Cliques, bullying, use of "policies" as a weapon, and the tyranny of the administration system
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.
Editors should not edit Wikipedia when they have conflicts of interest (as in promoting shares of a certain company through editing Wikipedia articles).
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.
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.
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.