Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I still assert quite well that the "old timers" going nuts of late, trying to forcefully close down discussion on various matters, is a *direct* reaction to the fact that Wikipedia has now grown beyond their perceived personal control, and the fact that any one individual or small clique each day, each week, and each passing month will grow ever more irrelevant and obscure. Where a lone senior editor or admin or three previously had tremendous power, that is no longer the case, and many people are willing to challenge them--and successfully. I saw that even a beaurocrat on the Armedblowfish RFA was reverted, and told to knock it off by a group of editors for overstepping the bounds of his role.
Pinning this on "old timers" is a grossly offensive mischaracterization of the problem. We "old timers" became Wikipedians at a time when we could still be guided by philosophical principles. Many of us find the obsession of some editors to impose personal control just as objectionable as you. Also, do not assume that old-timers are synonymous with admins and bureaucrats; that has no basis in fact. There is no need for you to approach these serious problems with such a prejudicial attitude; that only puts you on the path to becoming a part of the problem.
Ec