The elephant in the room

The real problem in Wikipedia is its extensive bureaucracy. Those who moderate simply just doesn't do a very good job. They latch on to lame "red flags" like swearing - not to truth.

As a new editor, it usually goes something like this:

1. You make a good faith edit.
2. A hardened wikifascist editor disagrees with (or feels threatened by) your edit.
3. The hardened editor borderlines the new editor long enough to piss him or her off.
4. The new editor in frustration responds with anger at the harrassment.
5. The fascist editor invokes a moderator.
6. The moderator glosses over the incident, only seeing the expression of anger from the new editor.
7. The moderator blocks the new editor.
8. The new editor goes away angry and disenfranchised.
9. With no one left to challenge them, the fascist editor and moderator can continue their disruptive behavior.

"Wikipedia - turning good faith into anger" seems to be the corporate slogan.

See what I said above about wikibrawling skills. True story: I've edited one (math-type) article to add a synonym to the name of the concept. The synonym appears in dozens of books that can searched from Google Books. A long-term editor of that article reverted immediately saying the synonym is confusing. I asked on talk page for him to explain why. He managed to dig one (1) article in which the term was used with a slightly more general meaning (as if that even matters). According to his user page he is mostly a "reactive" editor -- meaning he thinks Wikipedia is perfect and spends most of is time reverting others' edits. How much of my time do you think I should waste battling a guy like that for a trivial and obvious improvement?