Cliques, bullying, use of "policies" as a weapon, and the tyranny of the administration system

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:May 2011 Update

Editors should not edit Wikipedia when they have conflicts of interest (as in promoting shares of a certain company through editing Wikipedia articles).

Tgeorgescu21:46, 13 May 2011

THis is not promoting shares.....they do not need promotion. I am simply presenting who I am and Santilli does not need promotion as you well know. Please say now who you are! And this discussion is not editing but replying to a real problem of Wikipedia identified by many. ! I have not been bloked yet....so I can write Also there is no violation when there is a description of possible linkage. Are you saying that 3,000 shareholders cannot ask to be editors? What kind of interest do you have in calling Santilli fringe? Now is your turn.Interesting also that like some other editors you are not engaging in discussion, just some brief sentences that do not reply to the messages... common technique.

PRGiusi19:01, 14 May 2011

I'm going to step in here. This ends now. Personal attacks and innuendo have no place in this discussion. Please, gentle-people, take it to talk... or better yet, don't do it anywhere on this wiki.

~Philippe (WMF)17:20, 15 May 2011

It is hard to avoid angry words and angry feelings when there is nobody policing editors/administrators who write as below "Now as for the previous arguments regarding your friend's support of fringe science and his propensity to attribute conspiracies by his peers to suppress his work - how shall we best describe this? Words that come to mind are: quack, nutter, lunatic, paranoid, delusional, and so on. I think "fringe scientist" would be the more reasonable, and more polite term. The one thing we don't want to do is mislead our readers into believing this fellow is credible. If you would like to suggest alternative wording appropriated for an encyclopedia, please share. Rklawton (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) These editors/administrators set the tone. I have tried to intervene, but I was blocked, insulted while the two editors where allowed to make everybody run away from the page. Now, it is a very solitary article, very poorly referenced and poorly written.

PRGiusi15:53, 16 May 2011