't think it's "worthy", "right" or would like to make some rules. Again we need more information, not less. Should it ever become to much, outdated, or even turn out to be plain wrong then it can always be split up, updated or (re-)moved. The wiki is not about what I want, what you want or what Trout wants, it is about what we as a community need.
A better idea would be to set some general guidlines, but more in the form of suggestions and not as hard rules that some people will feel compelled to enforce at any cost.
Now that we're discussing these things I'm feeling confident we can work something out that is acceptable for all of us. Like you said in the end we're all doing our best to make the most out of the wiki, I guess we just need to figure out how to avoid stepping on each others toes more then necessary. And to be honest, apart from this incident, I'm glad you guys put in your time and effort, even if I don't always agree.
Then again, there are plenty of things in the wiki I don't agree with, that doesn't mean they are wrong or even need to be changed. And certainly not just because I have a high post count or have added a few pages here and there. I didn't have that when I started out, nobody does. But had this happened then, I would probably just simply have decided to quietly walk away. In this stage we simply cannot afford to lose even a single serious contribution, and no amount of reorganizing and spell-checking (which are also important!) can make up for that.
But it does however strike me as very odd that this Trout person (who is obviously in the middle of this) has nothing to say for himself. And it makes me wonder why people that aparently have so little interest in this community should dictate how the wiki must be strictly maintained.
Sorry for the long post, I didn't really mean for this to be so much of a lecture. I'm certainly not the posterboy for encouraging people, let me be the first to admit that, but I will try to be a bit less confrontational (or as some people like to say "hostile"). Anyway, thanks for listening and have a good weekend.
