Criticism
of two of Wikipedia's editors
(part 2)
Their lies, damned lies, and statistics, and their rule breaking practices, bad manners, and content manipulation
A quick introduction: My two critics are a couple of delusional nitwits who want Wikipedia to be a playground where their 'personal opinions' can over-ride 'scientifically proven facts'. For example, they describe Da Costa's syndrome as a condition which is 'considered' the 'manifestations' of an 'anxiety disorder' here, while they were systematically deleting all of the scientific proof that the symptoms have a physical basis See my report here. See also my report on their childish edit war game tactics here.
The Harshest Punishment Possible
I recommend the harshest punshment possible for the editor named WhatamIdoing who deliberately broke Wikipedia's rules about good manners by using "attitude readjustment tools" to stir up hatred and contempt against me among editors and readers who knew absolutely nothing about the subject being discussed. e.g. See here and here and here and here and here and here
Please give me five minutes of your valuable time
My main critic wants you to believe that she is intelligent and I am stupid, so before you make any decisions I would like you to spend five minutes of your valuable time examining some facts which will get in the way of her story.
1. She wants you to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is an anxiety disorder which affects soldiers, as you can see in the first paragraph of her article here.
2. She wants you to believe that the ailment is caused by the fear of battle which you can see in her notes to reference number 14 here.
3. However, she has used the OMIM website as her reference number 11. The capital letters are an abbreviation for the "Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man". which means that some people are born with the condition. She deliberately didn't mention that in the text of her version of the article, and is hoping that you wouldn't notice. See here and here.
Thankyou for your valuable time which I appreciate.
half an hour, if you are interested
If, like most people, this subject is not of particular interest to you, then you don't have to read any more, but you might like to send emails with a link to this evidence to some of your friends to get 'independent' opinions.
If, however, you are interested in this subject, then I invite you to spend about a half an hour of your valuable time looking at the following evidence . . .
Please spend a few minutes reading here and here . . . .
and about two minutes reading two sections from my version of the article here (my main critic deleted all that) . . .
Now please spend about 20 minutes reading the descriptions on my website here, and here, and here.
Note also that my main critic lost most of her arguments against me, and she started arguing with another editor in which she tried to make herself sound intelligent by admitting that Da Costa's syndrome was, in her opinion, "a physical disorder". However, everything else she wrote in that argument was either obvious, or it was pretentious pomp full of errors and senseless double talk. She tries to create the impression that she understands the problem 'precisely', but her description is a 'sloppy' mess. See here.
Seven months later she admitted that she didn't know much about the subject until I started improving the article for Wikipedia, but in every discussion for 12 months she tried to act like an expert. See the first paragraph, which is followed by a lot more of her pretentious exaggerations and flamboyant lies and nonsense here.
I would now like you to spend two minutes checking on one of the articles which she used as number 5 in her reference list here. The author, Paul Wood, had a bias in favor of anxiety as a cause, but my main critic does not know, and didn't mention in her version of the article, and doesn't want you to know this quote from the second column of the first page. . . "In soldier's Da Costa's syndrome necessarily occurs at military age, the average being 28.12 years in my series of 200 cases, but 18.6% began in early childhood and 48% in the teens and early twenties." (end of quote). In another study mentioned on that same page, the findings showed that in those with thin physiques "the average age of onset was 11.8 years" (end of quote). See here.
If you continue to read that article you will come to page 771 which discusses some of the physical characteristics of the typical patient, such as sideways curvature of the spine, and abnormal chest shape, and the typical physical causes of the chest pain such as cranking a car engine and lifting heavy weights, and it notes that the pain can sometimes be relieved by laying on the left side. See here.
If you have spent a half an hour or more looking at that evidence I really do appreciate your time, and it is very refreshing to know that some people are prepared to make 'informed decisions', rather than leaping to conclusions when they don't actually know or understand what the are talking about.
If your child develops this ailment at the age of ten, are you going to read the Wikipedia article about Da Costa's syndrome without doing anything about it?
Now, perhaps you could send this information to your friends by email, and maybe someone will do something about it. I can't, I'm only one person who knows the facts.
You be the judge
The truly independent judge
Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect an unbiased and "neutral point of view".
However, while I was contributing to an article called Da Costa's syndrome I had one main critic who always had one hundred percent dictatorship over every word on the page. She worked with an assistant who always agreed with her, and whenever any uninvolved or neutral editor, or any administrator came to the page she would start relentlessly bossing them around by telling them what to think, and what to do, until, almost without exception, they all caved in and conceded to her wishes. or were banned.
Nevertheless, at one stage two neutral editors suggested that each person who was interested in the topic write a version of the article for them to look at independently and merge into one, to guarantee that it truly did represent a 'neutral point of view'.
My main critic typically ignored the question, and her assistant refused to write one, and I took up their offer and wrote one which complied with all of the policies.
This meant that there were only two to choose from, namely, the one that was completely controlled by my main critic, and mine.
This was the first comment made by one of the neutral editors about my version . . .
"To be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently up and I can't find anything which is COI, unsourced (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased. As much as I dread to restart anything I believe it's important to encourage editors, no matter what's happened. So could I ask you to have a look at it and gently, gently, comment on it? Thanks! Hope you're well,"signed Avnjay10:51, 5 October 2008" See here
You can see that Avnjay is obviously afraid of a hostile reaction by the way she says that she dreads to start the discussion again, and virtually begs for the reply to be presented 'gently, gently'.
She was correct in her prediction because my main critic immediately launched into a hostile rant which never ceased until Avnjay 'caved in' and conceded to her opinion, and my version was deleted, and I was banned.
However, you, the person who is reading this now, do not have to come under her influence, so you are uninvolved, and truly neutral, and can still think for yourself, and decide, and judge for yourself.
Which version is the best in terms of it's plain English depth and breadth of coverage, it's accuracy and quality, and it's neutral point of view?
I would like you to compare the history sections with my version here, and her version here.
I would also like you to compare the range and quality of references from my list here, and her list here.
It would be useful for you to know how other similar articles are presented, so you can have a look at the one about asthma to compare the length, layout, and the type and range of section headings etc. here
Thank you.
. |
Did you hear the one about . . .
(In order to understand this joke you will need to know that, according to the OMIM website, "orthostatic intolerance" and "the chronic fatigue syndrome" are the same syndrome described by J.M. Da Costa in 1871)
Three men were sitting on a park bench on a sunny day when one of them bent down to tie up his shoe laces, and then sat up and felt dizzy. After a brief discussion they learned that they all occasionally had the same problem, and as the discussion continued they found that they all had the other typical symptoms which go with it.
The first man said that his doctor gave him a tilt table test and told him that he had "orthostatic intolerance".
The second man said that his doctor told him that he had a common condition called "the chronic fatigue syndrome".
The third man said that he had read an article in Wikipedia called Da Costa's syndrome, and that his symptoms were supposed to be caused by the fear of battle.
The first man said - "but you didn't tell us that you had been in the army".
The third man said - "that's because I hadn't".
The first man said "I've never been to war either".
The second man said "me neither".
The first man then said - "who writes Wikipedia".
The third man said "I don't know, but the person who wrote the article about Da Costa's syndrome was an anonymous middle aged woman who reckons she has an annoyingly high IQ.
The second man said "What would she know about the war?".
The third man said - "If you don't ask stupid questions, I won't give you a stupid answer." |
The civility policy
My Wikipedia ID was Posturewriter, and my main critic was an editor named WhatamIdoing, and she was almost always asssted by Gordonofcartoon.
If they want me or any other editor to treat them with good manners then they will have to spend an enormous amount of time doing lessons on how to set a good example. See my report here
While I was in Wikipedia they had me on a watchlist for 12 months during which time the policy required me to be polite while they were deliberately offensive, until they eventually arranged for me to be banned.
Since then I have been commenting on their editing practices, and have recently set up a new page on 25-11-11 for some of the information which was previously on this one, so there may be some change in the sequence of essays. As you can appreciate, if they only told one lie, or broke one rule, I wouldn't have much to write about, or much evidence to link to, but in fact they were prolific liars. Each comment I made needs to be considered as a stand alone article. Also some of the links may be temporarily not matching. See the new page here
Another editor has recently criticised her for using crude language (the word 'bloody'), and for having "a history" of making "personal attacks" against new contributorss, but she just ignores it and carries on regardless here.
A concise summary of how my main critic deceived the other editors
1. She could tell lies faster than I could tell the truth - and she knew it.
2. She could tell more convincing lies than my truths.
3. She could invent excuses faster than she broke all of the rules of Wikipedia.
4. She could tell lies and break all of the rules faster than I could provide the evidence to prove that she was telling lies - and she knew it.
A summary of her personality traits
1. She is a prolific liar. e.g. See my report here
2. She takes pride in her ability to be rude to other editors and get away with it by using what she calls 'instrumental' or 'strategic' 'rudeness' here. She also thinks that it is clever to use innuendo's as 'indirect' rudeness, and at the same time she says that she resents people who accuse her of being rude e.g. here.
3. She wants the ignore all rules' policy to be the major policy in Wikipedia, and encourages and rewards her friends for using it, and recommends keeping it a secret from anyone who disagrees with her. See my report here
She doesn't understand that ill-mannered, lying and cheating behaviour is regarded as shameful and disgusting by most people.
Her recent response to my criticism can be seen here. Notice how she focuses on me to divert attention away from the evidence that she is a liar etc, and that my criticism of her is justified. See more evidence of her lies here.
The founders and administrators of Wikipedia need to consider if her behaviour is compatible with their objective of being regarded as a friendly, inviting, and respectable organisation.
How has she been winning arguments against other editors for eight years
1. She tells other editors that they must only get their information from top quality 'Reliable sources', while at the same time she tells lies about the content, the sources, the policies, and other people, in a manner that makes her personally an unreliable source of anything.
2. She tells other editors that they must obey the 'Civility policy' and treat her with courtesy, while at the same time she is blatantly rude, and is offensive and insulting about them in 'secret' discussions (behind their backs).
3. She demands that other editors 'obey ' the rules like everyone else, while at the same time she writes them, changes them, adds ambiguities and loopholes, and also tells lies about the rules, ignores them, and breaks them any time it suits her.
She epitomises the word 'control freak' - an arrogant, but hollow person who has no conscience and no shame, no standards, and no principles, who wants the rules to apply to everyone except herself.
Her stupid opinion about my ideas being fringy nonsense
I took their article about Da Costa's syndrome from insignificant to number 1 on the Google search engine.
According to my main critic Wikipedia is not the place to be publishing one mans theory because it is a violation of 'original research policy'. She argued that the only items which are acceptable are those in 'review articles' which have been published in top quality independent research journals, dictionaries, and textbooks that have a reputation for fact checking and 'reliability'.
However when I started studying such sources in 1975 there was simply the comment that the cause was unknown, so the need and opportunity was there for somebody to solve the problem.
I wasn't interested in the ideas of fringy quacks, but wanted only reliable, repeatable facts. Also, in order to confirm that my own observations and conclusions were on the right track I looked for, and found scientific evidence, which is what all good researchers do. I was also interested to see if anyone else had made similar observations or suggestions about individual facts.
For example, my theory presents the idea that the combination of a stooped posture and a thin physique with a long narrow chest disposes to chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, fatigue and abdominal pain etc. Evidence for those ideas can be found in the writings of Jacob Mendez Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Wood, and Paul Dudley White. I therefore used them as references to support my version of the article about Da Costa's syndrome. The same authors were later used by my main critic in her preferred version, so, according to her own arrogant opinion, they must be among the most reliable of the tens of thousands of researchers in the past 130 years. The only one of my main references which involved the research findings of one person was that of S.Wolf who discovered the cause of the breathlessness, but his discovery has since been verified and reviewed by many people, including Cohen and White. Paul Wood suggested that one of the causes of the chest pains could be 'faulty posture'. In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie suggested that the pooling of blood in the abdominal veins was the cause of the fatigue, and in 1950, in the 2nd edition of Lord Horder's 'British Encyclopedia of Medical Practice'gg, it was stated that postural pressure on the abdominal veins produced abdominal pain and fatigue. According to the current version of the OMIM website the symptoms described by J.M. Da Costa in 1871 are now considered to be 'Orthostatic Intolerance' which refers, in particular, to the faintness and fatigue which is attributed to the inefficient flow of blood from the feet to the brain when the person moves from the laying to the standing position. See more here. A summary of my theory can be seen here. The complete list of 61 references which I provided to Wikipedia can be seen here
The suggestion that I am a fringy kook who uses unreliable sources of information is ridiculous.
When my main critic told a group of editors that most, if not all of my references didn't even meet Wikipedia's basic standards of reliability, she was telling lies.
One of my main critics many tangled web of lies
At 23:10, on 28-5-2008 my main critic made three statements which clearly show her ignorance and incompetece in arguments.
I will explain why.
First some facts. Da Costa's syndrome was named after a medical condition described by Jacob Mendez Da Costa who wrote a research paper in 1871 in which he reported in his introduction that the ailment was common in soldiers in the American Civil War, and also common in civilians. I added that paper as a reference. My main critic used a reference by Oglesby Paul from 1987. In his introduction and conclusion that author described the condition as common, and on page 311 he stated . . . "Cohen and White reported that 2-4% of the population had this disorder". See here
However, my main critic started an argument with another editor and wrote these ridiculous words about The Rare Disease Database which included Da Costa's syndrome in it's list . . .
"Please explain why you believe that the National Organization for Rare Diseases -- the preeminent organization for rare diseases, which is considered the most authoritative and comprehensive organization in the entire world for rare diseases, and whose work is cited with approval by several governments, including, for example, the US and Canada -- is "unreliable."" See here and here
Now for some more facts; According to my theory, one of the causes of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome is poor posture. To support that idea I used a book by Paul Wood which was published in 1956, and which included a chapter where he suggested that 'faulty posture' might be one of the causes, and he included a photo of the thin and stooped physique of a patient which he described as 'typical'. My main critic described my theory as nonsense and crap, and deleted it and the reference, by arguing that it was rubbish and that my references were old and unreliable etc.
However, my main critic also became involved in another argument with another editor about something else and wrote this . . .
"Please explain why a report by Paul Wood, MD, FRCP, published in BMJ, is "unreliable." On what grounds, exactly? Are you aware that Paul Wood was a physician at the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart, in the Effort Syndrome Unit itself? Do you think he somehow held that position without knowing anything about the sole subject of the entire unit?" See again here
I will now give some more facts: In the nineteenth century there were many illnesses which were not very well understood, and such patients were generally given the diagnosis of 'neurasthenia'. One such ailment was "Da Costa's syndrome". In England in the early twentieth century Sir Thomas Lewis gave Da Costa's syndrome the new label of the Effort syndrome, which became widely used there. In the United States the most widely used label was "neurocirculatory asthenia". There were more than 100 different labels used in the history of the topic. One of them was anxiety neurosis. It referred to the idea that the symptoms are caused by anxiety. One of the problems with that idea is that many of the patients have the symptoms but are not anxious and vice-versa. Another problem is that many people have anxiety as the cause of their illnesses, but they don't have Da Costa's syndrome.
As you can see "neurasthenia" is an entire category of illnesses, Anxiety neurosis is sometimes used as a wide category of illnesses caused by anxiety, and is sometimes used to mean the same as Da Costa's syndrome, and the Effort syndrome and Neurocirculatory asthenia are different labels which mean the same as Da Costa's syndrome.
My main critic wrote this . . .
"Please explain how "THE purpose of this report is to summarize present-day knowledge about neurocirculatory asthenia (anxiety neurosis, neurasthenia, effort syndrome) with special attention to its relationships with life situations..." can be interpreted in any way other than "These four names refer to exactly the same thing." See again here
After fiinishing those three arguments with another editor she wrote these words to him . . .
"I find your lectures about civility offensive and suggest that you stop using that policy as a bludgeon in your ongoing efforts to thwart my efforts to make this article accurate".
There is a popular way to describe my main critic. She is now trapped in her own tangled web of lies. |
My main critics response on 28-10-11, more than two years after I was banned
While I was involved with Wikipedia I had two critics who managed to get me banned in January 2009, by an administrator named Moreschi, who ignored all the rules. I then continued to respond to my them on my own website, and one of my critics has been indirectly making remarks about me ever since, but pretending not to notice. However today, almost three years later, on 28-10-11, she made a direct response. She is still misrepresenting facts and telling blatant lies.
For example, I will first tell you some facts.
I wrote a theory about posture and health in 1980, and later wrote a book about posture between 1994 and 2000, which eventually contained over 1000 pages.
During that time I also established a website, in about 1994, although I didn't add a web counter until November 2001. I was often on the top 10 list of the Google search engine for posture, and occasionally number 1, long before Wikipedia existed, and I didn't even know that they had an article about posture because I had never seen it mentioned anywhere.
I joined Wikipedia in 2007, and as I said, I was banned in 2009, and started commenting on my two critics on my own website.
This is one of the many ridiculous lies my main critic wrote today the 28th October 2011 . . .
"The blocked user now has his own website, where he vilifies me personally but has completely stopped harming Wikipedia." (end of quote) See here
You can see that she is deliberately trying to create the false impression that Wikipedia has been on the internet for longer than me, and that my website is new.
The number of lies she tells is truly astonishing.
In order for you to know how she is successful in deceiving people like you I will describe one of her methods.
She often tells lies in one particular discussion, or on one particular day, and relies on the fact that you will believe her without bothering to go back to the previous discussion, or the previous year to check the facts, and that you will automatically make your decision, and develop your prejudice on the basis of what she tells you.
Incidentally she also says that I was vilifying her, but she defamed me. See my reports here and here, and here. She also said that she needs the public support, but she regards the readers and the public as PC:CTTL (cattle) see here. She is in more general terms arrogant, and thinks that everyone else is stupid and easily fooled.
My main critic wants you to believe that she is a respectable rule-abiding editor
My main critic wants the other editors to believe that she is an honest, intelligent, mature, courteous, respectable, rule-abiding member of Wikipedia. She also wants them to believe that I am a stupid, ignorant, worthless and disruptive, fringy kook who has only one idea.
However I would like to provide a few more facts to get in the way of her story.
For example, ever since I was young I have always been interested in facts and evidence, and have been critical of the type of people who claim to be able to predict the future by gazing into a crystal ball, or hillbilly's who claim to be able to find water with a piece of stick called a divining rod, or people who have claimed to have seen little green men get out of a flying saucer in their backyard. When I was trying to determine the cause of medical problems I gained some information by reading research journals at the Adelaide University library, and I studied details, and read and purchased books from all sources that were up to 100 years old, and read history books to assess the progress of ideas over 3000 years, and I translated 17th century medical jargon into modern English.
Now I would like you to see my reports about my main critic, the 'rule-ignoring', rule abiding' editor of Wikipedia, and her manners etc. here and here and here and here. See also here
This is what Jacob Mendez Da Costa wrote in 1871 on page 25 of his research paper . . .
"The pulse is always greatly and rapidly influenced by position. Thus in one case (Case 12), in which, in the standing posture, it was from 105-108, it became shortly after lying down rather less than 80".
This is what my main critic wrote in her version of the article about Da Costa's syndrome . . .
"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities" here
This is what Da Costa wrote about the breathing abnormality on page 25 . . .
"it was astonishing that the respiration was so little hurried."
This is what my main critic wrote in one of her many arguments . . .
"Most of them have a problem with habitual hyperventilation" see here
(hyperventialation is rapid breathing)
My main critic doesn't understand the topic or even know what she is talking about.
Another comment on my main critics reaction to my website:
and some open questions to another editor, named Moreschi, who banned me
Moreschi. I have absolutely no wish to get you involved in this dispute, but my main critic has put both of us in a position of difficulty in which I have no choice, so please blame her 100% for the consequences. This is my response to her latest comment. Her Wikipedia ID is WhatamIdoing.
She has just said on 28th October 2011 that public support for editors, like yourself, who have to make difficult decisions to block someone, "is a key component", so before the public even thinks about supporting you, or her. I would like you to answer "all" of the following questions honestly. See her comments here and her first response two years ago on 21st July 2009 here
Here are my questions to you. . . .
1. Do you have any medical qualifications? (I don't think you do)
2. Did you know anything about Da Costa's syndrome before you became involved in this dispute? (I don't think you did)
3. Did you believe everything she told you about the topic, and about me?
4. You only participated in one very brief discussion several months before you banned me, and as soon as I joined that discussion to defend myself you disappeared without any further comment. Is that true?
5. My main critic bribed you into banning me by offering you a barnstar if you did. Is that true? (I think that she did)
6. You did not try to get consensus for your decision before banning me. Is that true?
7. You threatened all of the 12 other arbitrators that if any one of them challenged your decision you would strenuously argue with them. Is that true?
8. Did my main critic give you a barnstar for banning me, several months later?
9. Did she try to hide the reason in the diff notes, so that nobody but you would know what the real reason was in the future. See my full report here
I would now like you to answer another series of questions.
1. Wikipedia has a policy about good manners called WP:Civil which had been compiled by hundreds of editors over a period of many years. is that true?
2. At one stage you told them that they were 'f...ing. stupid', and their policy was 'f. . . ing stupid', and that you could do a better job of it on your own'. Is that true? or were your exact words slightly different, but with the same attitude and tone? Be honest!
3. When I discussed those comments on my website, somebody told you about them. Is that true?, and was it my main critic?
4. You later deleted those remarks about WP:Civil from Wikipedia. Is that true?
5. You then used your admin tools to put a 'protection' on the page so that nobody, other than administrators, could see them in the history of edits. In other words, none of the other editors, or readers, or members of the public can see your previous comments. Is that true?
