`  == The best response is no response? ==  It seems that every time i try to talk to anybody around here, things end up deleted or changed. Chronic problem. At least this time it was actually apparently you who did it. Nice change. Are you just going to delete and ignore the people who are trying to get you to see the problems that exist? How about fixing the problems?  Your social experiment can't work under the weight of political warfare. Abuse is rampant, the abused have no real recourse. Gaming the system is too simple, and enough people are doing it that it is now part of what is simply required to be here. You don't have a creative or collaborative encyclopedia; You have a psycholigcal war zone.  What are you going to do about it? My suggestion, as an Expert in Sociology, Psychology, Systems Theory, Communications Theory, And Political Science is that The problem stems from the sheer quantity of ignorant pov warriors versus the smaller number of available experts, and the techniques and tactics that can be employed against reason, fact, knowledge, ot sense. I see the same problem Larry Sanger Saw, But i know that the solution isn't to become elitist, it is instead to create interactions that are meritocratic instead of based in pack psychology and mob or riot group movements.  LOGIC, which is what ANY serious educational or informational service has to eventually use, is the only solution to your problems. Logic ends most of the tools used by pack psychology, ends psychological warfare tactics, exposes ignorance and lies and misinformation, as well as bad reasoning, and levels the playing feild enough so that an Expert has a chance to actually confront that mob.  Unless you ban me, or I am blocked, I'll continue to attempt to talk with you about this problem, and it will start to pop up in as many places as i looks like it needs in order to get the attention it deserves. Avoidance isn't going to solve the problems, and, to be truthful, blocking me is only getting rid of the one thing that could have bailed you out; A lucid whos Agenda is to help you write the best encylopedia ever; who nonetheless understands the facts of the entropy you are experiencing and who knows how to deal with it and what the solutions to those problems are.  It will be better for you, and for everybody concerned, if you adress the problems, and work with those who are capable of being lucid relevant to those problems to solve those problems. Unless your goal is to have entropy and pack psychology dominate the world, and to be yet one more example of how politics and pack psychology enforce intentional ignorance and doublethink propagandas.  Lets start with square one. Knowledgable experts ought to be able to as much as float an outline on a talk page without having it deleted by pov warriors whos agenda is to keep the conversation in drama. People who are seriously abused by others ought to have realistic and swift recourse regarding that abuse. People should not be allowed to stack RFCs with their freinds. People should not be allowed to stack votes for deletion with their freinds. People should not be allowed to attack others and then cite them for personal attacks if they as much as respond with a simple mirrored reflection of the original attack. Pov warriors should not have pet rogue admins blocking people on trumped up charges to silence them for making noise about serious abuses. Wikipedia should not be psychological combat. And Yet, it is.  Since it vanished into the ethers, lets recap the more angry and to the point message you failed to answer. - Wikipedia IS evil [23]  It is host to the same big political groupthink game that goes on in all of the rest of civilization. It is a battleground for propaganda warfare, a lawless game in which anything can be said as long as its in ``neutral`` language even if its a propagandists lie, and even if it exists only to dispute a known fact. It is a place notable mostly for what it conspicuously lacks. There are in general thousands of articles which tell us about as much as a High Schooler might, and which then devolve into factoids and rhetoric. The expertise of depth knowledge is missing. No expert would submit themselves to a situation of patent pack psychology informational riot. Wikipedia is Evil. And You, Jimbo Wales, are the guy who created it. Maybe you should try some Formal Logic in the mix. Maybe this ``Randian`` Environment could use some controls on its chaos vectors. Maybe even a realistic and functional methodology for dealing with abuse might be in order.  Nice graphic box at the top of the page says to go post at the admin desk,. Funny, i tried that, and got less than no result. Abusiveness is rampant and the organization is headless. I can tell Wikipedia in fifty places what its problems are and how to solve them, but wikipedias nose is in the air, and the God king doesn't seem to read his talk page. What you have here isn't an encyclopedia, and in pretending, all that it offers a legitamate participant over the long term is abuse. The admin desk won't help you if you are being attacked and baited with ad hominems; they don't even know what one is. They aren't required to pick up any education to become admins; they come with the standard prole ``opinion`` fully intact, and no knowledge to back anything up.  Good luck with your evil science social sciences project. Let me know if you want any help to fix it. Prometheuspan      Larry Sanger has the same diagnosis that i do. I have more to offer in terms of how to solve the problem. But not whilst being blocked by trolls and their pet admins for making the effort.     ``Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project.  But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed peoplewhich is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipediathe constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project.  The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problemor I, at least, regard it as a problemwhich explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.)  I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the projectbeginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimediawere decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense.  Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they willat least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversybe forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to ``work with`` persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best).  This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation.  This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain. To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively an