Dabljuh wrote:
Obviously, this is just a disruptive user disappointed he could not get Wikipedia to work the way he wanted.
Oh, 6000 mainspace edits. That of course changes everything. Obviously, this is a responsible editor and we must investigate why he is disappointed with working in Wikipedia.
And that's right after I point out (and get ad hominem'd for it) that social networking is more important than having a high edit count, and that having a high edit count is more important than being a responsible journalist / scholar observing policy, when it comes to being successful inside Wikipedia. I.e. being able to contribute to the "Encyclopedia" without being harassed or even forcefully removed by powerful factions that happen to share a different POV.
To the "upper management" of Wikipedia: Please, take these problems serious and act. Not doing so will simply make Wikipedia lose more and more good editors.
Huh? How is accepting that those with high edit counts (and thus more experience editing) are more likely to know what they're talking about than someone who just arrived yesterday making "social networking" more important than writing the encyclopaedia? Believe me, if someone had 6000 edits in userspace and nothing else, nobody would respect him or her, but if the 6000 edits are well-distributed, it's a likely indicator that the fellow either knows what he/she is talking about. (It's never an infallible one, however; some of our worst POV warriors, and of course edit warriors, will have high edit counts.)
And do define "responsible journalist / scholar". If you arrive at Wikipedia with preconceptions of how things should be done from past experience, and don't adjust these preconceptions, then you will of course have a difficult time fitting in, especially when our editorial norms are established for good reasons.
John