6. Have you completely rewritten a more respectable report about your attitude to 'civility'?
6. If you want the public to trust you are you prepared to "unprotect" that page and let them see exactly what you wrote in the past?
My main critic needs public support for her style of editing?
I would now like to mention that I am a very confident person who doesn't feel the need for anyone's help in an argument. However, my main critic always had the help of one other editor, who would predictably participate in 95% of the disputes, but she would still lose arguments, and then the two of them would rush off to get help from dozens of other groups of editors. She never got much help, but would tell each new group that the whole community of Wikipedia was supporting her, and now she wants support from you, the public.
If I was to ask for your support she would tell everyone else that I was begging for help, so please don't believe her. I just need members of the public who have brains to outnumber her supporters.
However, I am not trying to win a popularity contest. All I am interested in is facts and evidence.
She has said something else which I want the public to think about . . . "The blocked user now has his own website, where he vilifies me personally but has completely stopped harming Wikipedia." (end of quote).
However, I have never intended to harm Wikipedia, and in fact, I have tried my hardest not to, but she is in it, so I have to criticise the administrators for not forcing her to comply with their policies, and for not banning her, and for having an "ignore all rules" policy which she uses and encourages and rewards her friends to use!!!
Independent opinions?
When my main critic refers to me "Civil POV Pushing" she is saying that I had a bias and was, in her opinion, politely pushing my own point of view.
However, I was simply complying with the policy which requires courteous discussion, but she is arrogant and ill-mannered, and found a devious way of making my politeness seem 'wrong'. (She can find a policy which says that I am wrong when I'm polite, and she is right when she is being ill-mannered! - and that is called Wikilawyering)
if you read her comments you would also get the false impression that the entire Wikipedia community had spent 12 months telling me that my version of the article was biased and that I had a conflict of interest, and that everyone else was replacing my version of the article with her version.
However, see my report on how she failed to get consensus for the 'Conflict of interest' accusation, and yet faked the idea that she was successful in every discussion for the next 12 months here
Note that she did not tell me about that Civil POV PUSHING accusations which she was making in secret, because she didn't want me to have the opportunity to put my side of the story to the other editors here.
See also my report on how she faked consensus about everything. here
See how the only "neutral" editor to comment on my version of the article said that it was a lot better than hers in the third paragraph here
See my report on how there are more than 90,000 editors but my two critics were the only ones to delete my version of the article and replace it with theirs, and that they "teamed" up in a deliberate and calculated technical violation of the Three Revert Rule (WP:3RR) which says that one person cannot revert another persons changes more than three times in 24 hours. It should be obvious that one "tag-team" cannot revert an editors changes three times in one day, 3 hours, and 18 minutes, and then again 20 hours and 25 minutes later), which is typical of the devious way they break every rule in Wikipedia. The important aspect to be considered is that it is completely inappropriate for my version of the article to be deleted by my two critics, because, if anyone was going to do it, the task should have been done by "unbiased", "uninvolved", and "neutral" editors, but nobody else did. My report on that is here.
Power tripping admin?
She also wants you to believe that I was whinging about a biased, hateful, power tripping admin who was interfering with my human rights to edit Wikipedia. However, I don't think that any person has any more "right" to edit Wikipedia than anyone else. Furthermore, I actually thought that Moreschi, the editor who banned me, was a young person who had no experience in positions of authority outside of Wikipedia, and that the only reason for his exaggerated and hostile attitude toward me was that he had been influenced by my main critic, and was doing exactly what she wanted him to do. She was the actual hateful power tripper who was sulking, and seeking revenge, because I always kept on beating her in arguments, and it was easy.
For example, she got her ideas from childrens books, dictionaries, and indexes, and she read that there weren't many research papers published on Da Costa's syndrome which had that label in the title in the modern medical literature. She therefore thought that she could be deliberately disruptive to my contributions by insisting that I use only modern references, and became progressively more demanding until she asked for only those which had been published in the most recent five years. A week later I effectively said "here's ten' which mentioned it in the title or the first paragraph. She immediately became furious, and childishly intensified her attempts to block me. See my report on how and why she was asking for more modern references here. You can count the number of modern references in my list here. See another of my reports here
I have been studying this subject for thirty years, and she thinks that she can beat me in arguments because she is an "instant expert" with "an annoyingly high IQ"? As far as I am concerned she is just a shallow and arrogant fool.
No change in her tactics
While I was in Wikipedia four years ago I would sometimes provide evidence and proof that my main critic was telling lies or breaking the rules. She would often completely ignore the evidence, and act as if it didn't matter, and wouldn't even bother to deny it, or argue that it wasn't true. She would just start a completely new discussion with another group of editors and act as if she was respectable by giving them instructions on the importance of good manners, honesty, and obeying the rules.
As you have just read, on 28-10-2011 she said that she wants public support for admins like Moreschi who she claims did the difficult task of blocking me. I have therefore just written a report with proof of the fact that he ignored all the rules to do that.
She hasn't commented, or hasn't tried to deny it, or to say that it isn't true, but today, only three days later, she has gone to another discussion and acted like a respectable person who is giving instructions to another editor on the importance of treating "newbies" "positively", in order to recruit new members who will stay and become good editors in the future. The exact quote of her words is below . . .
"I believe that those first interactions are the key to turning capable newbies into top editors. And if we're not providing a positive initial experience for them, then it's really our own fault that we're not seeing good new editors emerge from the newbies. WhatamIdoing 01:38, 31 October 2011" See here
Notice however, the arrogant and patronising way she refers to new contributors as "newbies" twice.
Also she has previously edited articles which describe "newbies" as bastards, jerks, little shits, and prey, and she conducts secret edit wars in which she uses LART tools, which means"Lusers attitude readjustment tools". When she refers to her LART tools, she means, in plain English, that she had been deliberately insulting me, provoking, and trying to make me lose my temper, by goading me, and annoying me, and inciting and inflaming me into swearing at her. The sole purpose of that technique, or method, was to make me take the bait by swearing, which meant that I would have fallen into her trap so that she could then ban me for swearing. (or breaking the rule which requires good manners). She does exactly the same to anyone who joins Wikipedia and does anything that she disagrees with.
More details of her offensive arrogance and bad manners toward me and other editors can be seen in my report here |
My main critic told blatant lies
My main critic spits lies out of her silly mouth faster than a machine gun shoots bullets. For example, whenever I provided evidence that she had told lies or broken the rules, or when I wrote an essay in plain English to show that she had violated many of the principles of honest editing, she reacted in a hostile and revengeful manner by accusing me of violating the "Assume Good Faith" policy, (AGF), which required me to assume that she was an honest, rule-abiding editor. She also described that section as an "attack essay" and demanded that it be deleted, and then told another group of editors that I had violated the "No Personal Attacks" policy, and another group that I had broken the rules about tendentious editing, and disruptive editing, and then another group that I had been blocked for edit-warring, when I hadn't. In fact, she had been conducting an organised edit war against me, and her criticism of me was a lot worse than my comments about her. See here. You can also read the discussion where I politely told another editor, named Jaysweet, that I would be happy for her to delete any of the sections of that essay which she thought were inappropriate, but she didn't. You will also note that other editors said that there was nothing wrong with it, and that the consensus of other editors was to keep the essay here.
(Note that I have just as much right and responsibility to report my evidence of her policy violations as she has, and doing that with proof, is not breaking the rules. However, she was breaking the rules by using the assume good faith policy as a defence, because the proper thing to do would be to prove that she wasn't editing dishonestly. See here and see also here
She was acting that way in her attempt to create the ridiculous false impression that she was an honest editor who was always criticising me for breaking the rules, and that I was always the guilty person defending myself. Part of her method was to delete and hide all of the evidence against herself, and then broadcast her lies about me to as many discussion groups as possible. One of the many other tricks that she had up her sleeve was to arrange for one administrator to ban me by 'ignoring all the rules', in the knowledge that I could get back into Wikipedia, but only if I promised to assume good faith in my critics in the future, and refrain from criticising them).
Criminal perjury by my main critic
My two critics spent twelve months telling blatant lies to get the support of other editors who knew absolutely nothing about the topic. They eventually set up an arbitration discussion which is Wikipedia's equivalent of a court case where a jury of about 12 "neutral" editors are supposed to make the decision. My main critic told the jury many lies which were the equivalent of criminal and jailable perjury, and one administrator banned me on his own, before I had the chance to defend myself.
The quotes below are from a discussion by my two critics on the 7th June 2008 about moving the label of Soldier's heart to the most prominent position on the first line of the page. It was obvious to me that they did it to to give an emphasis on their bias. There have been more than 100 different labels for Da Costa's syndrome but they wanted to create the impression that "Soldier's heart" was the most important. It was their second major attempt at changing the emphasis of the article by altering the title, and or, the introduction.
You need to understand that my main critic uses all sorts l of devious methods to control your mind, and make you think what she wants you to think, which includes "the first impression", and deceit by deletion, which is similar to lying by omission.
Gordonofcartoon wrote this at 1:15 on 7th June 2008
Names in the lead. . . "I've altered the intro to focus on the main synonym. We've got so obsessed with the multiple possibilities that the chief one has become buried."
WhatamIdoing, wrote the following words only four hours later at 5:33 on 7th June 2008 . . .
"That looks good to me. The initialism (DCS) isn't commonly used; could we lose that as well? Also, do you think that we should put the synonyms in bold face at their first appearance? I have ambitions of creating redirects for each of them." (end of quote). See here and here and here.
This is what the first two lines of the page looked like after they had made their changes . . .
"This article is about the medical condition also known as soldier's heart. For the novella by Gary Paulsen, see Soldier's heart (novel).
Da Costa's syndrome (DCS, colloquially known during the during the American Civil War as soldier's heart)" (end of quote).
See also her first attempt at changing the title to alter the focus on the 24th March 2008 here and then her second attempt to focus on her next preference, Soldier's heart, on the 29th May 2008 here.
Six months later, on 27th January 2009, she told the arbitrators that she didn't move the label of Soldier's heart from the "See also" section at the bottom of the page to the top line, to give it prominence, and that her team-mate didn't mention it in the first sentence to give it focus, but that they did it for several proper reasons.
The following words are a quote from her statement . . .
"The other problems that we've encountered generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions. For example, at one time, Soldier's heart redirected to the DCS article. There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we provided a link to the article about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote instead of in a See also section.
Posturewriter complained at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being "in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became a regular disambiguation page." (end of quote). See here
Notice how she says that "we've encountered" to give the false impression that many editors were involved, but that it was just her and Gordonofcartoon who actually made the changes. |
She also didn't tell the arbitrators, (the jury), that a neutral editor had already told them that their hatnote was inappropriate, and deleted it, a month earlier here. Another neutral editor deleted the link from the top line a few days after I was banned. See here
You can see that the way my main critic tells lies is deliberately calculated and extremely devious.
Does she have the ability to deceive you?
How and why they altered the focus of the article
Wikipedia has a policy which requires all articles to represent all of the major views of a topic, or at least, a neutral point of view. My two critics accused me of having a conflict of interest and told the other editors that I was pushing my own point of view and needed to be blocked or banned. However, the opposite was true because they were pushing their point of view.
I will now give some facts. Throughout the 140 years of research there have often been reports that the typical patient has a thin and stooped physique, and a long or narrow chest, and is a sedentary worker. The typical symptoms are chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness and fatigue, and in particular are brought on by high levels of physical exertion.
My two critics altered the article to focus on the idea that it was a condition which affected soldiers and was an anxiety disorder caused by the fear of battle, and as such was a post-war syndrome which affected individuals who were not physically different, and had nothing physically wrong with them.
As you can see their version did not represent "all" points of view, and was definitely not a "neutral point of view", but was just "their point of view" where they produced their bias by deleting everything that they didn't want you, the reader, to see.
Neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles???
My main critic produced an article which you, the reader, gets to see, in which she says that Da Costa's syndrome is considered to be the manifestation of an anxiety disorder where physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities and treatment is primarily behavioural. See here.
You can notice how she typically snots about with pompous jargon which is meaningless to the average person.
However, she also got herself into an argument on the discussion page where she tried to act as if she was an intelligent and knowledgeable authority on the topic by saying that in her own personal opinion Da Costa's syndrome probably is a physical problem which may or may not be caused by anxiety here.
See also a section which I wrote and she deliberately deleted here, and my report on her ridiculous interpretation of the "neutral point of view" policy here,
She is a very stupid fool.
Whenever anyone disagrees with her she puts them on a watchlist. In fact she claims to have more than 2000 articles on her watchlist, and that she "Lurks" on them. In my case she hounded and harassed me with "attitude readjustment tools" for more than a year, in violation of the policies which prohibit "personal attacks" and "edit wars", and yet she argues that it is inappropriate for other editors to act as if they "have an axe to grind". See my report here
She criticised me relentlessly because she is a snotty sook who resented being beaten in arguments, and my reason for criticising her is because she was telling lies.
Image
While I was in Wikipedia my main critic was an editor who called herself "WhatamIdoing", and her constant assistant was "Gordonofcartoon". They were aware that I was older than both of them, and had been interested in one of the topics for thirty years, and couldn't be fooled, so they were trying to deceive all of the other editors, administrators, and readers of Wikipedia.
I rarely discussed them socially, but when I did occasionally talk to my close friends about what was happening, I would refer to those two editors as a couple of nitwits called Wa Wa's and Goofy. I would describe them as being childlike, or childish status climbers who were trying to use big words to impress me, or their friends, or their mothers.
Of course, the medical language is useful in some regards, but many of the ideas can be presented in plain English, and it simply isn't necessary to snot about with jargon.
One of the difficulties I had was using their proper names, such as WhatamIdoing, which is a cheeky question in the name, and has the abbreviation of WAID, which sounds like a man. However, I suspected from the style or writing that the person was a woman trying to pass herself off as a man to gain the image of male authority.
I can understand that "image" can be a great advantage, but conversely, it can also be an enormous problem, because many years ago, when I tried to get interviewed on the radio as a patient I would be confronted with "no" we are too busy with important people, or I would be talked about in patronising and dismissive terms, as if I was just a fringy fruitcake. However when a newspaper article presented a report about a research project that I designed, I received a phone call from the same radio station with words such as "Please, please, please, Mr. scientist, we know you must be very, very busy with your important research, but could you please, please give us some of your precious time for an interview. Our listeners would love to hear about you." The conversation continued in that manner for some time, and I was interviewed a few days later. There are many situations like that which are commonly encountered because all people are judged, just by the clothes they wear.
When you read the discussions in Wikipedia, and on this webpage you will need to bear those things in mind.
I didn't want to refer to one of the editors as "WhatamIdoing", and I didn't want to use the abbreviation of WAID, so I called her "my main critic", but even that conveys a false sense of authority that she doesn't deserve, and the other editor had the name of Gordonofcartoon, but was just her 'puppet'.
An example of the use of plain English or jargon
When I said that according to my theory the fatigue was due to the inefficient flow of blood between the feet and the brain, my two critics would tell all of the other editors that my idea was nonsense and crap, and then delete it, and replace it with the label of "orthostatic intolerance" which mean exactly the same thing. The evidence for that can be seen in their arrogant first words of criticism here.
Her pretentious arguments about the reliability of information
Wikipedia requires that all information comes from reliable, independent, and verifiable sources, and it's policies give some simple guidelines which recommend that generally an independent review of many different aritlces (the secondary source), is more reliable than just one original research paper written by one person (the primary source), but sometimes the opposite can be true. That principle could be easily understood by the average teenager in his first week at university, but my main critic tried to give other editors the impression that I didn't understand such simple ideas? and as if it was only understood properly by middle aged women like herself who had highly sophisticated reasoning skills???? However, she never used any policies properly unless they suited her. For example, when she wanted to give emphasis to the alternative label of Soldier's heart, she didn't give a dam about primary or secondary sources or reliability but just chose to use another policy to put a book with the title of Soldiers heart on the top line, without even bothering to read it, or know that it was a children's fiction story. See her pretentious attitude toward reliabbility here and her childish argument about her use of the childrens story here
An example of their extremely childish "games"
When I read one of their references to check it's suitability and found that it was a children's fiction story I asked them to remove it because it did not meet the standards which required all material to come from top quality independent peer-reviewed medical journals. Gordonofcartoon told me that I was violating the "original research" policy by reading it and saying that it was inappropriate. WhatamIdoing told several other groups of editors that I was a stupid person who didn't know the difference between a link and a reference, and then tried to mock and annoy me with sarcasm by apologising for making me read what she called a "depressing" and "disgusting" story about the war which was, in her opinion, 'unfortunately" required reading for many school children. See here and my report here.
If you study my main critics responses closely you will see that she was doing what she often did to me and any other editor who proved her wrong. She was seeking revenge by using the policies as weapons. That childish behaviour is called "Gaming the system". See here
That example also shows one of her typical strategies which is - whenever I provided proof that she was telling lies or breaking the rules, she would immediately try to divert attention away from her own violations by accusing me of breaking a different rule. She would then spend several weeks or months trying to delete the evidence against herself, and at the same time setting up several other discussion pages to convince dozens of other editors that I had broken the rules.
Her childish interpretation of neutral point of view
Only an ignorant and academically incompetent person who was incapable of checking the basic facts would think that my main critics version of Da Costa's syndrome was a 'neutral point of view'. She talks about post-war syndromes, but deleted the facts that it is common in civilians who have never been to war, and that most soldiers who developed the condition already had the symptoms before joining the army. You can see that it was described as common in civilian practice in the introduction to the research paper by Jacob Mendez Da Costa in 1871. The condition was named after him, because of the reliability of that study, and I provided it to Wikipedia as a reference because when I study something, I want to know everything form all sources, not just from modern text-books, and I can assure you that I an adult who doesn't waste my time reading children's stories, unless some incompetent fool in Wikipedia uses as a reference and I have to check it.. |
My main critic is an arrogant, ill-mannered, disrespectful, bossy, dictatorial, deliberately patronising, sarcastic and temperamental fool who lies, cheats, and ignores all the rules in order to get her way in Wikipedia, and she tries to convince the other editors I am an irrational person who "thinks" that she is an "awful" "power-tripping admin". However, I have never thought that. I actually think that she is a ridiculous manipulative-middle aged shrew. See her pompous spin here.
The personality of my main critic
My main critic wants everyone to believe that she is an honest, very experienced, highly respected, rule-abiding editor who is setting a good example for all of the new members of Wikipedia to follow, but that sometimes, in very extreme cases, when dealing with particularly difficult editors, and when pushed to her limit, she is justified in losing her temper, and being rude, and using the "ignore all rules" policy. WP:IAR.
However if you have a look at the actual facts you can see that in her very first discussion about me, and before I even had the opportunity to say anything at all, she was offensively arrogant in describing Da Costa's syndrome as just "garden variety" orthostatic intolerance. Her assistant then wrote in a deliberately offensive and disrespectful manner that there was nothing that he (or she) could find in the "real" medical literature about my contributions.
You can gain the accurate impression from her general editing of other topics that the "real" reason for my main critics behaviour is that arrogance and rudeness are standard character traits in her personality. Also, whenever she loses arguments, which is quite often, she characteristically becomes easily frustrated, and loses her temper, and typically tells lies and invents excuses for 'breaking' the rules to get her way.
e.g. See her first comments against me here, and her last comments more than a year later, after I was banned, here, and my report here.
(A general comparison of her arrogance can be made if she was to describe the topic of kidney stones as "garden variety" renal calculus, or knee cartilage surgery as "garden variety" medial meniscectomy. She would then ignore the policy about writing in plain english, and try to change the page titles. e.g. see her extremely childish arguments starting here, and later here.
The personality of rude people
and my main critics attitude towards the arbitration committe elections
My main critic spent twelve months being deliberately insulting and offensive in her remarks about me, but in one of her recent edits she has made a lot of insulting remarks about other people involved in the election of the arbitration committee by describing them as unhappy, naive, immature or ineffective gadflies.
One of her arguments is that the person doing the insulting has the wrong type of personality for Wikipedia because they tend to take insults personally rather than seeing it as "an interesting clinical signal about how threatened the insulter feels at the moment". See here, and my report on her insulting behaviour here.
She is essentially talking about herself because she is an ill-mannered and offensive individual who has the wrong type of personality for Wikipedia, and is giving an interesting "clinical signal" about how threatened she feels in her own arguements with other people.
(If she is arrogant and offensive in her attitude to the administrators involved in the arbitration committee elections, and if the opinion of 12 arbitrators was ignored by one administrator who banned me on his own, and was later rewarded by her with a barnstar, then what hope does any new contributor have of being treated with courtesy and respect if they add information to any topic which she personally disagrees with?
Also, in some of her comments she describes administrators as incompetent, naive, and immature, and in others she pretends to be the type of person who helps the ones who have difficult situations to deal with. See here).
The personality of my two critics
While I was in Wikipedia I had two critics who were both anonymous and middle-aged, and at least one of them eventually admitted to being a 'female'. Whenever my main critic was asked to give her real identity so that her 'conflicts of interest' could be 'independently' and 'reliably 'assessed, she would put on a 'flowery' display of 'pompous' indignation, and argue that she didn't have to, and never intended to.
However, in their very first discussion about me they used my real personal Sir name in bold print as the title of a section at the very top of the discussion page for Da Costa's syndrome. They did that without asking for my permission, and without me giving them my explicit permission, and in violation of several of Wikipedia's most important policies which require them to be courteous to all contributors at all times, and to respect the privacy of other individuals.
Then, in the very first sentences that each of them wrote about me they showed their attitude of arrogant toffee-nosed snottery, and the manners of ill-bred pigs.
They continued to be deliberately offensive almost every week for twelve months until they eventually arranged for me to be banned, and in the meantime they set up more than a dozen other discussions, in which they tried to convince everyone else that I was being discourteous to them?
