Again, I am very grateful for the encouragement, but the way that EdJohnston has dealt with the matter (see his talk page for my complaint) simply shows me that mods and admins, in general, have a very biased view towards editors who simply wish to improve the quality of articles... present company excepted.
 I read with interest the candidate statements for the latest Arbitration Committee Election and one of them, a very senior Wikipedian, summed it up so aptly... "We must clean our house, lest those who could advise and assist us dismiss Wikipedia as a nest of boobies. We should treat all editors alike. The best way to avoid being called a flock of juvenile loons is to stop acting like a flock of juvenile loons." Sadly, it is clear that prejudice and bias against some classes of contributors exists, and that the level of training, education and the ability to logically examine a conflict is woefully missing. It is inherently skewed.
 Although Ed has suggested referring the matter to the next level, it is clear, reading through all the Help pages, that Wiki has so many layers of arbitration, the complaint simply gets lost in the ensuing debate, and it then comes down to who is who in the Wiki org chart. The strap line that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that can be edited by ANYONE is a pie in the sky dream...it simply isn't true, as has been proven here. Looking through the dispute archives, there are tens of thousands of cases. Is it really worth it when more energy is expended in resolving obvious errors, and condoning poor attitude towards newbies, than in improving the site? So no, it can't be edited by anyone, it can only be edited by people who are approved, mates with other mods, or who make up false accusations and allegations against those who stand up to their incoherent and inaccurate edits. Quite sad really, as it could be quite good. But when there are people, like I've just encountered, who show no subject knowledge, logic, reasonableness, tolerance of new editors, and then blatantly lie to mods, to try and dig themselves out of their self-created holes, is it any wonder that people are leaving Wikipedia in droves (reading through complaint articles!)?  I came onto Wiki to contribute a few small lines to an article, about which I know an immense amount (I've been an RCVS patient for thirty plus years and have read the lot). But, the arrogance, unwelcome attitude, and air of "keep off MY article" by a self-proclaimed (but unverified) medical 'expert' does little to encourage collation of information, let alone in the collaborative manner in which it is supposed to develop. At best, the experience of contributing to Wikipedia is eye-opening; at worst it is frankly shocking, and an almost bully-the-newbies-off mentality against anyone new who 'dares' to try and contribute. So, I wish you the best with it, but it is not the sort of self-grandising ego-centric cesspit of nastiness, and unnecessary argument that I wish to be a part. And do feel free to communicate this note to the upper echelons as yet another typical day in the life of a newbie contributor. Maybe, they may take note, but I doubt it very much, after all, too much ego is at stake in a majority of cases. Cheers! )