I have found continuing to expend my time, energies and resources as an editor of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to be a complete waste. Despite specific statements in the guidelines that acknowledge the potential existence of bad faith behavior, there is no dispute resolution process set up that allows for it as a possible factor in a dispute. Many editors are closed-minded and arrogant jerks who misrepresent, twist, and distort the content under discussion, the sources being cited against them, or even previous posts in the discussion. When up against me or someone like me who refuses to give up on the reality of the situation, they downright lie. Not only do administrators accuse me of failing to assume good faith, of being uncivil, and/or of making personal attacks (it is, in fact, absolutely encyclopedia business and not the least bit personal) when I point out this behavior detrimental to the encyclopedia, they completely ignore said other editor's behavior. In olden times, monarchs executed messengers who brought them bad news, yet they dealt with the content of those messages on their own terms, but not here: its kill the messenger and throw away the message. Consequently, these editors are encouraged to continue behaving in this fashion, and such misconduct is running rampant here. Worse, several of these good faith-less editors are themselves admins. As things stand, this encyclopedia is worthless. If anyone answers a question in some online discussion forum by citing the relevant Wikipedia article, someone immediately states that it can't be trusted, and no one tries to defend it at all. The straw that broke the camel's back was a recent post in response to my last die-hard effort to accomplish genuine improvements here, on the talk page tied to the Assume good faith guideline page. It was claimed that my suggestions for improving things here had been tried elsewhere and failed, which is patently untrue. Restricting submitting to registered contributors is in place at the Internet Movie Database, TV.com and Grand Comics Database, to the great benefit of their respective contents and reputations (the rules here dismissing them entirely as sources are hypocritical, and unjustified anyway). And absolutely nowhere on the internet can I find a moderator or administrator who does not dismiss claims of willful and harmful misconduct out of hand. That poster also claimed that there are alternate similar projects on the net, but general search engine searches on numerous subjects have brought up no encyclopedia articles but those here. Either he said what he wanted to believe in defense of the indefensible without giving a damn to check if he was right, or he lied. Incompetent or unethical, there's no third way. For the last time, I cite Thomas Jefferson's defense of referring to King George III as a tyrant in the US Declaration of Independence: "The king is a tyrant, whether we say so or not; we might as well say so." And "might as well" was obviously an understatement, as the king's tyranny was a major factor in our rebellion against him and his government. Similarly, all the above is true whether I say so or not, and absolutely needs to be said for the good of the project. Not that I have any hope that doing so will accomplish anything whatsoever. Good bye.