The title which they gave to the first discussion at the top of the page was my Sir name . . . Banfield
My main critics first comment was . . . "The section on "posture" isn't working for me. Nobody outside of the The theory looks like it was created by a non-medical person who is trying to reinvent the wheel -- the "wheel" being garden variety orthostatic intolerance and hyperventilation syndrome." WhatamIdoing 01:08, 21 December 2007
Her assistan's first comment about one hour later was . . . "No objection here. Nothing I can find in real medical literature sugests it merits such undue space" Gordonofcartoon 02:16, 21 December 2007 See here (Also notice the spelling error).
This is a quote from another editor called MastCell . . . "If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it." here
My main critic is actually worse than a "pig" because she acts as if she takes pride in her ability to tell lies, cheat, and ignore all the rules, and get away with it, and just completely ignores all of the criticism and proof that she is a recidivistic liar, and keeps on doing more edits as if nothing has happened.
Comical fools
My perception of my two critics was to compare them with the main character in a TV comedy called "Keeping Up Appearances" who is Mrs Bucket. She prefers to be called "Mrs. Bouquet" rather than Mrs. Bucket, and is always trying to impress her neighbours by talking about her relatives as if they are all from high society.
Wikipedia criticism: Why it matters to parents
My message to the other editors about my main critic; Is she too big to fail? The Titanic revisited
There is a website called "Wikipedia criticism: Why it fails to matter", and there are other arguments that Wikipedia is now so well established and so big that it can't fail. My main critic acts as if she has been in Wikipedia for so long, and won so many disputes in the past, that any criticism of her doesn't matter.
One of the reasons that other experienced editors will "overlook" or "condone" her lies, is because many of them will fear that if she has been around for so long, and she can be banned, then they may be next. However if they are honest they should not have anything to fear, and if they are liars they should be banned anyway.
I have seen examples of teenagers who say that they have copied a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia to use as their homework so that they could spend the rest of the night playing video games.
I therefore request that all responsible parents, school principles and all university deans permanently ban their students from using Wikipedia as a source of information for their homework or exams, until such time as policies are put in place to ban people like my main critic who are persistent liars. As long as that individual remains in Wikipedia it should be regarded as a sub-standard, untrustworthy, and unreliable source of information. See one of my main critics edits here.
|
According to my main critic the truth doesn't matter
On the 8th November 2011, my main critic argued in her typical manner, that in Wikipedia the truth doesn't matter unless it has been published here, and she has also changed the policy about "Consensus" so that essentially it doesn't matter either here (and see my report here). On the next day she said that it doesn't promise fair and due process here. She has also argued quite often in the past, that the rules can be ignored any time she wants. See my report here.
Here are some facts . . . I co-ordinated a medical research program at the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training in the early 1980's, and am required by policy to prove that it was true, so I scanned one of about ten articles from newspapers, which mentioned my name as the research co-ordinator, and I added the copy to my website. I then went to the discussion page and told the editors what I had done.
About an hour after that my main critic accused me of having bad manners and wrote . . .
"Posturewriter, did you "forget" that promoting your own non-notable research ideas constitutes a conflict of interest, or were you just hoping that no one would notice when you added all that information again? The guideline is that a theory needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Until you can produce '"significant" coverage in "reliable" and "independent" sources, your pet theory is not notable enough to justify any space at all in this article" (end of quote) See here
Four months later she wrote this . . .
"I think we can all agree that describing your own clinical research in an article, complete with reference to a newspaper article about yourself is a clear-cut violation of WP:COI. Of course, the first time could have been an innocent mistake, but sticking it back in there after it's been deleted it according to the agreement of every independent editor who has looked at his additions cannot be construed as an unknowing mistake, especially since he's been repeatedly warned on his talk page and elsewhere about WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO concerns." (end of quote) See here
If you read the full "conflict of interest" accusations (COI), you will see that, despite the thousands of words of argument and lies by her and her assistant, there was only one person, named EdJohnston, who agreed, but also one, named Guido den Broeder, who told them that they were both wrong, so regardless of any decision she failed to get consensus. However she spent the next six months telling everyone else that she won those disputes by consensus. There were, nevertheless, during that time, some other editors who believed her lies, and said that I must do what the consensus of the community told me to do, but they didn't read the actual COI discussions and didn't know that the dispute was decided by one administrator - without consensus. See here and here and my report here
Also, when she uses the code WP:COPYVIO she is implying that I was using articles about myself to violate my own copyright?
Since I have been banned I have added more verification and proof about about my research and publications which can be seen here
My Wikipedia ID was Posturewriter, and the two editors who told lies incessantly had the ID's of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. They set up a discussion page with my real name in bold print at the top, and several pages with the heading "Requests for comment Posturewriter", so, in my defence, I have set up two pages about them.
See their pages about my contributions . . . here and here and here and here
See their deliberately lengthy and disproportionate arguments against me while I was in Wikipedia here |
Introduction
While I was involved I spent 12 months of that time contributing to one of their articles, but two editors were incessantly badgering me with criticism and devising a never ending series of policy reasons for deleting every word I wrote, and were telling lies about me, the references, and the authors and content of the research papers. They were also telling lies about the Wikipedia policies, and they were violating most of the policies themselves, and using foul language.
If you wish to learn about, or write essays or reports, you can find specific information by clicking on the links to various aspects in the index in the sidebar to the right of this page. For example, you may be interested in the fact that they told lies, and how they got away with it, so you can scroll down the index to click on the links to various types of their lies, or, you many be interested in bias, spin, or censorship etc.
If you are thinking of joining Wikipedia you may scroll down the index to "New Wikipedians: what they should all know" to find out that they are called "Newbies", and put in the same category as "bastards", "jerks", and "prey". You might like to know how they can get your real identity, and put it at the top of talk pages in bold print, and then you might wish to check the links to "invasion of privacy" and "Defamation of character" to see how they do those things. You may also be interested in the fact that they conduct organised "Edit wars", and follow the index or links to pages about "Lusers", "Trolls", Targets", and Wicked witches".
If you are already in Wikipedia you may be interested in how they faked "faked Consensus", or how they want to make the "Ignore all rules" policy their main policy, and how they secretly reward other editors for ignoring the rules, or you may be interested in how they encourage "Paid editing", and how they have extreme "Double standards" in the way they interpret and apply all policies.
One of my two critics is fond of quoting "TLDR" . . . This is a quote from a Wikipedia page by that name . . .
"Too ling: didn't read" (abbreviated "TLDR", "tl;dr") . . . The term indicates that the reader did not actually read the statement due to its undue length." See here
Here is a quote from another editor to someone else . . . "TLDR . . . is a trollish response . . . and . . . is not an acceptable response on the Ref Desk. It is uncivil." --Mr.98 19:18, 28 March 2010 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reisio#TLDR
Also, consider this;if they didn't tell so many lies, and violate so many policies, and leave such a massive trail of evidence and proof, then I would have had nothing to criticises . Furthermore, they could seed ten lies into one paragraph, and it would take me up to a week to find the evidence and proof of each deceit, and in the meantime they would write another ten lies, so I chose to wait until after I was banned and then document them.
Nevertheless, I don't think it is practical to you to focus on everything, so just use the index to find information that interests you . For example you could write an essay or a report about their standard edit war practices. See here
My message to the administrators of Wikipedia
My main critic was incompetent in arguments about the topic, but an expert in the art of deceit, and deliberately sets about deceiving you the editors and administrators of Wikipedia, so I would like to give you a very brief, and very clear example of her typical methods, so that you can recognise them and do something about it.
I would give one group of editors the evidence and proof that she told lies, and she would go to another group and tell them that I had just violated the policy called WP:AGF, which says that I must always assume good faith in others. See one of my reports here
In another discussion I would provide evidence and proof that she violated many of Wikipedia' most important policies, such as the one which requires good manners, and she would go to another group and tell them that I had just violated the policy called WP:NPA, which means "No Personal Attacks" and says that I can't criticise other editors. See here
Whenever I beat her in an argument, which was a very easy thing to do, she would go to another group and tell them that I had just violated the policy about tendentious editing called WP:TE, and disruptive editing called WP:DE. See my report here
She would do exactly the same thing every time that I provided proof that her comments were lies, or violated policies, and she would secretly collect all of the examples on a list, and as time went by would use it to build up a case against me? by telling another group of editors something like this . . .
"We "the entire Wikipedia community" have been having a lot of trouble with an editor for twelve months now, who is too stupid to understand the topic, or the policies, even if "we" explain them to him, and he is so disruptive that he has been repeatedly violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:TE, and WP:DE, etc, etc, etc, so could we 'respectable' editors have a few more eyes on this so that if we report him again you will ban him for us."
Her objective was to create so much hatred and contempt against me that nobody would bother to check or even consider the facts.
Her assistant did the same thing here, and you can see an example of both doing it here
Several other editors said that I was complying with policy, for example, by providing diffs as evidence to independently verify that what I said was true, but none of them did anything about it.
You need to understand that if I have proven that she told a lot of lies, you can be assured that most of the other statements that she wrote about me were misrepresentations or lies about other facts, discussions, or previous decisions. e.g. see how she faked consensus here
My main critic wants you to believe that she is a respectable rule-abiding editor
My main critic wants the other editors to believe that she is an honest, intelligent, mature, courteous, respectable, rule-abiding member of Wikipedia. She also wants them to believe that I am a stupid, ignorant, worthless and disruptive, fringy kook who has only one idea.
However I would like to provide a few more facts to get in the way of her story.
For example, ever since I was young I have always been interested in facts and evidence, and have been critical of the type of people who claim to be able to predict the future by gazing into a crystal ball, or hillbilly's who claim to be able to find water with a piece of stick called a divining rod, or people who have claimed to have seen little green men get out of a flying saucer in their backyard. When I was trying to determine the cause of medical problems I gained some information by reading research journals at the Adelaide University library, and I studied details, and read and purchased books from all sources that were up to 100 years old, and read history books to assess the progress of ideas over 3000 years, and I translated 17th century medical jargon into modern English.
Now I would like you to see my reports about my main critic, the 'rule-ignoring', rule abiding' editor of Wikipedia, and her manners etc. here and here and here and here. See also here
Another comment on my main critics recent response to my website
While I was involved with Wikipedia I had two critics who managed to get me banned in January 2009, by an administrator named Moreschi, who ignored all the rules. I then continued to respond to my them on my own website, and one of my critics has been indirectly making remarks about me ever since, but pretending not to notice. However today, almost three years later, on 28-10-11, she made a direct response. She is still misrepresenting facts and telling blatant lies.
For example, I will first tell you some facts.
I wrote a theory about posture and health in 1980, and later wrote a book about posture between 1994 and 2000, which eventually contained over 1000 pages.
During that time I also established a website, in about 1994, although I didn't add a web counter until November 2001. I was often on the top 10 list of the Google search engine for posture, and occasionally number 1, long before Wikipedia existed, and I didn't even know that they had an article about posture because I had never seen it mentioned anywhere.
I joined Wikipedia in 2007, and as I said, I was banned in 2009, and started commenting on my two critics on my own website.
This is one of the many ridiculous lies my main critic wrote today the 28th October 2011 . . .
"The blocked user now has his own website, where he vilifies me personally but has completely stopped harming Wikipedia." (end of quote) See here
You can see that she is deliberately trying to create the false impression that Wikipedia has been on the internet for longer than me, and that my website is new.
The number of lies she tells is truly astonishing.
In order for you to know how she is successful in deceiving people like you I will describe one of her methods.
She often tells lies in one particular discussion, or on one particular day, and relies on the fact that you will believe her without bothering to go back to the previous discussion, or the previous year to check the facts, and that you will automatically make your decision, and develop your prejudice on the basis of what she tells you.
Incidentally she also says that I was vilifying her, but she defamed me. See my reports here and here, and here. She also said that she needs the public support, but she regards the readers and the public as PC:CTTL (cattle) see here. She is in more general terms arrogant, and thinks that everyone else is stupid and easily fooled.
Only on a Sunday
I can honestly tell you that I knew about Wikipedia before I joined, and only did so with the genuine, and perfectly normal intention of having a new hobby of casually adding about a paragraph of useful information to one topic per week, and possibly assist with the development and improvement of a few hundred articles with the passage of time. During that process I found that editors were not supposed to write about their own ideas, which I thought was a reasonable policy, and then a woman who I have never met, sent me an email telling me that she thought my theory was brilliant, so I asked her to write about it with my assistance for Wikipedia. When that article was deleted I didn't complain or ask for the decision to be reviewed, but simply searched through the topic pages for articles about chest pains, or backache, or kidney pains, or corsets and health etc. when I found an article about Da Costa's syndrome with a request to help improve it.
I was soon confronted by two extremely arrogant editors who were 'full of their own importance', and argued that there was nothing about my ideas in the 'real' medical literature, so it wasn't 'notable' enough for Wikipedia. They followed me to every page where I had made contributions and made sure that every word I wrote was deleted, and tried to block me from adding more by asking questions that they thought I couldn't answer. I would think about it and prepare a response and post it on Sundays with a comment like this . . . "Here are the answers you require, please feel free to ask more questions and I will respond next Sunday."
Their other tactic was to ask me to provide references to prove that every word I wrote was true, and were hoping that such references did not actually exist, or that I wouldn't be familiar enough with the research literature to find them. I would casually look for those references during the week and post them on Sunday (and occasionally on a Tuesday or Wednesday if they asked ten questions in one sentence) and I would use words like this . . . "here are ten references, if you want any more please let me know what type and I will provide them next Sunday".
After about six months they were both so frustrated by their inability to ask questions that I couldn't answer that they were using foul language and resorting to extreme measures, and like misguided crystal ball readers, or delusional mind readers, they were telling all of the other editors that I joined Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting my own ideas. They called that POV pushing (pushing my own point of view), and told the other editors that I was a SPA - a single purpose account.
They would then set up about a dozen discussion pages in quick succession one after the other like this . . . 'We the two super heroes and champions of Wikipedia are having trouble with a disruptive edit warring newbie - please help us block the sucker, please - we are at our wits end.' They would describe my request for contributing only on Sundays as 'delaying tactics', and would tell all new groups of editors that I was just jerking them around to waste their time.
Ultimately, after they failed to get me blocked in ten discussions they set up an arbitration page which is the equivalent of a court case in Wikpedia.
I told the arbitrators that my two critics were rather predictable and boring with the type of tactics they used, and that they were unlikely to change, and that I would be happy to give my final response to their massive onslaught of criticisms on the following Sunday.
Surprise, surprise - My two critics ignored all the rules, and ignored the twelve arbitrators, and bribed a friend of theirs to rush in and ban me on Thursday., and later rewarded him with a barnstar.
Of course, they thought that they were being 'clever', and that I would never find out.
See my description of how they banned me by ignoring all the rules here
Double standards and fairy tales in Wikipedia science articles
When I joined Wikipedia it was on the understanding that all people from all walks of life were invited to contribute all information from all sources, but I soon discovered that some of the established editors appeared be sabotaging that goal by rewriting the policies to ensure that only a very narrow range of contributors and ideas - the ones that they favored - were being accepted.
For example, when I was writing about all of the main theories for Da Costa's syndrome two nitwits tried to delete everything about all ideas except the one about it being an anxiety disorder.
I then told them that Harvard professor Oglesby Paul was the author of one of the very small number of references which they had provided, and that I was familiar with it, and so had reviewed it for them. I reported that he had discussed about ten of the major ideas of the past 150 years, and that for every one of them there was scientific evidence in favor, and against, so that none of them were conclusive, and that the only sensible conclusion was that the cause was unknown.
However to be fair to their bias I suggested that, if they thought there was enough evidence to write a separate article about it being an anxiety disorder, then they should set up another page about that topic, and basically recommended that anyone could set up a separate page on any one of the ten ideas, and let the readers see them and judge for themselves.
My main critic presented a childish argument that the idea was stupid, and 'quaintly' and 'quirkily' linked the word 'stupid' to a page about 'intelligence' to imply that I had inferior intelligence.
Needles to say that those two 'nitwits' eventually managed to get their way, so now the only page that the readers get to see, is the one that they twisted and turned into a 'story' with the interpretation that they prefer. They supported it by using their prettiest 'hatnote ' policy to include a children's fiction yarn called "Soldier's heart" on the top line. It is about a nineteenth century hillbilly who didn't have any of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome.
In the process of arguing with those two bloody fools i told them that they should try their hardest to provide references that were as good as mine, and not to waste my time, or anyone else's by finding policy excuses for adding worthless and childish crap to the article.
I also suggested that there should be a policy on double standards which stated that they would not be tolerated, so that if somebody asked me to disclose my real name, and any conflicts of interest, then they had to do the same, and if I was not permitted to use references from fifty years ago, then neither was anyone else, and if policy 'demanded' that I had to comply with the rules, then it applied to all editors.
They argued that there wasn't an official policy about 'double standards', and that they were never going to write one, and that neither was anyone else.
The net result is that they can fill Wikipedia full of crap and get away with it, and that I can be banned for providing top quality references which they don't like.
If the same situation existed in the Olympic hundred yard sprint I would be put at the starting line, and they would be given a ninety yard handicap and be awarded the gold medal for beating me by one second.
The net result for Wikipedia is that the best of the best will be beaten by the best of the worst in all disputes, and the cheats who rig the policies will end up controlling the impressive looking, but worthless show.
The only thing that is going to save Wikipedia from degrading into an intellectual crap factory is a responsible adult who writes a policy about 'double standards' which advises that they will not be tolerated, and that all contributors have to comply with the same policies and the same standards at all times. Of course, that also means that somebody also has to delete the 'ignore all rules' policy (WP:IAR) that my main critic wants to turn into the "major" policy so that it can become the catch cry for all of the cheats who need it because of the complete and utter lack of merit in their arguments.
See my report on WP:IAR here
Modern mainstream opinion?
I did most of my research into Da Costa's syndrome between 1975 and 1984 and gained much of the basic information from the scientific journals on the shelves at the Adelaide University Barr Smith Medical library, and was invited to test and verify one of my ideas at the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training.
I was therefore familiar with the popular ideas of that period going back to the mid 1940's, and some of those articles referred to Da Costa's original paper of 1871.
You can understand why I used some of those references in the article for Wikipedia, and that I wasn't particularly interested in the modern history, although nothing has changed much except the jargon. I simply left that area available for other editors to write if they wished.
However my two critics, who knew those facts, told other editors lies by saying that I was deliberately avoiding the modern history because it contradicted my point of view, but firstly, I wasn't avoiding the modern history, and secondly, the modern history doesn't change the previous history, and thirdly it didn't contradict my point of view, and fourthly, all information about my own reseearch had been deleted many months before their comments.
I responded to their criticism by asking them to write the modern history themselves if they wished, but they didn't, so I wrote it for them, and they complained.
Double meanings and double talk in Wikipedia
My two critics were fond of using double meanings to their advantage, and would often add to the policy pages to create different ways of interpreting them. I will give some examples in the table below.
Note however, that word meanings in Wikipedia change all the time, as editors try to stop, or hide misuse of the past, so I have provided some links from the history of edits for you to get the general idea of how those words are actually being used.
| The word |
English language |
Wikipedia language |
How my two critics exploited double meanings |
Cruft |
Rubbish, or unwanted computer rubbish |
Too much detail
|
They would add a cruft template at the top of the page with the symbol of a broom, and use it as an insult and an excuse to remove information, and increase the offensive act by using words such as "liposuction time', and tell the arbitrators that a lot of cruft 'crawls' into my descriptions. here and here and here and for advice against using the word cruft see here |
| Troll |
A mythical Swedish monster that is large and ugly and annoys people. here |
A disruptive editor here |
They would incite and inflame a frenzy of contempt against me until other editors called me a troll, and nobody would criticise them for their obviously offensive remarks. |
| Consensus |
In most meetings consensus is a simple majority |
The consensus policy is complicated, but favors the accepted community practices here |
My main critic would always work with one other editor, and say "we" think this, and "we" think that, and if another editor didn't agree with them they would write thousands of words of criticism for months. One of them would add a craft template, and the other would call him disruptive, and then they would set up an arbitration page and say . . .
"We the entire Wikipedia community of rule-abiding editors are thoroughly disgusted with this individuals disruptive behaviour. Two months ago a respectable editor added the cruft template, and only last week another editor told him to stop reverting our changes. We are rapidly losing our patience with this individual where every discussion rapidly dissolves into a rant of hostile bickering. He doesn't seem to understand or care about the community views. We know that he means well, but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of nonsense. |
| Tag team |
A group of two individuals who change batons in a relay race |
A group of two editors who take turns criticising someone until they achieve their objective (such as getting someone banned) here and still a year later here |
The first two comments against me were by WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, and they set up and participated in every discussion against me, including the arbitration page 12 months later.
They argued that their actions were part of the consensus process. One of them tried to get the tag team guideline deleted, and they both tag teamed to make changes to the tag team guideline, so that they could argue like this in the future . . . "According to Wikipedia's tag team guidelines which have been agreed to by consensus over many, many, many years, we two tag-teamers were not tag teaming.
e.g. here and here |
The two nitwits of Wikipedia
(I started this window in December 2010)
For the previous two years, since I was banned, I have been generally matter-of-fact and objective in my evidence based criticisms, but more recently I have read their pages about "The Last Word", where new contributors are described as "newbies", "bastards" and "prey", and I have read their essays about "instrumental rudeness" in which they argue that indirect insults are an intelligent way of achieving power, and of course, I have become very familiar with how they used their "ignore all rules" policy and were encouraging other editors to regard it as their "major policy". I have also previously documented many examples of their arrogant and rude behaviour and foul language, and I have shown how they used "attitude readjustment tools" and have systematically incited other editors to call me a troll, which is an ugly hairy monster who lives in caves, so I have decided to start referring to my two critics as the two nitwits of Wikipedia, and to drown them in their own bullshit. Given their past behaviour they do not have any basis for complaining.
