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

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:May 2011 Update

My attempt to edit have been frustrated , like yours...my experience is very recent and I see that I am not the only one that is running away from editing because of the behavior of the so called "administrators' who love their power and probably, some of them, vicariously live their experience in Wikipedia as powerful individuals, since their life is different. I hope that this exercise of receiving input and comment is getting somewhere. I see that great charts have been created, statistic are cited, powerful data inserted in this report but the substance of the reason of the decline of the quality of Wikipedia is in these comments. I see that there is a lot of agreement on the topic of the civility and the abuse of the editors administrators. Maybe we are venting our frustration and, personally, I am writing only because I hope that this time RKLawton and SteveBaker will have no power to shut me down and say to each other "Ignore the OP, keep the article on track. If he continues to be disruptive, we can block him from further editing......." and the " tut...tut....he is gone, good bye". Then remove immediately my long , sourced and well researched discussion without even replying.

PRGiusi13:42, 13 May 2011

I took a minute to look into this, and this is what i found:

  • Your account was registered at 12:03, 10 May 2011 ([1])
  • Less then 20 minutes after you registered [2], you make a long comment on the talk:oxygen page.
  • In this comment you are supporting a users statement who had been blocked, and who had threatened to create sockpuppets right before he was blocked [3]

Now, what is the chance an entirely new user without previous experience register, and find himself involved in a discussion on a talk page, fully knowing what is happening on that specific page? I'd say that chance is slim to none, and I equally say that this is simply not in line with the sockpuppetry rules. I am not saying admin abuse does not exist, but in your case a block was definitely warranted, as you quite clearly and knowingly went over the line.

Excirial15:06, 13 May 2011

I was following Verderosso discussion and I was not planning to log in until SteveBaker and Lawton said that nobody was writing in support of Verderosso and I thought they gave no space to any type of discussion and only threatened to block so i decided to log in.... is there a rule against that? Where did I cross the line? Hope you had the chance to read everything that was erased. There are several people who are stockholders of companies where Santilli is involved and know Santilli peer-reviewed work and books . One is a public company with 3,000 stockholders. Are they all sock puppets and banned from writing in Wikipedia ? Also there are a couple of dozens of people attending workshop, organizing conferences and publishing with Santilli and about Santilli in peer-reviewed journals. Are they all banned from participating? There are also people self-publishing with Santilli. What is wrong with that, as long as it is not cited in Wikipedia as published work..Glad you are admitting that there could be some irregularities in that page and in the absolute power of the editors there. If everything were perfect in Wikipedia editing we will not have had these discussions.

PRGiusi15:49, 13 May 2011

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