***
When I joined Wikipedia I saw a general warning to be prepared for merciless editing, however, I didn't quite expect the type of unscrupulous practices that I encountered. It would be in your best interests to familiarise yourself with them before you join, otherwise you might find yourself banned before you learn just how extreme those methods are.
For example, you can be as insulting and offensive as you wish, and as long as you are 'indirect', you may be regarded as 'smart' or 'clever' or 'funny'', and there are hundreds, if not thousands of rules or sub-rules, but you can ignore them all to suit any purpose as long as you can get a few other editors (or anonymous paid or voluntary friends or associates) to agree that it is for the good of Wikipedia.
The following lists give a brief introduction to the methods used by my two critics
Part of a conversation between myself and the two uniform nitwits
I provided evidence that tight clothing contributed to the development and aggravation of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, but my two critics argued about it for several months. The following quotes come from part of those discussions.
WhatamIdoing wrote . . . " I'm familiar with your argument that tight clothing triggers DCS symptoms. The idea was presented by Maclean and Meyer well before Da Costa's paper." WhatamIdoing 17:43, 14 June 2008
I then gave this response . . . "WhatamIdoing; I am also familiar with the causes of Da Costa syndrome, according to Da Costa himself, as I have previously provided the statistics for wikipedia here [2] which somebody else has since deleted. I am also familiar with the affects of tight clothing on health." Posturewriter 00:56, 16 June 2008
WhatamIdoing replied with these words . . . "nobody here is claiming that tight clothing is good for people. We're just saying that the existing evidence strongly indicates that it doesn't cause DCS. We can support this: e.g., Da Costa specifically considered and rejected this early guess at a cause." WhatamIdoing 17:31, 25 June 2008
More of my main critics bullshit - much more - can be seen here
* * *
Here are some facts . . . Page 38 of Da Costa's research paper of 1871, clearly indicates that he was not 'guessing' when he wrote . . . "Undoubtedly the waist belt, but particularly the knapsack, may have had something to do with aggravating the trouble, but I could find no proof that they had produced it"(end of quote) . . . Also page 52 of that article states . . . "In bringing this inquire to an end . . . from a military point of view, further, it enforces the lessons, how important it is not to send back soldier's just convalescent from fevers or other maladies, too soon to active work; It suggests that their equipments be such as will not unnecessarily constrict, and thus retard or prevent recovery"(end of Da Costa's quote)
In a stupid attempt to prove me wrong my main critic was actually silly enough to provide a reference which states this . . . "Since ‘irritable heart’, as Da Costa termed the disorder, was not confined to the infantry but affected the cavalry and artillery, he argued that the webbing and packs, which varied between these arms, could not have been the primary cause." (end of quote) - As everyone can see, Da Costa was obviously saying that it is actually one of the causes, but not the main one.
Also, it doesn't matter what anyone else has or has not said since, the fact is that Da Costa considered tight clothing to be part of the problem, and anyone who says or implies that he didn't, or that he changed his mind, is a liar, and is messing around with the evidence and is being a pest by making it impossible for intelligent people to properly understand, prevent, or solve the problem. See here
Don't get your advice from nitwits
For the benefit of intelligent people who read my website I would like to point out that the grubby fork tongued troll called WhatamIdoing will just keep on telling lies, but you should consider these facts.
My version of the article contained these words in the treatment section "Other treatments evident from the previous studies were . . . wearing loose clothing about the waist" . . . and the history section included these words "Da Costa's syndrome involves a set of symptoms which include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue in response to exertion. Earl de Grey who presented four reports on British soldiers with these symptoms between 1864 and 1868, and attributed them to the heavy weight of military equipment being carried in knapsacks which were tightly strapped to the chest in a manner which constricted the action of the heart." (end of quotes)
If you have a look at the inferior and much smaller version that was provided by the two nitwits you can see that they have copied those exact words which are still in the article unchanged until the current time, December 2010, so they have been accepted as correct, top quality, verifiable facts by the consensus of every editor who has seen the page for two years.
See where they deleted my version and replaced it with theirs here
See the same words on the article two years later here
Of course, if those two flea brained nitwits were put in charge of military uniforms Whatamidoing would design them with the tightest choker collars, the narrowest of all military corsets, and the trimmest of all tunics, and the most colorful of all leg garters, and of course, Gordonofcartoon would chip his silly beak in and say 'Yup, yup, yup that is very, very, very good, are we all agreed then, yup , yup, yup, then we have consensus.'
Unfortunately almost all of the soldiers would faint and fall out of line while marching to the battlefield, and those who got there would not have enough energy to fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and if any of them got out of that hopeless situation alive they would return to the hospitals suffering from Da Costa's syndrome, haemorrhoids and varicose veins.
The army of well dressed dandies
with uniforms designed by general WaWa's and captain Goofy
it was typical for the two nitwits to make errors and then convince the other editors that I was wrong and they were right, and they would lose arguments and keep writing bullshit to convince the other editors that I lost and they won. They would then use the supposedly wrong information that I provided in their supposedly perfect article. The main reason that they eventually got me banned was because they wrote bullshit and lies at such an astonishing speed that I couldn't get in my right of reply before the decision to ban me was made. They actually had the capacity to write ten lies in the one sentence, so I would find myself tossing a coin to determine which lie to countereact first. They should be permanently banned for exceeding the bullshit speed limit.
After my main critic wrote a long essay of lies and bullshit on the arbitration page they included this sentence at the end . . . "I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome. WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009
If you extrapolated the editing pattern of those two nitwits you would see that if I fixed a spelling error on a pge about pimples one week, then the next day they would recommend . . . "a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) and pimples, is an appropriate outcome."
How stupid can they get?
I started contributing to the Da Costa's syndrome page at 7:39 on 9-12-2007 and noticed that none of the other editors of that topic, which included my main critic, had bothered to support the very small article with references, so I supplied three immediately, including Da Costa's original research paper of 1871, which I used as a reference number 1. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=176729513&oldid=165216444
About two months later, at 8:29 on 1-2-2008, I added the following statistics about causes which can be seen in Da Costa's original research paper on page 37. . . " Da Costa came to the conclusion that many factors seemed to overlap, but close study revealed that it was "Fevers" 17%, "Diarrhoea" 30.5%, "Hard field service, particularly excessive marching" 34.5%, and finally, "Wounds, injuries, rheumatism, scurvy, ordinary duties of soldier life, and doubtful causes" 18%. (end of quotes)" However, my main critic deleted them at 21:112 on 10-2-2008 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=190379699
(there is a small discrepancy with the figure of 34.5 % which should be 38.5% that pedantic nitwits might quibble about without regard for the major issues in dispute.)
Four months later, at 17:43 on 14-6-2008, that same stupid editor then tried to act intelligent and knowledgeable by writing this question to me about the same statistics from a different reference by Charles Wooley in 1982 . . . "I invite you to consider this:"Jacob Da Costa (1833–1900), who had studied the phenomenon during the American Civil War (Wooley 1982), concluded that there was no clear-cut cause, though his analysis of 200 cases (selection criteria were not stated) showed that 38.5% had been subject to ‘hard field service and excessive marching’, and a further 30.5% had previously suffered from diarrhoea (Da Costa 1871, p. 37; Wooley 2002)"
My main critic was trying to argue that because Da Costa didn't mention tight chest and waist straps as a cause in his statistics that therefore it wasn't a cause.
That person continued to argue by writing these words . . . "Since ‘irritable heart’, as Da Costa termed the disorder, was not confined to the infantry but affected the cavalry and artillery, he [Da Costa] argued that the webbing and packs, which varied between these arms, could not have been the primary cause. Although this was widely regarded as a disorder suffered by soldiers in wartime, Da Costa made the important observation that the same cluster of symptoms could also be seen in civilians."[1] . . . Furthermore, when the British War Office redesigned the gear to prevent constriction, the men using the new gear had just as many problems as the men using the old gear. Therefore, everyone dropped this "tight clothing" idea: data trumped theory. I just don't think that we can present this as anything other than the first hypothesis, which was quickly discarded. WhatamIdoing 17:43, 14 June 2008 WhatamIdoing 17:43, 14 June 2008" See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266789799&oldid=266722358#Clothing
My readers need to understand that I already told the two nitwits that Da Costa's syndrome was common in civilians, but they deleted that fact from the article because they want their readers to believe that it is a post war syndrome cause by the stresses of war.
Also, Da Costa's comment was not a theory, but was just a straight forward statement of the obvious, and nobody trumped anything, and while some authors tried to discredit the effect of tight clothing, not everyone was that stupid. In fact, there were major debates in the general community about corsets being the cause of major health problems and it was, and still is widely known that tight corsets made women feel weak and easily exhausted, and to get palpitations and breathlessness and feel faint in response to the slightest exertion. Their condition was called neurasthenia which was an alternative label for Da Costa's syndrome, and the manufacturers of whalebone corsets, who argued that tight clothing was not a cause of health problems, lost the debate, which is why those garments went out of fashion and are rarely used nowadays. The fact that Da Costa's syndrome was related to neurasthenia was added to the Da Costa's page "Related" section on the 18th May 2006, and was edited by my main critic who saw it on the 16th August and added the label of "soldier's heart" to the same section, and on the 17th October 2007 added the words "Orthostatic intolerance". Of course that editor didn't delete "neurasthenia" because it was actually relevant. As you can see it was on the Da Costa's page before I started contributing to it on the 9th December 2007, but my main critic would still be stupid enough to quibble about it by writing this sort of tripe . . . "we've told posturewriter that just because something is in the related section doesn't mean that it is actually related" See here and here
The interpretation of the facts by the two nitwits is biased and twisted bullshit.
As a final note - it was typical for the two nitwits to delete information or references that I provided one month, and then later see some relevance to their own argument and say 'bye the way has everyone got access to this important paper - we want to discuss it.' e.g. see here
The advantage of good manners
My two critics deliberately took advantage of double meanings to abbreviate my ID of Posturewriter to the derogatory PW, in an attempt to incite other editors to do the same and drum up a chant of 'lets gang up on PW and nuke the sucker'. Therefore on several occasions I politely requested that they refrain from using abbreviations but they would reply (which I paraphrase to make it obvious) 'what's wrong with that PW, we often abbreviate ID's - take Neutral Point of View for example - it is much easier to type NPOV than to type out the full words''. They obviously think that their own cheeky double talk is 'clever' but if I had abbreviated their ID's of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon to WaWa's and Goon the two silly sooks would have thrown a temper tantrum and banned me for violating Wikipedia's civility policy
Here are some quotes . . .
On 14th June 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "PW, I'm familiar with your argument that tight clothing triggers DCS symptoms." WhatamIdoing 17:43, 14 June 2008
I then gave this response . . . "WhatamIdoing; I don’t think that it is appropriate to abbreviate code ID’s" Posturewriter 00:56, 16 June 2008
That editor replied with these words . . . "PW, I'm not sure what the "abbreviating code IDs" refers to." WhatamIdoing 17:31, 25 June 2008
The use of that abbreviation continued, and six months later I asked that editor this question . . . "what gives you the authority to make excuses for disregarding Wikipedia discussion policy" Posturewriter 03:55, 1 January 2009
WhatamIdoing replied with these words . . . "I have not violated WP:CIVIL: I have not called you names, I have not taunted you" WhatamIdoing 21:34, 1 January 2009
Two days later that editor wrote these words . . . "PW, we keep telling you things about basic Wikipedia conventions, and you don't seem to grasp them." WhatamIdoing 00:01, 3 January 2009
I then gave this advice to that editor . . . "You are also violating wiki discussion policy by abbreviating ID's, as it is likely to foster familiarity" Posturewriter 01:21, 3 January 2009
That editor then gave this insolent excuse and spun it around their grubby little fingers to make it look atas if I was at fault. . . "PW, would you please provide me with a link to the the "discussion policy" that bans all abbreviation of IDs, such as (for example) using initialisms like NPOV, which I note that you have done twice in the same paragraph that accuses me of breaking this rule?" WhatamIdoing 01:23, 11 January 2009
Other editors tried to teach both of them the importance of good manners but they simply found excuses for continuing to be foul mouthed or offensive.
I can give an example but they wrote so much bullshit that I will need to give a brief introduction.
Gordonofcartoon would habitually start arguments and lose, and then rush off to an administrator and try to get me blocked for disruptive editing. On one occasion an administrator named Moreschi believed his bullshit, but when I joined the discussion and provided my side of the story it ended immediately. Six months later Moreschi barged in on the arbitration page and acted like a heroic authority on everything and banned me.
This is a quote from his decision . . . "Frankly Posturewriter, the worst type of troll, has shown nothing but contempt for basic Wikipedia polices such as WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:DE/TE. Under such circumstances a one-year ban would have been the only result to have come out of an arbitration case. I, however, unlike you chaps, am fortunately not limited in block length. Moreschi 20:39, 29 January 2009
See here
The following words are a quote from a discussion in which an editor named Elonka tried to politely teach Gordonofcartoon and Moreschi the importance of good manners but, as you can see, it was a hopeless waste of time. For example, the word troll is used to describe a disruptive editor, and has the double meaning of a large ugly hairy monster, and administrators know that the use of the word troll is unnecessary and deliberately offensive, and a violation of the civility policy.
This is the quote . . . Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "Re PW "Sincere thanks! No blame attached to anyone; it's a niche topic - a historical curiosity even - and as it wasn't affecting many editors, it's understandable the dispute slipped though the net." Gordonofcartoon 15:50, 28 January 2009
Moreschi replied . . . "Aye, although after the ANI thread I should have probably kept tabs on this guy. Still, it's all over now." Moreschi 20:46, 29 January 2009
Elonka gave this advice . . . "Troll . . . Moreschi, this is pretty strong language, and I am not agreeing with your assessment.[4] Could you please consider ratcheting back the rhetoric?" --Elonka 21:22, 28 January 2009
Moreschi ignored that advice with these words . . . "Nope. Tundrabuggy is currently number 2 on my list of people who should be banned, but aren't. A more harmful partisan in the I/P articles it is hard to think of. I have never seen him take one reasonable position, be open to any form of compromise, do anything other than flame and stoke tension on talkpages, and, well, yes, be a troll. Even Jaak and PR on their worst days weren't as bad as this guy. Moreschi" 20:46, 29 January 2009
Carcharoth made these comments . . . "RFAR follow-up Not sure if you are still following the RFAR on posturewriter, so letting you know here. Would you have time to respond to this? Several points there, but the one about leaving block notices on talk pages is one that I think should be done, especially as posturewriter has said they only edit at weekends (roughly) and they might confuse your block with the earlier one from WMC." Carcharoth 08:04, 29 January 2009
Moreschi replied with these words . . . "Dealt with." Moreschi 20:46, 29 January 2009
Guettarda gave this comment . . . "Haven't followed this until now, don't know enough background, but given the indef block, should this page be deleted, or at least blanked?" Guettarda 21:50, 29 January 2009. See here and here
When you read the quotes above you will note how Gordonofcartoon was rudely ignoring my request to refrain from abbreviating my ID, and deliberately put "Re PW" in bold print as the new section heading, and Moreschi said that he 'should' have followed the dispute - but he didn't. He only participated in one small discussion so was simply believing Gordonofcartoon's bullshit.
Elonka used the word "Troll" as a section heading and told them to stop being offensive by using it, but sMoreschi rudely snubbed that editor with the word "Nope".
Note also that my two critics were doing ten thousand edits a year between them, and spending much of their time tag-teaming against me and telling the other editors that I was being constantly disruptive, and yet Carcharoth acknowledged that I only edited once a week on weekends, and then Guettarda says that he hasn't read enough about the dispute but asks if the page be deleted or blanked anyway.
You will note that my two critics were in an extreme hurry to get me banned, so that I didn't get the opportunity to provide the arbitrators with evidence and proof that they were telling lies and writing bullshit. They knew that I preferred to edit once a week and that I was preparing the evidence and would be posting it on Sunday the 1st of February so they made sure that they got me banned before then - on Thursday the 29th January 2009.
If you follow the links you will also see that Wizardman gave me permission to deny him the opportunity to be an arbitrator. He did that due to his conflicts of interest because he had been misled into closing a previous RFC discussion in violation of the closing policy, and also because he had been rewarded with a barnstar by my main critic. Despite the fact that his decision was a violation of policy, my two critics used it as evidence against me on the arbitration page??? In a real court their behaviour would be called perjury and corruption, and obstruction of justice.
See here and the first two comments here
You can see how my two critics whipped up a frenzy of contempt against me, ignored all advice to obey their own policies, and to be polite, and gained the support of people who didn't know anything about the topic or the dispute. Even those who did read the discussions would be so drowned in their massive floods of bullshit that they wouldn't be able to see any sense. For example, Carcharoth did a spiel about me being focused on one topic, but was not aware that I joined Wikipedia to add about one paragraph of interesting information per week on hundreds of different topics. However when I was a new contributor I added information to six different pages but WhatamIdoing followed me around like a blood hound with mad cow disease and criticised every word I wrote. I wasn't going to let a bloody fool like that push me around and force me to fix spelling errors on pages about cupcakes and muffins, so I stayed where I had the advantage of superior knowledge. See here
One more of Gordonofcartoon's Tactics
Telling lies by reporting the "opposite" of what actually happened
My two critics spent twelve months being deliberately insulting and offensive, and accused me of violating dozens of policies, so I decided to write an essay and provide evidence and proof of their lies, and their violation of their own policies.
Gordonofcartoon called it an attack essay, and arranged for a Wikiquette Alerts discussion to be started in which he accused me of violating their etiquette policy which required me to be polite and respectful, and to "assume good faith" in them. He lost the argument, and a second discussion called "Miscellany for Deletion" was established to have the essay removed, but the consensus was that it should be kept, so he lost that argument as well.
However a few months later he set up an arbitration page to get me blocked and argued that he had tried to resolve his disputes by giving me "Advice on general editing etiquette and standards" and "Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest" and "Request via Wikiquette alerts to abide by WP:UP#NOT and remove bad-faith Talk page diatribe about other editors. Outcome:"Stuck".
Earlier in the year he and his team mate started an argument against me about Rosen's research paper, and lost, and they tried to get the Da Costa's page merged with a new one that did not exist at that time, and still doesn't, so they lost again.
Also, when I told them that it was inappropriate for them to be using a children's fiction novel as a link on a medical page they started arguing about it. An editor named NapoliRoma told them that they were wrong, and El Imp deleted their link, so they lost again, as usual.
They argued with me about almost everything and lost, but Gordonofcartoon told the arbitrators that he had tried to resolve all of the disputes by giving me a "Warning about disruptive editing".
After losing two arguments they set up a "Conflict of interest" dispute against me to get me blocked but they lost, so Gordonofcartoon set it up for a second time. Only two other editors came to discuss their accusations. One, named Guido den Broeder told them that they were wrong and one, named EdJohnston, eventually agreed with them, so with one in favor, and one against, they failed to get consensus.
Gordonofcartoon said that he had tried to resolve his disputes against me with "Two unsuccessful attempts to resolve via WP:COIN".
In other words he had put the dispute on the "Conflict of Interest Noticeboard" twice, where it could potentially be seen by hundreds of other editors, and yet only two showed any interest, and they didn't agree with each other.
When their Wikiquette Alerts failed, and their "Miscellany for Deletion" failed they set up a "Requests for Comments" discussion to get me blocked. An uninvolved editor named Avnjay suggested that myself, and each of my two critics write one essay each outside of Wikipedia, and post them back for "neutral" editors to merge into one "neutral point of view" article. Another uninvolved editor named SmokeyJoe made exactly the same suggestion separately, but WhatamIdoing ignored the idea, and Gordonofcartoon bluntly refused to co-operate. I agreed but knew that it would take me a few weeks to do properly, so I checked the RFC policy to make sure that my two critics couldn't block me before I got back. It stated that RFC discussions can't be closed while participants are still actively per suing a solution to the dispute.
Shortly after I started the essay an editor named Wizardman closed the RFC with a warning that I should not make any more contributions to the Da Costa's topic, and then WhatamIdoing gave him a barnstar.
Gordonofcartoon wrote this on the arbitration page "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter: strongest consensus for outcome was [9], closing conclusion here [10]" (end of quote) - Note that the numbers 9 and 10 were linked to the suggestions that I should stop editing the topic.
Note also that Gordonofcartoon theatrically presented all of those lies and misrepresentations one after another on a list on the arbitration page and made it look as if he had a very strong case against me, when his case was actually a 'weakness' of repeated 'failures'
In the meantime I had explained that the RFC decision was invalid because it had been made in violation of the RFC closing policy, and this is what Wizardman wrote on the arbitration page . . . "after looking more closely. (If either party wishes for me to recuse due to closing the RfC, I have no objection to doing so, just let me know.)" Wizardman 03:00, 28 January 2009. See here
I was then banned by an editor named Moreschi who had only participated in one brief discussion some months earlier, and the appeared to 'run away' when I joined it to give my point of view. He then rushed into the Arbitration page as if he was some sort of heroic rescuer, and banned me by using the "ignore all rules" policy. Some months later WhatamIdoing gave him a barnstar with a message secreted into the edit text that it was for 'ignoring the rules' to ban me.
Introduction
Internet users are unlikely to read long screeds of text, so, although I have provided a lot of information on these web pages, it consist of separate essays which can be read as stand alone articles. I have also chosen the following item as a good example of how two individuals criticised my contributions to Wikipedia. It is typical of their extremely offensive double standards, so if you check all of the details you won't need to read anything else. However, if they challenge what I have written, I recommend that you do not believe anything they write unless you are prepared to read everything on these pages, because they only want all of the other editors and Wikpedia readers to believe their side of the argument. There is a popular way of describing their editing which goes something like this - They don't want the facts to get in the way of their stories so they remove the facts.
Also despite telling massive numbers of lies they expect the administrators to believe that they are honest and respectable editors, but there is a another popular saying - You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The verifiable truth
When I first saw the Wikipedia page about a medical condition called Da Costa's Syndrome it had absolutely nothing about treatment as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=165216444&oldid=151708868
I added some information to the page, including comments about my own research, but my two critics described it as non-notable original research and deleted it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=180714637&oldid=180703608
After modifying the text I added the section about that research a second time here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=184150833&oldid=182944719
However, they deleted it again here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=184167516&oldid=184167421
I did not mention anything about my own research after that, but they spent the next 12 months telling all of the other editors that everything else I added was nonsense and rubbish, and then deleted the whole page, including the treatment section, which had these words which were all supported by links to numbered references . . .
"Treatment: The reports of Da Costa, White, Wheeler, and Wood show that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from strenuous activity, the stressful emotional situations, or the sustained lifestyle that caused them[19][13][4]. In many cases relapses were prevented by determining the limits of exertion and lifestyle and keeping within them[13][4][52][43]. The physical limitations were associated with the abnormalities in respiration and circulation. Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving nutrition[19], physique and posture,[11] appropriate levels of exercise where possible[23][28][4][5][53], using individually designed graded exercise regimes[27][54][6][2][36][48] which have been proven to be effective in relieving symptoms and improving exercise tolerance in some cases[9] Some symptoms such as faintness can be prevented or relieved by wearing loose clothing about the neck, chest, and waist[11][21], and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases[33][9], and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side[12], or the back relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains in some cases. Some of the symptoms can be relieved by laying in a recliiner chair[54], and the chest pain can be temporarily relieved by intramuscular injection of novocaine at the site of tenderness[33]. Also, drinking more fluids, increasing salt intake, and sleeping with the head elevated can reduce the fatigue[55][56][38].e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266273949&oldid=262846727#Treatment
Note that two editors (and always the same two), constantly pestered me to provide information from independent, and verifiable sources, so, as you can see, I provided 31 numbered links between the 'Treatment' text and a list of top quality references. That list included articles by Jacob Mendez Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie, Sir William Osler, Sir Thomas Lewis, and Paul Dudley White. See the complete list of 61 references in the old records of Wikipedia here
They deleted that list of references from general view so I have added it to my website where there are 65 here
They replaced the entire page with a very small article that contained these words about treatment in the opening paragraph . . . "treatment is primarily behavioral, involving modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion" . . . Further down the page, in a section called Treatment, they included these words . . .
"Treatment: The report of Da Costa shows that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity or sustained lifestyle that caused them. Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back in some cases, which relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains, and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases". (end of quotes) e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266326592&oldid=266275464#Treatment
Their very small list of 18 reference can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=266275464#References
Summary: As you can also see, I provided about 250 words in the treatment section, and they copied them, and then deleted about 150, and kept the remaining 100 words. Also note that I provided 31 numbered links to top quality references to verify that everything I added to that section was true, but they provided none, which is typical of their very offensive double standards. They continued to tell lies, and misrepresent my contributions to get me banned. M.B.
Genuine Verifiability
When I added the essay above to my website the following discussion occurred between some of the editors of Wikipedia. When you read it you will be able to see what Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, thought should be done, and how my main critic gave a ridiculous and pompous excuse for not complying with the basic standards of 'independent' 'verifiability'.
These are the words of an editor named X-romix . . . "Jimbo wrote: "If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. [6]". X-romix continued to write . . . "I think that article with lacks of sources - is a wide gate for mass (hundreds in one article) "mistakes", original researches, conflicts of interests, hoaxes, nonsence, non-quality and non-neutral articles. Falsificators, propagandists and original researchers do not want to show their sources. Concientious users always can supply references in all paragraps of their text, or in the bibliography section of their article. X-romix 23:03, 27 May 2010
This is a fuller extract of Jimbo Wales words . . .
"Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy
way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference.
If it is not true, it should be removed.
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
no sources. --Jimbo. see here
This was my main critics pompous reply, which is otherwise used as a self-righteous excuse for not giving numbered links while demanding it of others. . . "Certainly: The absence of sources can cause all sorts of problems. But the fact remains that unless and until some editor actually gets around to challenging a given statement, Wikipedia does not actually require editors to support the statement with an inline citation (except for direct quotations)." WhatamIdoing 23:17, 27 May 2010 here
An example of how that editor cut and pasted an earlier version of my sub-page essay, and criticised it, and demanded inline citations at the end of many comments, can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#Da_Costa.E2.80.99s_Syndrome
The treatment section can be seen here
These are the words from that section which include multiple demands for inline citations. . .
"Treatment: The reports of Da Costa, White, and Wheeler show that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from strenuous activity, the stressful emotional situations, or the sustained lifestyle that caused them.[7] In many cases relapses were prevented by determining the limits of exertion and lifestyle and keeping within them.[18][7] The physical limitations were associated with the abnormalities in respiration and circulation. Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving physique and posture,[5] appropriate levels of exercise where possible[citation needed][original research?] wearing loose clothing about the waist,[citation needed] and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back in some cases,[citation needed]which relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains,[citation needed] and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension[original research?] in some cases."
You can see that my main critic did not know enough about the subject to find those references themselves, so I had to do it for them, and yet they still acted as if they were great authorities on the topic, and that they knew more about it than I did??? That editor was so ignorant that they even described some 'obvious facts' as 'original research'???
If one editor is required to provide references for every statement then the same standard should be applied to everyone. For more information about the double standards of my two critics, and how they tried to falsify history, see their blatant series of lies about Sir James MacKenzie here
My main critic is a prolific liar who wants readers to trust her?
My main critic has the practice of routinely telling lies to me, and other editors, administrators, and even an entire group of abitration editors in order to win disputes, but then gives them advice to be honest, with words such as these . . . "Adminship (etc) is a position of trust, and. . . if the community feels you deceived them . . . then you're very likely to lose that trust." That persons Wikipedia ID is "WhatamIdoing", and they made that comment at 17:02, 3 August 2010 here
Their Biggest Lie
In order to avoid the never ending criticism of almost every word I wrote, I took up the suggestion of a neutral editor to write an essay about Da Costa's syndrome outside of Wikipedia. I completed it within a few weeks without fuss, and posted it back onto a subpage and began co-operating with him to improve it. Neither of my two critics took up that offer.
However, almost immediately my main critic copied my essay onto one of their pages and bombarded it with more than 80 critical comments, which I described as blitz krieg editing.
At the same time, that same editor began arguing with the neutral editor about everything I wrote.
Ultimately they twisted everything about and told another discussion group of arbitrators that I was complaining about every single point . . . This is an extract from their words . . .
"Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints. The article's talk page and his own talk page is filled with endless arguments about every single point." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009<
My essay was copied and ransacked with 80 hostile comments here
The discussion where I described that as blitz krieg editing can be seen here and here
The page where my main critic argued relentlessly with the neutral editor is here
And the quote above is from the arbitration page here
Note that other editors have recommended that it is not sensible to fill pages with a large number of templates of critical comments, or to ask for references to verify every single statement, and especially not to ask for citations to verify obvious facts, because it can be annoying and is a form of trolling. However, my main critic completely ignored such advice. Also, when I added a single reference for each request for a citation that person would say . . . 'Oh yes, but it's out-of date, so I would add a modern one, and then I would be told 'yes, but it's not a review', so I would add a review, and I would get a response 'yes but he's not an expert', so I would give each request for a citation, one from a Harvard professor, another from a top modern journal, and one from a reference that my critics provided!!! etc. Nevertheless, then my critic had the cheek to give other editors the general advice that it was stupid to put multiple references on the end of every sentence because it makes the article unreadable. If that individuals attempts to annoy me weren't so obvious, I may have become annoyed, but I found them ridiculous.The article that I wrote, with all of the citations added as requested, can be seen here
Their lies continued
Da Costa's syndrome is common, but my main critic used the "Rare Diseases Database" as a reference, to argue that it was rare?
WhatamIdoing tells other editors how foolish it is to use references which contradict each other here, but she does exactly the same thing herself, and doesn't fix her own mistakes even when one of the references is obviously wrong.
See their reference list which includes number 4 and 7 here. Number 7 is Oglesby Paul who describes Da Costa's as common in the first paragraph here, and number 4, the Rare Disease DataBase here
By way of introduction J.M.Da Costa explained in the opening paragraph of his 1871 research paper that he first observed a set of symptoms amongst soldiers during the American Civil War, and then entered general practice where he noticed that the same problem was common among civilians. By 1920 that was common knowledge amongst the researchers, and eventually there were estimates that it affected from 2-15% of the population.
Here are some more quotes from Paul Wood's book "Diseases of the Heart and Circulation"of 1956 page 938 . . .
"In civil life the condition accounts for 10-15% of all cases referred to cardiovascular clinics; it is common in children, and occurs more often in women than in men, the ratio being 3:2 . . . In the first world war there were some 60,000 'effort syndrome' casualties in the British forces."
In 1987 Harvard professor Oglesby Paul reviewed the history of the condition, and concluded that it was still common and effected between 2-4% of the population, which equates with 2-4 in 100, or 4-8 million people in the U.S. alone, in today's terms. e.g. see the first paragraph here
My two critics obviously didn't want the readers to know that it was common, so they invented reasons for deleting the statistics that I provided, and to add to their misleading deception they included a reference to a website called "NORD National Organization for Rare Disorders" which had a search box on it's "Rare Disease Database", which mentioned Da Costa's syndrome as a synonym of neurasthenia on one of it's many lists here. Nevertheless, according to that site a rare disease is one which effects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States, which is the equivalent of 1 in 1000, or 0.1% so Da Costa's syndrome should not be on it.
This is part of an argument where my main critic was telling lies and being criticised by an editor named Guido den Broeder
My main critic wrote . . . "Please explain why you believe that the National Organization for Rare Diseases -- the preeminent organization for rare diseases, which is considered the most authoritative and comprehensive organization in the entire world for rare diseases, and whose work is cited with approval by several governments, including, for example, the US and Canada -- is "unreliable." signed WhatamIdoing 23:10, 28 May 2008
Guido den Broeder replied . . . "I am not going to repeat the same exercise over and over again. Your original research will not make it into the article, and that's the end of it, no matter how many sources you are willing to misinterpret." signed Guido den Broeder 23:54, 28 May 2008
In addition to those matters she also told a massive number of lies on other pages in order to defame my character and discredit me. For example on the "Civil POV pushing" page she told the other editors that Da Costa's syndrome was "vague 19th century ailment which only warranted "a little gem of an article." See here
See the first paragraph of Oglesby Pauls actual paper which describes the conditon as "widely recognised" and "common" here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277260/?page=1
and the misleading reference number 4, provided by my main critic, to the Rare Diseases Data Base here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750#References
The definition of a rare disease on the NORD data base can be seen here http://www.rarediseases.org/info/about.html
See the discussion betweem my main critic and Guido den Broeder here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Names_for_this_phenomenon
At 4:59 on 11 Aughust 2010 WhatamIdoing edited a paragraph which contained the following information . . . The European Commission on Public Health
defines rare diseases as those of such "low prevalence" that generally means 1 in 2000 - or 0.05% See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rare_disease&diff=prev&oldid=378308921.
My final comment: Regardless of how many lies and twisted arguments that my main critic uses, Da Costa's syndrome is widely known and widely reported as common in the history of research, and it hasn't been cured so it is still common, even if it is given different labels nowadays. Furthermore, regardless of whether the Rare disease database is compiled by amateurs and volunteer like Wikipedia, or professionals, it is still wrong. Also my main critic appears to be an internet addict and a very arrogant internet 'control freak' who is editing many websites, and may be anonymously editing the Rare disease data base to create the illusion of it being an independent source, and to control information globally.
More of their lies
In 1951 Paul Dudley White was the world authority on the topic of Da Costa's syndrome which he preferred to call neurocirculatory asthenia. He described it as a type of fatigue syndrome which was more or less chronic. He was obviously saying that it was a type of 'chronic fatigue syndrome'. My two critics argued relentlessly that it wasn't, because it did not fit the exact description provided by their favorite modern researcher or organisation. However, it is still an easily diagnosed condition, and, as it is still common, it is a major type of CFS, regardless of what anyone calls it.
It is generally said that the modern chronic fatigue syndrome was first defined in the 1980's (although the term was used before then), and that there is no scientific evidence of a physical cause. When my main critic deleted the information which shows that CFS is essentially the same as Da Costa's syndrome they were interfering with the ability of readers to trace the history of the ailment back along that line of research and find that the physical basis of the condition has been known since the 1920's, and has been scientifically proven since the 1950's, and that there is a lot of other scienific evidence available for those who look.
My main critic wrote so many manipulative lies when discussing Da Costa's syndrome and CFS that it would be impossible to cover them all in one paragraph, so I have provided a fuller description of their elaborately devious arguements here
If you look at the article that they provided, it mentions several labels, and the chronic fatigue syndrome, and appears to be reasonable, but you won't notice that some of it is the same text that I wrote, but important and relevant information has been deleted, and you won't know the reason. Their version can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750
This is one of the many ridiculous lies that my main critic told . . . "we keep telling you things about basic Wikipedia conventions, and you don't seem to grasp them. For example, the mere fact that some editor lists CFS under ==See also== (formerly titled "Related articles") on the Da Costa's page does not make these condition the same. It doesn't even make them actually related . . . The sources you use to "prove" that DCS and CFS are the same disorder are unbelievably weak". signed WhatamIdoing 01:23, 11 January 2009 here
(note that I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything but was simply providing information from a book by a world authority on the topic).
This is what the same critic told another editor four months after I was banned . . . "Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS. . . Some fraction of the 19th century and early 20th century cases very probably were the dmnant form of modern CFS . . . I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Wikipedia." signed WhatamIdoing 02:17, 22 May 2009 here
Notice that in January my main critic was trying to give the impression that I was a fool for mentioning that DCS and CFS were related, and yet four months later, was acting like a pompous autority on the subject who was graciously giving another editor permission to say exactly the same thing.
Another one of their Lies
I provided Wikipedia with an essay for the topic of Da Costa's syndrome which included a section that included these words . . .
"Physiological Abnormalities related to exertion . . . Da Costa’s patients have a poor aerobic capacity or low level of fitness which is not related to the lack of exercise[1], and they have breathing patterns and other symptoms which are not the normal response to effort[32][4][3][12][5]. They have poor diaphragm movement and reduced chest expansion at rest[29][12], and during exercise training such as walking, jogging, or running "they have an easily induced oxygen debt"[4], their breathing become disproportionately shallow, oxygen consumption is lower, and blood lactate levels are higher than normal[32][36], in some cases more than double[14], and as the intensity and duration of the exercise increases the physiological abnormalities increase[14]. There is also an abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins[23][16][38], and a slow return of pulse rate to normal after exertion[33]."
They deleted most of the essay, including that section, and left these misleading words in the opening sentence . . . "Da Costa's syndrome, which was colloquially known as soldier's heart, is a syndrome with a set of symptoms that are similar to those of heart disease, though a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities."
As you can see, my two critics had to remove all of that secton because it made their opening sentence look ridiculous. The statements that I made were verifiable by 17 numbered links to top quality references which included research papers or books by Sir James MacKenzie who was knighted for his contributions to medicine, Sir Thomas Lewis who was knighted for his research on that condition, Paul Wood who was Britain's top authority on the subject, and Paul Dudley White who was the top authority in the U.S.
See that section here and their opening sentence by scrolling down the page here. See the references here.
See another relevant section here.
(Note: The statement that "physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities" is misleading because simply looking at the patient won't reveal abnormalities in the blood. At the very least, blood tests are required.)
One of the sets of Lies that my two critics told to get me banned
In 1976 I was looking for some information about a medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome so I went to the medical section of the library at the University of Adelaide. I soon found the latest edition of a research journal called 'Cirlculation' which included an article called 'Where are the Diseases of Yesteryear.' The subtitle included the words 'Da Costa's syndrome' and 'Mitral valve prolapse syndrome' (which is sometimes abbreviated as MVP), and the entire article was less than two and a half pages long, and a photocopy of it is still in my filing cabinet.
More than thirty years later, on December 9, 2007, I saw an article about Da Costa's syndrome in Wikipedia which had only four lines of text and an invitation to improve it, so I started. Within a few days, at 5:34 on 20 December, another editor named Gordonofcatoon made a change to his own User page where he described his reasons for joining Wikipedia, and his objectives, (he "rejoined under fresh name to concentrate on art topics, which are under-represented in Wikipedia" and 'dabbles' in other topics), and there was a section at the end called his "to do list" which had three entries where he added the words "Diseases of Yesteryear' . I recognised it immediately, and by clicking on the link that he provided I could see it on my computer screen within a few seconds and read it in five minutes. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gordonofcartoon&diff=next&oldid=177181935
It was not long before that person teamed up with another editor who had the peculiar name of 'WhatamIdoing' and began criticising and deleting every word I wrote, and telling lies and trying to disrupt or block my contributions or get me banned.
They were still teaming up against me almost continuously for more than six months, and then twelve months later when the following typical series of discussions occurred in order to get me banned.
At 20:35 on 29 July 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote the following words addressed to me. . . "Now can you find a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says that in the last half century, and has excluded those misdiagnosed "DCS" patients that actually have mitral valve prolapse? (WP:MEDRS strongly prefers sources that were published in the last five years, so please don't feel like I'm being picky by asking for something published in the last fifty years.)" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2008
At 4:24 on 30 July 2008 I replied . . . "I am familiar with Charles Wooley’s 1976 essay Diseases of Yesteryear, which discusses the Mitral Valve Prolapse aspect, and have my own copy of it, and it has a University of Adelaide date stamp for July 1976, only two months after it was published in the U.S.), and it has also been on Gordonofcartoon’s talk page here [30] at the end of his to do list for 6 months, and I have previously asked him to comment on it, but he hasn’t." Posturewriter 04:24, 30 July 2008
At 6:44 on 30 July 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "No editor is under obligation to comment on a study just because you ask him to". WhatamIdoing 06:44, 30 July 2008 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#The_Physical_and_Physiological_Evidence_for_the_Symptoms (note that WhatamIdoing was telling me that Gordonofcartoon did not have to respond to my request for him to review a paper about MVP, but at the same time was telling other editors that I was being deliberately negligent for not reviewing papers on that subject.????? M.B.)
I later produced an essay for Da Costa's syndrome and posted it onto a Wikipedia subpage with some comments about MPV and soon after that I began co-operating with a neutral editor named Avnjay to make it 'neutral' and comply with ALL other policies. WhatamIdoing 'cut and pasted' a 'copy' of it and put it on a 'personal' 'sandbox' page, and then included some comments about the 1976 paragraph as part of 80 criticisms that were aimed at convincing him that everything was wrong with it. My essay included these words . . . "In 1976 Charles Wooley presented an article in Circulation entitled ‘Where are the diseases of Yesteryear, in which Da Costa’s syndrome was the topic which he described as having similar signs and symptoms to those seen in the emerging field of study called the mitral valve prolapse syndrome.[16]".
At 21:21 on 5 October 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote this about at the top of the 1950-1999 section . . . "Why does this section essentially ignore the single most important development in the mid-century, which was the ability to separate out mitral valve prolapse from other "DCS" patients"? WhatamIdoing 21:21 5 Oct 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#1950-1999
Again, on an RFC page, at 17:27 on 6 October WhatamIdoing wrote the following words addressed to a group of editors. . . "And he's chosen the 1950s with care, because mitral valve prolapse was finally figured out in the 1960s."WhatamIdoing 17:27, 6 October 2008 here
At 19:14 on 26 January 2009 WhatamIdoing wrote these criticisms of that essay . . . " Do we need three entire paragraphs on a medical textbook from 1951? (Note that a 1950s textbook has been selected because Mitral valve prolapse wasn't identified until the next decade.) WhatamIdoing 19:14, 26 January 2009 (note that WhatamIdoing was telling lies by inventing the idea that I was using a 1951 book 'because' Mitral valve prolapse wasn't identified until the next decade'. I actually used it because it was written by Harvard professor Paul Dudley White who was a world authority on that topic. I also used 65 other references, and about 30 of them were from 1950-2009 M.B.)
At 9:04 on 27 January 2009 I wrote these words on the Da Costa's talk page to explain my reasons for transferring my essay to the topic page . . . "I have replaced the existing page a text that has been described by NPOV Avnjay as “a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently up and I can't find anything which is COI, unsourced (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased” here[40]" Posturewriter 09:04, 27 January 2009 (see the page that I added here
At 9:04 on 27 January 2009 I wrote . . . "WhatamIdoing; regarding your continuing suggestion that I am ignoring MVP, I have added a paragraph and 6 references on it, four from Charles Wooley up until 2004 here[41], whose 1976 paper here[42] has been on User:Gordonofcartoon's User page for 12 months, since 20-12-07 here[43] without being discussed by him despite me asking him and you to review it. Note that it has Mitral Valve Prolapse Syndrome as a synonym in the title" Posturewriter 09:04, 27 January 2009
At 9:28 on 27 January 2009 Gordonofcartoon gave this reply . . . "Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I noted it there to read, and haven't yet got around to it. I can't read everything and can't attend to everything, especially amid the general excess of verbiage. Unlike you, I am not interested in this sole topic, and can't be expected to notice every single detail of it (particularly given your failure to follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to be concise and keep discussion focused). Gordonofcartoon 09:28, 27 January 2009 (note that Gordonofcartoon had found the time to read and relentlessly criticise every detail that I wrote for 12 months but was expecting me and other editors to have good faith in him and believe his obvious lie that he couldn't get around to spending five minutes reading a two and a half page research paper??? that he had added a link to on his own Userpage 'to do' list here, and that was instantly available on the internet. M.B.) see that article by downloading it from here http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/53/5/749
At 10:08 on 27 January 2009. I gave this response . . . "Gordonofcartoon if you haven't been able to read something about Da Costa's syndrome that has been on your "to do" list for more than 12 months then you shouldn't be editing the page, and you definitely should not be criticising my 60 references.
Also note that WhatamIdoings qualifications are self-described here[44] in particular WhatamIdoing is not a healthcare professional and has no plans to become one" . . . and is "typically useless in cardiology" and "can contribute at a very basic level, such as copy editing or reviewing sources" Posturewriter 10:08 27 January 2008. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=247115577&oldid=247067496
Confirmation that Gordonofcartoons excuse and general behaviour are not acceptable in Wikipedia can be seen with the following example of what not to say, from the policy page called WP:OWN . . . "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know." See here
In fact they violated most of the behavioural guidelines in that section of the policy.
At 18:27 on 27 January 2009, my two critics got their way reagardless, as can be seen in the words that WhatamIdoing wrote on that day. . . "Posturewriter has been blocked for COI violations and edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2009
At 15:45 on 28 January 2009 a non-medical administrator named Moreshci wrote . . . "Posturewriter is banned. Apologies for not getting round to this sooner. Moreschi 15:45, 28 January 2009 See those discussions from January 27-29 in 2009 here
Their motives for telling those lies
My two critics deleted all information about my Posture Theory within the first month of me including it on the Wikipedia page about Da Costa's syndrome, and then they relentlessly continued to spend the next 12 months trying to convince all of the other editors that it was worthless nonsense and crap. They obviously didn't want to add any information that supported that theory, which included the two and a half page research paper on the 'to do list' at the end of Gordonofcartoons own User page. It takes only five minutes to read, and at the top of page two it states . . . "in some cases the chest is long and narrow and associated with a kyphotic curve". - The word 'kyphotic' means hunchbacked or slouched, so it is excellent verification of the relevance of the Posture theory, and for the physique related information that I added to the topic.
They also spent much of their time trying to convince the other editors that my research for a modified exercise programme was non-notable nonsense and rubbish. However, If you have a look at the second paragraph on the first page it states that the symptoms were 'most readily excited by exertion', and could then be so violent 'that the patient would fall to the ground insensible', and the author reported the findings of a previous researcher named Lewis who wrote. . . 'it is because these symptoms and signs are largely, in some case wholly the exaggerated physiological response to exercise . . . that I term the whole 'the effort syndrome.' As you can see, that evidence is excellent verification of the relevance and appropriatelness of my modified, and reduced level, and graduated exercise research.
My two critics also provided an alternative version of the Da Costa's page in which they gave the misleading statement that there was no physical evidence of physiological abnormalities', however, on page one of the 1976 research article the author reported this about Lewis . . . 'He discussed the breathlessness, noted that vital capacity to be only a little below normal, and suspected an alteration in the character of the blood (acidosis as produced by CO2 or lactic acid) as a causative factor' - end of quote. You can see how that information contradicts and therefore discredits the opinion of my two critics.
They also tried to convince all of the other editors that the most important alternative label for Da Costa's syndrome was "Soldier Heart', so they mentioned it on the top line, and the second line, and referred to post-war syndromes soon after that, and even mentioned cowardice in the notes to one of their references, in order to promote their 'opinion' that the ailment was an anxiety disorder cause by the fear of battle. However, here are some quotes from the top of the second page of the 1976 research paper . . . 'Most of the soldier's came from sedentary occupations and a large percentage of the patients was affected by the condition in civil life many years before joining the Army', and later down the page wrote 'the syndrome is not peculiarly . . . a soldiers (sic) malady, or an athletes (sci) malady. It is one of the commonest chronic affections of sedetary town dwellers . . . and was commoner in women'.
As you can clearly and unambiguously see Gordonofcartoon had plenty of time to write thousands of words of criticism for 12 months, and was telling obvious lies when he argued that he did not have the time to spend looking at a two and a half page research paper which took only five minutes to read.
His real motive was that he did not want to use a reference that made my theory and research look relevant and reliable, and which made his preferred version of the Wikipedia article look extremely biased and ridiculous.
Many months after I was banned Gordonofcartoon stealthily removed that research paper from the 'to do list' at the end of his User page, and obviously hopes that no-one would notice that is had previously been there, or why he never used it as a reference, or why he deleted it.
Gordonofcartoon added a link to a 1976 research paper called 'Where are the Diseases of Yesteryear' at the end of his own Userpage, on his 'to do list', here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gordonofcartoon&diff=next&oldid177181935
and that it was instantly available on the internet. You can read that article by downloading it from here http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/53/5/749.
You can also see his ridiculous excuse about not having time to read it by scrolling down to the relevant date here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Da_Costa_Article_page_text_replaced_with_the
_text_from_the_Posturewriter.2FDaCostaDraft
and their version of the Da Costa's article by scrolling down here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266506092&oldid=266482273
and the notes at the end of reference number 13 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266506092&oldid=266482273#References
For their relentless attempts at giving undue weight to the label of Soldier's Heart see a fuller descritption by scrolling down to view several windows of evidence here
The version of the article that my two critics used as a replacement
The editor named WhatamIdoing had previously been arguing relentlessly with words like this . . . "Why does this section essentially ignore the single most important development in the mid-century, which was the ability to separate out mitral valve prolapse from other "DCS" patients"? WhatamIdoing 21:21 5 Oct 2008 here
However when that same editor deleted my whole essay they replaced it with their preferred version. In that process they deleted two paragraphs of information about the 1976 paper, and six of my references about MVP, and replaced it with only one sentence which mentioned it. See the edit where that editor made a change at 18:12 on January 27 2009 here
The entire sentence in their version was this . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and mitral valve prolapse syndrome.[11]"
You will also notice that I used that same reference as number 44 on my list, on the page that they deleted here
If you click on that link you will see that it is a part of the OMIM website (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man), and the topic page is MIM #604715 "Orthostatic Intolerance". You won't notice that the text has changed over the past two years, but currently, as of 1-May 2010, it confirms everything I said about the history of Da Costa's syndrome (J.M.Da Costa's name was mentioned), and pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins, (which is now called 'orthostatic intolerance'), and MVP, and the fact that some people are born with it (it can be genetic), and is most common in women, and is similar to 'chronic fatigue syndrome'. It is a modern reference which confirms everything that I was saying. However, when I wrote exactly the same thing my two critics said that I was writing rubbish and crap and that my references were unreliable.
A year later at 19:25 on 10 January 2010 the sentence on the Da Costa's page about orthostatic intolerance had one minor change, but nothing additional about MVP and I quote from it . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) [11]. and mitral valve prolapse syndrome.[12" (end of quote), and that page can be seen here
Note that in the fifteen months since I was banned only minor edits have been made to the page, and in particular, nothing at all has been added by my two critics, and nothing has been added to the topic of MVP. That page as at 19:25 on 10 January 2010 can be seen here
TEAM LIAR LIAR
A typical example of the way my two critics argued is where I would provide evidence that they had violated a policy, and they would spin it 180 degrees and make it look as if I had done something seriously wrong.
For example, I would provide proof that they had told lies about me, and they would accuse me of making a personal attack on them, and then give me pompous instructions about how most important it was that I assume good faith in them?
In fact, Wikipedia has a policy called "Assume Good Faith" which is abbreviated as WP:AGF, and another policy called "No Personal Attacks" WP:AGF, so they would set up a discussion page about me, and accuse me of violating those two policies and a dozen others??? that would go something like this . . . Posturewriter has violated WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:Civil etc. There are other pages such as "WP:The Truth", where the truth doesn't matter, and WP:IAR where the rules can be ignored, and my two critics exploited all of them.
This is an extract from one discussion . . . "Gordonofcartoon; Please stop telling lies. You were fully aware of the subpage suggestion by Avnjay in the seventh paragraph here[37] and another recommendation by SmokeyJoe at 11:18 on 8-8-08 who wrote “If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa’s syndrome), get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it” here[38]. and you did comment on it at 16:30 on the same day when you wrote “No. I'm fed up with this” here[39]Posturewriter 07:21, 26 January 2009
This was his reply . . . Please assume good faith. I had no recollection of any general invitation, and certainly wouldn't have supported the idea unless it were a generally open draft (not a private sandbox only open to you and friendly editors). I don't read everything - especially with disputes spread over multiple pages - and by that time it looks as if my attention was drifting with the deluge of obfuscation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:34, 26 January
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Da_Costa_Article_page_text_replaced_with_
the_text_from_the_Posturewriter.2FDaCostaDraft
9
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines
In that example Gordonofcartoon was complaining about not being able to read all of the discussions spread over multiple pages, which sounds reasonable until you know that he was the person who started most of them, and I just went there to defend myself.
This is what my other critic wrote . . . "Posturewriter has been blocked for COI violations and editwarring . . . I've reverted to the previous version. I note that Posturewriter declined to remove the unreliable source after being informed that (despite his arguments) every editor at RSN opposed the use of a personal webpage in this article" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2009.
That also sounds reasonable until you know all of the facts. For example, I provided 61 top quality referneces, and my second critic had been incessantly complaining to other editors about one of them, and, the decision to ban me was made by one editor, and, my second critic gave him an "outlaw halo award' for being the only individual to do it by 'ignoring all the rules' WP:IAR. See here and here and here
Leopards don't change their spots
Note that I pride myself on my ability to win arguments by using superior facts and evidence, but it relies on other people having the ability to recognise the truth!!!
By contrast my two critics seem to take pride in their ability to tell lies and fool other people. I have provided evidence and proof that they have told lies about me, the references, and the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and they have set up discussion page after discussion page, and told lies to the other editors, administrators, and readers of Wikipedia. They can't fool me because I know the facts, but they may or may not be able to fool others. They may even have convinced some people that their motives for telling lies were honorable, or somehow justifiable. However, I can say for certain that if they were honest they should have tried to win their disputes against me by telling the truth, one way or another, but they couldn't, which is something that you need to think about - Why did they tell so many blatant lies, and if they told so many lies, why would you believe anything that they wrote about anything, and do you think that they were telling lies about me, but would suddenly change their ways if they got into a dispute with you?????? Here is a friendly tip - Figure that out for yourself.
Another one of the many lies that my two critics told to get me banned
I provided Wikipedia with 61 top quality references about Da Costa's syndrome, one of which was J.M.Da Costa's original study of 300 soldiers published in 1871. I also referred to Sir James MacKenzie who studied 200 cases and reported his findings to a meeting in 1916, where other researchers had completed similar studies and agreed with his conclusions. Another reference was Edmund Wheelers 20 year follow -up study of 173 patients that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1950, and I included several other reviews and follow-up studies.
My two critics kept the first two references but deleted or reverted most of the information from the topic section, and then told the arbitration editors this . . .
"other editors explain that Wikipedia relies on properly published materials -- assuming in good faith, that he's trying to find useful information, and that we don't need to spell out every single possible characteristic of a good source over one mistake. So he then cites, say, a case study involving a single patient, to make sweeping statements about the condition. No, we say: major statements like that need to be supported by a secondary source. So he chooses a properly published secondary source -- but from nearly a century ago, and which is known to disagree entirely with current scientific consensus. No, we say: it needs to be a properly published, secondary source that is reasonably current. The goalposts haven't moved during this time: I just didn't post complete explanations of all of the relevant standards in the first message. I also didn't tell him not to shove beans up his nose, and I doubtless excluded other important instructions in my first message." signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009
As you can see, that editor was not only telling lies about my references, but was being extremely ridiculous in the process. There were so many lies in that one extract that you will need to read my other summaries to identify all of them. For example, the Wikipedia sourcing policy specifically allows for older references to be used when writing the history section of a subject.
See my list of 61 references here
See the policy about the use of older references for history sections here
See the lies about my references here
They kept telling lies until I was banned: here is another example
When I wrote the history of Da Costa's syndrome I mentioned that there had been many heated arguments about it's cause, and provided the relevant references, and added more than 10 good quality medical articles which used at least four or five different labels in their introduction. To further illustrate the differences of opinion, I decided to use a medical consumers web page as a reference because it had a list of 80. However, one my two critics obviously didn't want readers to know that so they told lies which they used as their excuse to delete that information. The information that they deleted included the following words with links to numbered references . . .
"Alternative names for Da Costa’s syndrom: The name of Da Costa’s syndrome has changed so often from one specialist[3][14][36], or from one country[35][43][10], or one year to another[14][43][10] that it has created confusion in the study and diagnosis of the condition,[34] as is evident from many research articles which mention four or five in their introduction,[29][32][14][4][33][36][34][58][56][2][44][10] [9] and from a recent website which lists what it claims are more than eighty synonyms.[15]"
The following sentence includes the lie that they told on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to give the false impression that I had only used that one reference . . .
"Posturewriter, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards. All sources must meet the requirements of the basic policy. This one does not. If you can provide a reliable source that includes this information, then the information may be included. But this source itself may not. WhatamIdoing 18:26, 27 January 2009 here. See also the first section here and here and the references can be seen here
My two critics should be permanently banned for telling lies
I want the owners and administrators of Wikipedia to permanently ban my two critics for violating the Wikipedia Civility policy which gives the following examples of unacceptable behaviour . . .
"1. Direct rudeness
(a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity;
(b) personal attacks, including derogatory references to groups;
(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
2. Other uncivil behaviors
(a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility;
(b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal threats, posting of personal information, user space postings;
(c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information;
(d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them."
Those words are extracts from the 'Wikipedia:Civility policy at 4:16 on 1 May 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility
A final note
As you can see, my two critics told lies at any time, to suit any purpose, but particularly to win disputes, so they don't have the credibility to lecture others on the importance of honesty. However, one of them made the following comments . . .
"The recent changes to WP:PAYWALL are encouraging people to include sources that they have not actually used. IMO this is borderline dishonest: editors need to cite their real sources, not "pretend" sources that they found later.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bibliography or cheat-sheet for college students who aren't allowed to cite Wikipedia on their papers. We need to name the actual sources that we actually used. If the fact is easily verifiable through other sources, then that's great -- but our readers are smart enough to ask their favorite web search engines for alternative sources; we don't need to spoonfeed them". WhatamIdoing 20:39, 20 August 2010 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=380023542
Note that if other editors are as dishonest as my two critics it is no wonder that college students aren't allowed to cite it. First of all, a student should be taught to think for themselves, and do their own research, rather than believe everything that any one source states without checking it.
Secondly, Wikipedia does not need to spoonfeed readers but it should give priority to providing information that is readily accessible, rather than linking to journal articles that people have to pay to read.
My two critics should also take their own advice, and not link to anything until they have read past the title of children's books, or the first paragraph of research papers.
WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon's
misrepresentation of facts
An editor named
WhatamIdoing has had four years of experience in Wikipedia and
has written some of the sections of policy, and spends a lot
of time telling other editors that they must do things properly,
but often does the exact opposite.
For example, there
is the general principle that editors should not take another
persons words out of context, or misrepresent them,
or their references. They should not tell lies to mislead other editors, and they should not deliberately create false
impressions about another persons contributions.
One of the references
that I used was about Sir James MacKenzie who was knighted for
his contributions to medicine and was appointed to determine
the future course of research into Da Costa's syndrome. He chaired
a meeting in 1915. WhatamIdoing told the other editors that he
was just an ordinary doctor who walked in from the street and
made a few comments at an ordinary meeting that were published
because the minutes of the meeting were always published in those
days (see more details here). Similarly Paul Dudley White was a Harvard professor, and
a founding member of the American Heart Association who published
a book that was distributed to universities and medical schools
around the world and used as a reference book by cardiologists.
Chapter 22 in that book was about Da Costa's syndrome so I used
it as a reference in the history section,
and then WhatamIdoing told the other editors that it was just
an out-of-date 1951 text-book, and the name of the author wasn't
mentioned, so it left the impression that I was using an old
high school text book as a reference. A third example is where
WhatamIdoing provided a reference to an article by Oglesby Paul
but didn't comment on it. Oglesby Paul was a Harvard professor
and the article was a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome
published in the British Heart Journal so I also used it as a
reference, and then WhatamIdoing told the other editors that
he was just "this guy" who wrote "a routine review
paper".
Another example
is where a medical consumer provided a list of 80 alternative
labels for the chronic fatigue syndrome which included Da Costa's
syndrome. It was compiled from the work of four doctors,
and I used it to give medical consumers some input on the page
for 'neutral point of view' reasons, and I supported it with
12 other references that had at least five labels in their title
or introduction. She only had one website, and it was about her
pet iguana lizards so she put the information on one of the pages
on that website here. WhatamIdoing then told the other editors that
I was using a website about iguana lizards to 'prove'? that Da
Costa's syndrome was the same as the chronic fatigue syndrome
(As you can see I was actually linking to a webpage about CFS, not a website about iguanas, and I wasn't trying to "prove" anything).
Their Deliberate Misrepresentation of my theory
This
is what that editor wrote on the Administrator's Noticeboard
to get me blocked from a discussion about me on their own talk
page . . . "The editor is an agenda editor (standing
up straight cures disease, and now Da Costa's syndrome is
a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome because someone that runs
an iguana website says so) . . . and all the editor has done
this month is complain that he's not getting his way because I don't agree that a 1951 book or www.anapsid.org are reliable sources for current
information. His last mainspace edits were in July 2008 (and nearly all of them were reverted as biased, incorrect and/or outdated), so we're not talking about a particularly valuable
editor here." signed WhatamIdoing 2:42, 11th January 2009.
In that short
paragraph WhatamIdoing misrepresented me at least ten times.
For example, by misrepresenting
my 1000 page book on posture and health and giving the offensively
over simplified impression that all I said was that you could
cure diseases by standing up straight?
Note also that I provided a link
to a webpage by using the address of www.anapsid.org/cnd/diagnosis/names.html.
If you read it you can see that it has a list of 80 alternative labels for the chronic fatigue syndrome which includes Da Costa's syndrome. However, WhatamIdoing deliberately misled the administrator by linking
to the website address of www.anaspid.org which was about lizards, so that
it made me look ridiculous by giving the false impression
that I was a fool who was using a page about lizards as a reference
for a medical topic.
As another example, I provided
a reference to Harvard professor Paul Dudley White's international
cardiology reference book in the history section, and
WhatamIdoing tried to create the false impression that because it was from 1951 it was out-of-date, when, in fact, the scientific observations and evidence that I cited haven't changed since.
That editor combined the comments in the same section of criticism
to make both references look
irrelevant and ridiculous.
Response to their misrepresentation of my theory
One of my two critics, named WhatamIdoing,
was trying to convince the other editors that my book was full
of nonsense, such as a claim that you can cure Da Costa's syndrome
by lifting weights'. However, I never wrote any such thing, but
that editor would imply that I had by arguing that DCS is a dysfunction
of the autonomic nervous system and that . . .
"you
can't fix nerves by lifting weights".
signed WhatamIdoing 17:27, 6 October 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2
This is my response . . . "WhatamIdoing,
I have never said that you could cure Da Costa's syndrome or
anything else by lifting weights, but if you think I have then
please read my thousand page book and give me a page number.
When you can't find such a page then please tell all of
the other editors and administrators of
Wikipedia where you got that extremely silly idea from, because you didn't get it from me M.B.
P.S. If you did read my book could you
please explain to all of the other editors why you told lies
about it."
****
I have previously suggested the possibility
that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome may be related to a
disorder of aerobic metabolism, and that graduated aerobic exercise, such
as walking or slow jogging, may improve that capacity,
and thereby relieve symptoms in some cases. However, I did not include
weight lifting because
it is the wrong
type of exercise.
Here are the words that
I wrote as part of that fitness programme design . . . "no heavy lifting".
Their misrepresentation of previous discussions
Note also that my last
Da Costa page edits were not in July 2008, but were in fact two months earlier in May when I was advised to stop adding
to it. Prior to
then I had been contributing to the page from December 9th 2007 to May 12th 2008,
and during that time I made most of the contributions with 35
edits. My two critics did most, if not all of the criticising,
deletions, and reversions with WhatamIdoing making 11 edits and
Gordonofcartoon making 14. There was only one editor who added
ten edits in one day, and the rest were adding only one or two
each.
In fact, between July and September
2008 two RFC editors
suggested that I write a version of the Da Costa's topic on a
subpage where neutral editors could assist me in ensuring that
it complied with all policies, and where my two critics would
not be able to interfere, so I started writing it again. All
editors on the RFC page were invited to do the same but my two
critics refused.
When I finished that essay
and posted it onto the subpage a few week later, on 28th September 2008, a neutral editor named Avnjay
said it was "a lot better" than the existing one (i.e.
a lot better than the version that was edited and preferred by
my two critics). I then proceeded to improve it, and Anvjay provided
assistance with policy and rewrote the first section. I later
learned that Avnjay had gone to WhatamIdoing's talk page on 5th October to discuss the changes, and that is where all
the trouble started.
Later, in the period that WhatamIdoing referred to as 'this month', which means January 1st to January 11th 2009, I added a total of seventeen edits. Eleven were my responses to criticism on WhatamIdoing's
User talk page, five of them were on the Disruptive editing talk
page where I reported WhatamIdoing for disrupting my contributions,
and one was a note to the Editor's Assistance/Requests page where
I reported the problems I was having with my two critics etc. They relentlessly misrepresented my book, my references, and my edits until they
got only one of their friends to barge in on an orderly
arbitration page and ban me.
The following sections contain more examples of how my two critics misrepresented
the same facts in previous discussions and on other pages, so
you may wish to skip this window and move to the next topic.
Some other details for those who may be interested: In the seven months between May 12th 2008 and 11th January 2009 there were only four other editors making significant changes. The first one was Guido den Broeder who made thirty two edits for just over a week between 20th and 29th of May. The second and third were my two critics, where WhatamIdoing made ten edits, and Gordonofcartoon made eight. They were the main ones to argue with Guido and delete and revert his edits, and to get him blocked. In fact, the 10 day discussion between those three spanned forty five edits and only one of them was by another editor. There was another contributor who made only five edits in one day, and one edit shortly after, and one named Aunt Entropy who made two edits, and Napoli Roma, Circeus, CharlotteWeb, and RonronMexico who made one minor edit each. However, WhatamIdoing was trying to give the false impression that dozens of other editors were reverting my edits???, and that they were doing it because they all thought my references were biased, incorrect, or outdated??? (note that if you wish to verify this in the history of edits Guido's ID has been changed to Roadcreature) There were some other discussions on other pages, but I didn't make any changes to the topic page until I transferred my subpage text there between 25th and 27th January 2009, and the same two critics were the only editors to revert it. (I added it four times, and Gordonofcartoon reverted it twice, and then WhatamIdoing reverted it twice).
They
misrepresented me multiple times on an another talk page about
"Disruptive editing"
I reported WhatamIdoing
for inappropriate use of policy on a talk page associated with
"Disruptive editing", and the following response was
made to convince that group of editors that I was using unreliable
references.
"Posturewriter . . . I know
that you are mad at me because I oppose using your iguana website to 'prove' that Da Cost's syndrome is a
subtype of Chronic fatigue syndrome, and that I've been insisting
that you quit relying
on a 1951 book,
and so forth. But you're going to lose: the sources
that support your POV simply are not reliable." signed
WhatamIdoing 19:05, 10th January 2009. (end of quote). Note that
WhatamIdoing deliberately chose the words "your iguana
website" to convince the new group of editors that I had written a website about lizards, and that I was using it to promote my POV?
I didn't have such a website,
and I was using someone else's webpage about CFS which
had nothing to do with the rest of her website, and I wasn't
trying to 'prove' anything. I made these comments the next day . . . "Please note also that Melissa Kaplan's website is about CFS“[20], and it is not about iguana's just because you keep sayiing so." Posturewriter" 01:15, 11 January 2009 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=269715826&oldid=269639173#Wikipedia:
Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
Note that, at that stage I only knew about Kaplans web page by a link from the Google search engine to the topic of ME/CFS. In order to misrepresent that page as a website about iguanas my main critic would have known the facts, and knowingly, deceitfully, and willfully changed the emphasis to the website.
The "1951 book" that WhatamIdoing was calling unreliable was written by Paul Dudley White. This is a comment from a website which discusses the biography of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul . . . "He completed his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he met the famed cardiologist Paul Dudley White." - in the fifth paragraph here
Also, I wasn't just using that one book
to show that Da Costa's was 'widely regarded' as a 'chronic' 'fatigue' 'syndrome', but provided an additional 12 top quality modern references.
They
misrepresented my references on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard
WhatamIdoing started a
discussion on a page called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard
between 26th to 27th January to convince another group of editors
that the same medical consumers reference was about iguana lizards and that she had no medical knowledge,
and therefore didn't meet Wikipedia's basic standards for sources
of information. However, again, WhatamIdoing deliberately misrepresented
the facts by exaggerating those aspects, and by deliberately failing to mention that the list was . . .
"compiled from the work of Dr. Gordon Parish, Dr. David S. Bell, Dr. Henri Rubenstein, and Dr. Byron Hyde" see here
and . . . that I supported that single reference with 13 others from top quality independent medical research journals
and books, and that it was only one of a total of 65 references,
and that it was the only one from a medical consumer. I was
simply using it as one of at least a dozen good examples which showed that Da Costa's syndrome was such a confusing condition
that the label had changed more than 80 times in the last 140
years, and that "opinions" on cause changed regularly.
I described those facts
and then wrote these words . . . "Reliable source editors, I have considered
your comments and would like you to know that if you want the
Melissa Kaplan page of CFS synonyms removed as a source I will
do so. However,
let me first explain . . . etc" signed Posturewriter 8:21,
27 January 2009. I was essentially telling them that I would be happy to remove it if sensible editors like themselves
were made aware of all the facts and then asked me to, but not
if my two critics deleted it as part of a pattern of deleting
everything I wrote. I then started deleing the main link to the comment about 80 different labels at 8:50 on 27-1-09,
which still left the other 13 medical references as support for
the same statement.
Despite knowing that I had stared deleting the links WhatamIdoing reverted my essay on the topic page
with these words . . . "Rv
POV version of COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such
as the personal webpage of a patient".
WhatamIdoing 18:12, 27 January 2009
At 18:26 on the same day WhatamIdoing told those editors that I had been blocked for COI
violations and edit warring "including edit warring to restore this source after
being told that 100% of editors here opposed it".
Note (a) I hadn't actually been blocked for COI, just warned, and (b) I hadn't been blocked for 'edit warring', and (c) the 100% figure was a gross exaggeration of the decision of about six editors, and it was only about 1 of my sixty references. . . "She was also 'gloating' about the fact that I couldn't defend myself from her lies when she said this about me . . . "He will therefore be unable to respond for a while".
At 20:25, again, on the same day, WhatamIdoing told the arbitrators that I was arguing against
a consensus of 100%
of editors on the reliable sources noticeboard, which would give the impression of a dispute that
was started by another editor, and then involved dozens of neutral editors
that went on for several weeks. However, it was started by WhatamIdoing only two days earlier,
and lasted for a less than 2 days, and only four editors
agreed. When I gave
my second response and offered to delete the links there were
no further comments until
WhatamIdoing ended the discussion by telling them I had been
blocked.
I was due to give the arbitrators
my final response to all of those ridiculous misrepresentations
on Sunday 1st February and was banned on 29th January. 2009.
WhatamIdoing's response to the change
At 13:06, 26th January 2009 I added a version
of Da Costa's syndrome which contained this sentence. . . "The name of Da Costa's syndrome
has changed so often from one specialist[3][14][36],
or from one country[35][43][10], or one year to another[14][43][10] that it has created confusion in the study and
diagnosis of the condition [34] as is evident from many research
articles which mention four or five in their introduction, [29][32][14][4][33][36][34][58][56][2][44][10]
[9] and from a recent website which lists what it claims are more than eighty synonyms.[15]" (end of quote)(note;
each of the numbers in brackets is a reference to support the
statement, and the medical consumer's webpage was reference number
15).
At 18:57, 26th January 2009 WhatamIdoing
reverted the essay with that sentence.
At 8:50, 27th January 2009 I deleted
the main link to the medical consumer's webpage and changed
the same sentence to these words. . . "The name of Da Costa's syndrome has changed
so often from one specialist[3][14][36], or from one country[35][43][10], or one year to another[14][43][10]that
it has created confusion in the study and diagnosis of the condition,[34]
as is evident from many research articles which mention four
or five in their introduction,[29][32][14][4][33][36][34][58][56][2][44][10]
[9]."(end of
quote) (note that
the last sentence and reference number (15) are gone.
At 18:12 on 27th January
2009 WhatamIdoing reverted the essay again and was still using
the reason that I included an RSN banned references.
At 18:26 on 27th January WhatamIdoing continued to misrepresent the facts by implying that I had never provided any other
references for that
statement, and that I still
hadn't. These were the words that WhatamIdoing wrote on the
Reliable sources noticeboard where other editors would see them
. . . . "Posturewriter, this source does
not meet Wikipedia's standards. All sources must meet the requirements
of the basic policy. This one does not. If you can provide a reliable source that includes this information, then the information may be included. But this source itself may not. WhatamIdoing 18:26, 27 January
2009.
Note that WhatamIdoing was protesting
that all I needed was only one reliable source to show that there were many different labels used for Da Costa's
syndrome and yet I provided sixteen. However, in a previous discussion Guido den Broeder
accused WhatamIdoing of providing unreliable sources to show
that there were five different labels. One of them was Paul Wood
from 1941 and this was the response . . . "See this information
from NORD, which lists several terms . . . as exact synonyms.
Many original scientific papers such as this one,
and this one name several of these as exact synonyms. So
I have good reliable sources - both original research and
independent, third party reviews - that all assert that these
names are synonymous" signed
WhatamIdoing 19:49, 28th May 2008.
(Note that the words "this
one" in red were linked to
Paul Wood's 1941 paper which I used as reference number 14 above,
and that I was the editor who actually put it on the Da Costa's page
months earlier. The reference that WhatamIdoing referred to as "this one" in green
was linked to an article by Cohen and White, and my reference
number 35 above was by the same authors.
They Misrepresented
the reliability of my references e.g. PAUL WOOD , and Double standards
Whatever reference that WhatamIdoing uses
is always deemed to be excellent according to policy, but whatever
reference anyone else uses, even if it is the same author or
article, can always be described as 'unreliable' according the
'whatever' policy 'WhatamIdoing' can find in the Wikipedia fine
print. When I suggested
that there should be a policy for effectively preventing
the blatant use of DOUBLE STANDARDS Gordonofcartoon replied, at 11:41
on 5th August 2008, that IT
"IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN".
FOR EXAMPLE, at 5:07 on 12th December 2007
I added a reference to a lecture by Paul Wood from 1941 that
was published in the British Medical Journal, however, my two
critics spent much of their time trying to convince the other
editors that my references didn't even meet the basic standards
of reliability because some of them were the were more than fifty
years"old" and from "before most editors were
born" and violated the MEDRS policy for up-to-date evidence.
However, in fact, that policy has a specific sentence in it that
allows the use of 'old' references for the 'history' sections
of article for obvious reasons, so WhatamIdoing was telling lies
about that policy - deceit by omission, for deliberately, deceitfully,
and deviously not mentioning that exception.
However, in an argument with another editor,
WhatamIdoing used the same 1941 article as a reference, and at
23:10 on 28th May 2008 displayed pompous indignation when it's
reliability was questioned by pointing out that Paul Wood was
a physician in the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart,
in a unit which was set up for the sole purpose of treating the
effort syndrome (which was the alternative name for Da Costa's
syndrome in that hospital at that time).
Note that If I didn't use Paul Wood's article
as a reference in December 2007, WhatamIdoing, the self-proclaimed
"instant expert" would probably not know anything about
it, or Paul Wood. However six months later, in May 2008, WhatamIdoing
tried to impress another editor by pretending to have great knowledge
of the topic??? These are the words from the page just underneath
Paul Wood's name . . . "Physician in Effort Syndrome
Unit, E.M.S.: Physician to Out-patients, National Hospital for
Diseases of the Heart"
Anybody who read that article could see those facts within ten seconds.
Also, WhatamIdoing used that reference in an attempt to impress
another editor by showing that there were five different labels
for Da Costa's syndrome but, was actually showing extreme ignorance
of the subject, because in the 140 year history there were more
than 100 alternative name for the condition.
They misrepresented my reasons for writing the early history first
When they deleted information about my own research they
told me that they appreciated my other editing efforts (which
were in the history section), so I started writing the history of the topic from
the 1950's backwards to the 1940's and eventually to 1864, and
I gave them plenty of time to add the modern history if they
wanted to. The whole history could then be integrated after discussions
on the talk page, but here are the words that WhatamIdoing wrote
in a sandbox page . . .
"This article explains, in excessive
detail, the opinions of carefully selected researchers from half
a century ago. It should not be mistaken for the modern medical
understanding of this condition." signed WhatamIdoing 21:21,
5th October 2008
Note that one of my references was J.M.Da Costa's research paper of 1871, and those from the 1950's were by Paul Dudley White, the top U.S. authority on the topic, and another was Paul Wood, the top authority in the U.K.
Note also that if they had asked me to write
the modern history I would have eventually responded to their
request, or invited them to do it, but they just kept on telling
other editors that I was avoiding it. Furthermore, I eventually did write
the modern section, and used 35 references, but they just kept
on criticising anyway. They were being deliberately disruptive,
and then telling the other editors that I was being disruptive.
See their 'appreciation' of my 'other efforts' here and the criticism here
WhatamIdoing's
ridiculous attempts to discredit me by Twisting the Truth
I had been in discussion with
my two critics for some months when they tried to impress me
with their belief that they had a vast and expert knowledge of
the topic by cutting and pasting, from one website, a list of
only five labels that had been used as a substitute for Da Costa's
syndrome. I thought that they were being very naive and stupid
if they thought they could impress me with that pathetic range
of labels because I was aware of more than 100. However, the
process of finding references for each of them would fill the
topic page with too much detail, so when I saw a medical consumer's
webpage that listed 80 I checked them and found them to be a
good representation of the range. (note: the fact that previous
medical authors have used different labels and theories doesn't
mean that I agree with them, but it does mean that throughout
history many authors have actually used them as alternatives).
I also found that the list was compiled from the work of
four doctors. I therefore decided that it would be an excellent
link for that aspect. It would also give medical consumer's some
input alongside of 65 other reliable medical references, and
would also add the element of a more representative and neutral
point of view.
I was also aware that the person
who had the most authoritative knowledge of this topic in it's
entire history was Harvard professor Paul Dudley White, who published
a book in 1951, which contained a chapter dealing with it specifically,
and that it was one of the most relevant and reliable sources
of information on the topic.
However, my two critics were
being brazen and prolific in the lies that they
told about me and those references at every opportunity, as can
be seen with this quote from WhatamIdoing who wrote the following
words about me . . .
"I know
that you're mad at me because I oppose using your Iguana website to 'prove' that Da Costa's
syndrome is a subtype of Chronic fatigue syndrome, and
that I've been insisting that you quit relying on a 1951 book,
and so forth. But you're going to lose: the sources that
support your POV simply are not reliable." WhatamIdoing 19:05, 10 January
2009
Note that WhatamIdoing was deliberately
trying to give other editors more than ELEVEN
ridiculous false impressions IN ONE SENTENCE as follows . . .
(a) by saying that I was 'mad', or angry about
such things, when in fact my critics were getting frustrated,
losing their tempers. telling lies, cheating, using foul language,
and on the verge of 'tearing their hair out" i.e. They were going mad.
(b) by misrepresenting Melissa
Kaplan's website as my website.
(c) by misrepresenting Kaplan's
webpage as being solely due to the input of a medical consumer,
when in fact, it was compiled from the work of four doctors.
(d) by misrepresenting that
webpage about CFS as a website about iguana lizards.
(e) and by misrepresenting me
by saying that I was trying to "prove" that CFS was
the same as DCS, when I was actually saying that they were similar,
(f) by misrepresenting the
relevance of Harvard professor, Paul Dudley White's book by deliberately
not mentioning his name and referring to it as just a "1951
book".(This is a comment from a website which discusses the biography of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul . . . "He completed his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he met the famed cardiologist Paul Dudley White." - See the fifth paragraph here
(g) by saying that I was
relying on White's book for something, when in fact I based the
history on more than 60 other references, so I did not need to
rely on any one or two of them for anything.
(h) by misrepresenting Wikipedia
medical sourcing policy and inferring from past discussions, that a "1951" book was not acceptable
because it is irrelevant or old, when in fact, it was relevant,
and, according to that policy it is acceptable for
the history sections of articles for obvious reasons.
(i) by trying to create the
false impression that all of my references were old and therefore
unreliable, when in fact, 30 covered the first half of the history,
and another 30 covered the more recent history.
(j) by using the words "and
so forth" to create the false impression that every aspect
of all of my references were unreliable, when in fact, I selected them because they were reliable according to the relevant
sourcing policies - from top quality, peer-reviewed medical journals
etc.
(j)by misrepresenting my
use of a list of 80 synonyms as me pushing my own POV when my
own POV was not mentioned in that list.
(k) and by inventing an entirely
fictional character as a substitute for me, who uses websites
about lizards and irrelevant out-dated-text books, and is therefore
going to lose, and misrepresenting it as a case of me losing
??? when in fact it is simply a case of them defeating their
own ridiculous argument.
Another Example of that editor deliberately misrepresenting facts can be seen with these words that were posted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
"We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for Verifiability and No original research for some time. The editor, Posturewriter, has a known conflict of interest (he self-published a book outlining his novel medical ideas) and his apparent goal in editing Wikipedia is to share his personal ideas and knowledge with a wider audience. He has created an 'ideal version' in his userspace, and, despite knowing of strong opposition to it, he attempted to replace the existing article with his preferred version today" WhatamIdoing 02:17, 26 January 2009
You can see how that editor chose words to create the false impression that I was a stupid fool who was 'struggling' to understand simple (basic) concepts, when in fact the only thing I was struggling to do was to stop myself laughing at their nonsense. All people are invited to add content to Wikipedia but that editor offensively implied that I did it my to promote my personal ideas etc. I was invited to write a neutral version of the article by independent editors, and my main critic made the snide comment that it was an 'ideal version', and also argued that I attempted to replace it when I actually did replace it, and with a version that a neutral editor described as 'a lot better' than theirs. Also note that the supposedly strong opposition was them and their version which was 'a lot worse, or a lot weaker' than mine according to the only other editor to comment on it.
Summary
I was writing the history of
Da Costa's syndrome based on 65 reliable medical references and
one medical consumer's reference, but WhatamIdoing was trying
to turn it into an argument, and was misrepresenting facts, telling
lies, breaking rules, and cheating in an attempt to win.
I can tell by the way the truth
was being misrepresented that WhatamIdoing has a lot of skill
at spin which could only be acquired from many years of practice
with other individuals before I entered Wikipedia.
I can also note that when I was
young I enjoyed arguing because I was naturally good at it. However,
because of it's antisocial aspects I stopped. I am an amiable
person and like the company of all sorts of people who share
my enthusiasm for a variety of things, so I only revised my interest
in debate when individuals made statements that I thought needed
to be dealt with. In that regard, there is an essay in Wikipedia about a hibernating bear. It is a friendly bear, but you shouldn't
poke it, because it might wake up. I think that is relevant.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am very confident, and
very good at arguing, and anyone who thinks that I would give
up easily in the face of their lies and nonsense is being ridiculous.
As the saying goes 'I will deal with them in my own sweet
way, and in my own sweet time" . . . not when they want
me to jump'..
Evidence that Gordonofcartoon tried to deceive other editors into thinking that I was the instigator of trouble
Early in July 2008 one
of my two critics named Gordonofcartoon came to my User talk page and
left a deliberately threatening message . . .
"Do we want to up the ante"
He left it in the notes at the top of a
diffs edit on my User Talk page where I would be the only one
who was likely to see it, and it would only be there until someone
else edited the page, and then it would disappear into the history
of edits. I knew that he was deliberately trying to hide those
comments from other editors so that any response that I made
would look as if it was unprovoked. I essentially had to respond
because he was getting too arrogant, and deliberately trying
to make me look stupid to his team mate, so on 13-7-08 I gave the following reply . . .
"Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry"
He knew that I was referring to his previous
threat. However, as predicted, he used my response to give the
false impression that I was violating WP:Civil policy with these
words at 18:26 on 10 July 2008 . . . "Evidence of disputed behaviour,
item 5. Unspecified threat; by way of gratitude would you like
me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry".
On the RFC page a neutral editor named Avnjay, who "read through all of the relevant pages",
would not have seen Gordonofcartoon's hidden threat, and wrote
. . . "Posturewriter is generally polite in his responses
and has mostly remained calm throughout this protracted affair"
. . . but . . . "As far as incivility goes there are only
a couple of blatant breaches of WP:CIVIL, most notably with the
sock puppet issue, and the 'teach you a lesson' line."
Note the sockpuppet issue was
a matter of me reporting an anonymous vandal for deleting the
whole text on the Da Costa page, and other people assuming that
I was reporting my two critics, and not because I said so, but
because everyone who looked at the evidence was assuming it was
them. Also, the evidence that Gordonofcartoon made the 'up the
ante' threat can be seen in discussions between me and him between
13 and 16th July 2008 on my User talk page which has been blocked.
See more about the "up the ante" comment here
WhatamIdoing soon joined in the hostile criticism. Several other editors left
brief comments but two contributed to the discussion. First was
Avnjay who suggested that each of the parties (myself and my
two critics) write an article on subpages, so that neutral editors
could later merge them together to ensure neutrality. Another
editor named SmokeyJoe made the same suggestion independently
and I agreed. These are the actual words I wrote on 30-8-08.
"Please
set up the user sub-page and I will start adding information
to it next Sunday. If you wish to have WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon contributing to the discussion I would have no
objection. However, in order to ensure NPOV I think it is essential
that you and SmokeyJoe, or any other NPOV editors make all the decisions about what is or is not compliant with policy." Posturewriter 07:57, 30 August 200 here
Five months later, on 25-1-09 Gordonofcartoon misrepresented my comments with these words . . .
"There
was no general invitation to write separate drafts: Posturewriter
chose to do so unilaterally, without guidance from medical editors,
and making it abundantly clear that some existing editors were
unwelcome"???
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266328147&oldid=266274724
Note that there was a general
invitation, I did not offer the choice, two neutral editors did,
and I accepted it, but my two critics didn't. Note also that
the suggestion was made by neutral editors, and that my two critics
call themselves medical editors even though they are not health
care professionals, and that I did not object to anyone with
medical qualifications contributing. Note also that when
Gordonofcartoon writes that I was "making it abundantly
clear that some existing editors were unwelcome", I did
not say that anyone was unwelcome, but wrote these words about
Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing . . . "My
critics speak empty words of NPOV, but actually act as hostile
content opponents, so I do not think it is appropriate for them
to be making content decisions on the Da Costa pages". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=237014649&oldid=236789748#An_
NPOV_Solution_to_Content_Dictatorship_by_Elitist_.28arrogant.29_Editors
I
actually only had one main critic in Wikipedia
and the bandwagon effect
I joined Wikipedia in 2007, and when I started contributing to a page called Da Costa's syndrome, I soon found that i had one main critic who was acting as if they were a man of great knowledge, power, wisdom and authority. It didn't take me long to realise that she was a very silly, middle aged woman who had no self-confidence and was 'pretending; to be a man, and that she would eventually have to admit she was a woman to get help in her arguments against me. Six months later, she added the fact that she was a female' to her Userpage.
In the meantime she always had the assistance of an editor who was just as silly as she is, but was essentially her bumbling "yes man", or woman.
They would deliberately say "we" think this, or "we" think that Posturewriter is wrong, in order to create the illusion that there were a dozen editors arguing against me. When they found that one other editor agreed with them, and one opposed they would tell lies and say that they had "consensus" agreement against me, and later, after failing to win more arguments against me they would say "the 'community' is losing it's patience with my disruptive behaviour".
They eventually managed to get me banned, and then her assistant said "We don't blame anyone for getting frustrated with Posturewriter, but the problem is now solved "we" hope".
Three months later, my main critic gave a barnstar to an editor for being the "only" administrator who was prepared to ban me by 'ignoring all the rules'.
If anyone was to read the history of edits you would be able to see that I only had one critic, and her bungling, equally stupid, assistant, and they would occasionally get the help of one admin (such as EdJohnsoton), who thought that dozens of other editors wanted me blocked, and one admin (named Moreschi) who thought that I had been arguing with the 'entire' 'community' of 'respectable', 'rule-abiding' editors
The process which they used is called bandwagoning, where a band goes down the street making a lot of noise to attract people, and then more people join in to see what all the fuss is about, and they all think that it must be good, because a lot of other people think so.
Nevertheless I only had one critic and her lapdog.
Another essay about their exaggeration of their own support
When I started contributing to the 'Da
Costa's syndrome' page in Wikipedia there were only four lines
of text and no references, and during the next twelve months
approximately 200 edits were made. I was the major contributor
of actual content with 40 edits. Another editor named Arcadian
added about 10 edits in one day in December 2007, and another
named Guido den Broeder added about 30 in one week in May 2008.
A fourth editor was Gordonofcartoon who added 24 edits throughout
the year, but he was essentially just the side-kick or lapdog of
an editor named WhatamIdoing who made 30 edits which were mainly
deletions and alterations to my edits. The remaining editors
were very minor contributors who added six edits or less, and
the vast majority made only one or two edits relating to style
or layout etc.
As you could see, if you checked the facts,
there was only one main editor who was the instigator
and the inflamer of all criticism against me. That person,
who admitted to not knowing much about the subject until I got
there, would eventually pretend to be an infallible authority
on the topic, and would look at 65 of my references, and delete
fifty or more of them, and use the remaining highly selected
choice of ten, and then add their own very small selection of
references from dictionaries and websites which contained only
one or two paragraphs of information. They would then argue that
one paragraph from their reliable source represented modern mainstream
opinion, and that everything from the 140 years of history of
the topic should be based on that small paragraph, and then,
to make their personal opinion look credible they would search
for, and find, two or three modern journal articles and use them to completely skew and distort the history of the topic. That editor would then use their influence to get topic bans,
or personal bans on anyone who questioned their bias, such as
Guido den Broeder and myself, so that no-one remained to argue
with them.
In the meantime that editor would set up
discussions to try and find other editors who knew everything
about policy, and nothing about the subject, and try to
convince them that I was being disruptive????, and that I was
violating neutral point of view policy?????, and that I was using
unreliable sources of information that were from 'before most
editors were born'???? etc., and would argue in the following
manner, which I paraphrase . . . "We, the entire Wikipedia
community are thoroughly disgusted with Posturewriters disruptive
editing???
My comment: My main critic in Wikipedia was only one person, and does not
own Wikipedia, and is not the entire Wikipedia community. WhatamIdoing
was one person pretending to be many.
Since I was banned about 12 months ago
there have only been about 12 minor edits involving style
or layout etc, including one by Paul Barlow who, at 15:13 on
2-2-09 wrote . . . "no point in linking to a disamb page
that points back here and lists unrelated usages".
The editor who put the link to the unrelated items was
my main critic, who refused to delete it earlier when I said
that it was inappropriate. One of those items was a children's
fiction novel, and the others were poems, plays and telemovies.
By the way, if there were hundreds and
hundreds of genuine editors who were thoroughly disgusted with
the way I was interfering with their attempts to produce a good
article, what happened to them after I was banned. Did hundreds,
and hundreds, and hundreds of keenly interested editors suddenly
disappear???? Of course not. They never existed in the first
place. I WAS NOT arguing with the entire Wikipedia community.
ONE EDITOR was arguing with me!!!
Wikipedia has a policy on how to identify the behaviour of editors who try to 'own' articles, and I have provided the following extract . . .
"The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, " here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles&diff=363637824&oldid=359178677#Multiple_editors
Policy
for all, or policy for none
I posted the essay above on my website
on 26-3-2010, and within a day or two that editor made some
major changes to a policy page at 2:38 on 28 March 2010 that
hadn't been edited for two
and a half years, and was presumably
hoping that nobody, especially me, would notice. The page title
was "Wikipedia: The differences between policies, guidelines
and essays", and at 11:13 on 9 August 2007. it
contained only 46 words of text spread across six very small
lines. The gist of it was "You must follow policies, except for the "IGNORE ALL RULES"
policy which is THE COMMON EXCEPTION, and you should follow guidelines,
and it is a good
idea to follow essays, and don't
ignore guidelines just because they aren't policies.'
WhatamIdoing slab deleted that entire
essay and completely rewrote it in the same edit with 409 words of text (almost 900% larger in a single edit),
with these typical and 'telling' remarks . . . "There
are remarkable
numbers of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia policies,
and all policies need to be applied with common sense . . . Furthermore
WP:ignore all rules is WP:IAR "Ignore all rules" should be a A Major policy???
In other words the rules and guidelines
were initially written to be followed and complied with, but since then, editors like my two critics have been rewriting
exceptions into every policy so that they don't have to comply
with anything (because
they can now find exceptions (or excuses) for everything they
do), and if they still fail to
get their own way in disputes, they just 'ignore every policy,
guideline, or essay written in the past eight years".
My polite suggestion is this (and I would
rather not be polite), but, that editor should be permanently
banned from contributing to policy or policy talk pages. Furthermore
they should be put on an administrators watchlist, and if they
even slightly violate a policy they should be permanently banned
from Wikipedia, and if they try to defend themselves, the administrators
should respond with an explanation like this . . .'You apply
the rules to other editors as if they were carved in rock, so
we apply them the same way to you . . . NO EXCEPTIONS'.
At the very least, the first thing that
all new contributors MUST be told about is the 'ignore all rules'
policy, and the second thing they should be told is, that there
are a remarkable number of exceptions to every rule, otherwise
they will never have any hope of winning disputes on the basis
merit.
(note also that my critic hasn't got any
common sense and is influencing policy in an UN RULY direction).
This is a brief summary of the comments
made by other editors in a recent petition about the "ignore
all rules" policy . . . Why are you wasting your time
writing rules if you don't intend abiding by them . . . rules
should be complied with by everyone including the admins . .
. editors who put themselves above the rules don't deserve admin
status . . . power corrupts . . . some of the editors are disgusted
by others who use that policy to get their own way . . . It is
also unnecessary because versions of Wikipedia in other languages
do not have a policy called "ignore all rules".
This is another comment added to a Wikipedia
guideline by ReisIo at 19:06 31 March 2010 . . . "Furthermore WP: Ignore all rules is
a major policy which invalidates all other policies, guidelines,
and even itself." (it was
quickly deleted by WhatamIdoing)
Comments on WhatamIdoing's rewrite of the old essay
Note that on the following day, at 21:18 on 29 March 2010, after WhatamIdoing rewrote the essay, an editor
named Father Goose posted a barnstar on their User page thanking
them for an 'excellent rewrite' about the difference between
policies, guidelines, and essays, and added . . . "It's
always nice to see someone pull back the curtains and explain
how this ridiculous
project works."
I don't know if Father Goose was being
sarcastic, but WhatamIdoing replied with these words within an
hour . . . "Thanks, I'm glad that you like it."
Here is another comment from an editor
named Kotniski at 7:41 on 28 March 2010 that was added to the
same essay . . . "Indeed, sometimes the watching editors'
resistance to changes in the text of policy pages can
actually 'prevent' those pages from evolving to reflect changed consensus
in the wider community (And some
pages are policy only because they were marked as such a long
time ago, when standards were different)." (end of quote)
The fact that some experienced editors
will delete another persons contributions out of spite or
revenge, and then rewrite policies to make it easier
for them to have control over other editors in the future is
evident from these 'revealing' words by my critic . . . "Phoenix's
action here seem more like retaliation against the other
editors . . . A delisting under these circumstances carries
about as much respect as someone re-writing a policy in
the middle of a dispute so
that it 'supports' the editor's side of the dispute." signed WhatamIdoing 6:36, 30 March 2010
The colloquial expression for that goes
something like this . . . 'my critic has seen all the tricks
before and knows how to use them'.
WhatamIdoing
Does Not Represent the Wikipedia Community
At 2:18 on 28 March
2010 WhatamIdoing
added these words to the Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines page
. . . "There is also no prohibition against including appropriate
external references to support and explain our policies and guidelines."
At 2:38 on 28 March
2010 the same editor
did a major rewrite of an essay which hadn't been changed for
two an a half years. It was called "Wikipedia: The differences between policies, guidelines and essays". These were some
of the new words . . . "There are remarkable numbers of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia policies"
At 2:39 on 28 March
(one minute later), the same editor
went to the 'official' page called "Wikipedia: Policies
and guidelines" and added a link to that essay, on the top
line of the second section called Role. These were the new words
"See also: Wikipedia: The difference between policies, guidelines
and essays".
At 19:06 on 31 March
2010, another editor named ReisIo
made some minor changes the the "differerenes between policy
and guidelines page" by noting that policy pages reflected
community consensus because they were watched by many editors, but changes to guidelines 'go completely unnoticed'.
At 22:59 on 31 March, WhatamIdoing removed Reiso's edit with these
comments "Undid revision by ReisIo. Although apparently,
you have a strong POV, This set of changes didn't seem helpful."
At 23:39 on 31 March
2010, after Reiso had made a second
attempt at adding the same changes, WhatamIdoing gave this reason
for deleting them again . . . 'Undid revision by Reiso. All of
them, taken together, make the page less helpful, or I wouldn't
have reverted all of them."
At 19:38 on 1 April
2010, after ReisIo asked why the
factual statements were being removed, WhatamIdoing gave this
reply . . . "Undid revision by Reiso. Sure, but you can
find the talk page WITHOUT reverting for the third time to a
version with no consensus."
(Note that I checked the talk page for
that essay and it did not exist, which indicates that nobody
has ever discussed it since it was first added on 26 July 2007,
which is more than two and a half years ago).
At 3:15 on 2 April 2010 Reisio replied to WhatamIdoing with these words . . .
"can you find the talk page w/o reverting for a third time
to a version that is less factual . . .You alone reverting changes
as 'less helpful' w/o explaining how they are is not 'consensus'".
My comment: I have notice how the editor
named WhatamIdoing tries to misrepresent and evade the policies
and guidelines. In the example above you can see how that editor
went to a page that had not been changed for more than two years,
and it had gone completely unnoticed and had NEVER been discussed
on it's own talk page. WhatamIdoing then completely rewrote it
and included words such as these . . . 'there are are a remarkable
number of exceptions to every rule' . . . WhatamIdoing then controlled
everything on that page by thanking anyone who added comments
that they agreed with, and reverting anyone who added something
that they didn't agree with. WhatamIdoing then told Reisio that
he couldn't change anything without getting consensus on the
talk page. However, nobody had ever started a talk page, and
there had never been any discussion about it, and there had never
been any 'established' consensus, so Reisio was not going against
consensus. It was simply a case of . . . WhatamIdoing wrote the
page, WhatamIdoing controlled the content of the page, and ReisIo
was only going against WhatamIdoing, and no-one else.
You can see also that WhatamIdoing had
added a link to it on a prominent part of the 'official' policy
page to make it look like an essay that had been compiled by
hundreds of editors who had established some sort of consensus
for many, many, many years.
The consequence is this . . . WhatamIdoing
was not only using that situation to stop ReisIo from making
changes, but would, at any time in the future, tell other editors
to stop arguing and go to the 'differences between policies and
guidelines' page, which explains why editors like WhatamIdoing
can use the 'remarkable number of exceptions to many, many, many
rules that have been established by the consensus of the entire
Wikipedia for many, many, many years, and if you go against consensus
you will be blocked for 'disruptive editing' . In other words
. . . if anyone argues with WhatamIdoing they will be blocked
and banned with a remarkable number of exceptions to every rule.'
*******
WhatamIdoing's attempt to deceive other
editors continued by implying that Reisio was going against the
consensus of a group of editors who have put the page together,
and that disagreeing with one person (WhatamIdoing) is a violation of consensus????
. . .
At 5:46
on 2 April 2010 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Reisio, the mere fact that
I object to your changes is proof that you don't have consensus for them . . . also . . . WP:IAR does not invalidate any
policy, guideline, or essay, much less itself."
In the following example you can see how WhatamIdoing tries to deceive the administrators by setting
up a new section on the Administrators Noticeboard and implying
that Reisio has become a problem by being disruptive to other editors????? who have provided "previously accurate
information". (Remember that the entire essay was re-written
and put there by one person, and it was linked from the 'official'
policy page by the same person - WhatamIdoing, who also makes
a sly attempt to insult and mock Reisio by saying that his edit
was not related to April fool's day, and was not vandalism).
The exact words were added with a new heading on the Administrators
Noticeboard . . .
At 5:55
on 2-April 2010 WhatamIdoing wrote
. . .
" == Edit warring to introduce misinformation
into the project namespace ==
I've got a problem with Reisio at 'Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines
and essays'. He's decided that this essay needs to make some
fairly wild claims, such as "Most policies and guidelines directly contradict each other" and WP:IAR "invalidates
all other policies, guidelines, and even itself." (This
isn't an April Fool's Day issue.)
I'm not sure what to do about this: It's not exactly vandalism,
but it is disruptive, and very few editors seem to be
watching the page. The page is linked from WP:POLICY,
and frankly POLICY needs this "FAQ" about what the
difference between a policy and a guideline ''isn't'' on Wikipedia.
Having the previously accurate explanation present this kind
of serious misinformation is harmful to editors who are making a good faith effort to figure it out."
WhatamIdoing: 05:55, 2 April 2010 (end of quote).
At 6:28
on 2 April 2010, WhatamIdoing left
another insulting request on the Policies page . . .
"==
Need some eyes =="
'The difference between policies, guidelines
and essays' needs some other editors to watch it. We've currently got an editor who is determined to introduce wildly
inaccurate statements, like "Most Wikipedia policies and
guidelines directly contradict each other." This has
been going on for almost three days now, so it's not
just an April Fool's Day issue." WhatamIdoing: 06:28, 2 April
2010
At 14:00
on 2 April 2010 an editor named
Blueboar wrote . . . "The fact is that many of our policies
and guidelines do contradict each other. We obviously try to
fix such problems when we discover them . . . and doing so often
leading to long and drawn out debates. For example,
there is currently a debate at WP:Article titles concerning
a contradiction between that policy and WP: NPOV/Article titles
over using non-neutral names as a title". Blueboar 14:00
2 April 2010
(Note that Blueboar may not be aware that
WhatamIdoing has left a lot of comments on that page since I
was banned, and they are probably aimed at arguing in the future
with words like this . . . 'by the way has anyone noticed that
the title of Da Costa's syndrome doesn't fit our new policy
- does anyone here think we should merge it with something 'modern'.
Of course WhatamIdoingmade two attempts to merge that page, or change it's title or focus while
I was in Wikipedia, but lost both arguments because of the 'plain English versus Jargon policy
etc).
At 14:48
on 2 April 2010 an editor named
Dank made this comment . . . "I think that essay is going
to draw fire". Dank 14:48, 2 April 2010
The discussion continued over many pages,
and WhatamIdoing, who keeps on professing to be a courteous and
rule-abiding editor, is actually an arrogant and ill-mannered
individual, and that assessment can be seen in the following
comments by Reisio . . .
At 16:07
on 2 April 2010 Reisio wrote .
. . "Hey look at that, you waited a full eleven minutes after finally clarifying your concerns on the talk page before
calling me a crazy spreader of misinformation . . . You
are right about one thing, though: my edits are not vandalism".
Reisio 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
At 16:19
2 April 2010 Reisio added this
insight into the nature of WhatamIdoing's style . . . "Not
the response you were hoping for? Is this witch hunt over yet? ?" Reisio, 16:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
At 19:10
on 2 April 2010 WhatamIdoing again tried to deceive other editors into believing that the recent 'policy differences essay' was
compiled by dozens of editors from the past, and that one person
named Reisio was being disruptive by suddenly coming in to amend
it???? . . . These were the words that WhatamIdoing used . .
. "As for the differences between the two versions, I think that the differences
are substantial in both tone (Reisio's is a sarcastic rant)
and content (Reisio's introduces major factual errors)".WhatamIdoing
19:10, 2 April 2010.
At 00:55 on 4 April 2010 Reisio responded
to another editors question with these words about WhatamIdoing
. . . "He started the edit war, not me." Reisio, 00:55,
4 April 2010
At 01:06
on 4 April 2010 Reisio resonded
to WhatamIdoing request to discuss "a couple of the bigger
issues'. Reisio replied . . . Let's not - there's no point
trying to reason with you, as you can't even keep your own reasonings
straight." Reisio 01:06 4 April 2010
At 17:41 on 9 April 2010 WhatamIdoing gave this advice to another editor . . ."May I suggest that you read Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays" WhatamIdoing17:41, 9 April 2010
You can see the consistent nature of WhatamIdoing's
editing style which is to rewrite, alter, or influence policy
to promote particular aspects such as the existence of 'exceptions
to every rule' and 'the ignore all rules' policy etc, and to
insult , belittle, and badger, and start edit wars against any
oppostion, and then to deceive the other editors and administrators
to get prejudice against any opponent in order to get all opposition
out of the way so that Wikipedia can be run, and topics can be
controlled by WhatamIdoing.
One
editor was systematically badgering my supporters
Although I only had one main
critic in Wikipedia, that editor always worked together with
a sidekick named Gordonofcartoon, and they would always agree
with each other. Essentially, one would invent a fault in something
that I wrote, and the other one would look for a policy to use
as an excuse for deleting it. Therefore I was NEVER going to
get any support from Gordonofcartoon.
EdJohnston
After the tag-team lost an argument
with me one of them set up a discussion on the Conflict of Interest
page, and it finished without any decision, and when they lost
another argument Gordonofcartoon started Conflict of interest
number 2, and after a few hundred words of criticism WhatamIdoing
entered with remarks such as . . . 'by the way I was just passing
by does anyone mind if I add my 2c worth' . . . and then proceeded
to add several hundred more words, until it became thousands.
Although NOBODY agreed with them, an editor named EdJohnston
was so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of words that he concluded that there were 'several' editors who thought that I had a COI, so he warned me that I would be blocked if I added any more information
to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome.
After that decision was made
EdJohnston was NEVER going to admit that he had been fooled by
two editors into thinking that there were many, and he was NEVER
going to admit that he had made the wrong decision, and my two
critics paraded about telling dozens of other editors that I
was a disruptive editor who was going against the consensus of
the entire Wikipedia community from COI number one, and COI two,
etc etc etc etc. and so on and so on a and so forth. They created
false impressions of numbers with such words,
These are the words of EdJohnston
. . . "There are several editors active in this COI report who should be able to review
any changes" EdJohnston 19:06 17 May 2008 . . . and shortly
after another large essay of criticism by WhatamIdoing the next
day EdJohnston wrote these words . . . "Based on the diffs given by WhatamIdoing, I left an admin warning for Posturewriter.
If he persists in COI editing, he risks being blocked for disruptive
editing." EdJohnston 2:26 on 19 May 2008. see here and here and here and here
Guido den
Broeder
Although my two critics had no-one supporting their claim, there was another editor named Guido
den Broeder who was supporting me, and accusing them of having
a COI and of pushing their own point of view by blocking or banning
all opposition. However they denied it and counter-acted
with an accusation that Guido had a COI, and helped other editors
to get him banned. See his contributions to this long discussion hereand see also hereand see also Guido co-operating with me here, and then my two critics arguing with him relentlessly in the next section.
Within a short time WhatamIdoing
rushed in boastfully adding some words to my talk page to give
this false impression . . . 'how happy you must be to learn that
Guido has been banned; the discussion will now be able to return
to normal' . . . Of course, those comments would look friendly
to any outsider or administrator, but they were deliberately
and offensively sarcastic because WhatamIdoing had made sure
that none of the previous discussion were normal, and that none
of the future ones would be either. Also, they knew that I was
not happy about the departure of an editor who had been supporting
me, so the reason for making such a comment was in the expectation
that Guido would see it, and assume that I had been taking their
side against him, and that if he returned from being banned he
would have a hostile attitude toward me. Essentially they wanted
him to think that I didn't appreciate his support, and that I
had betrayed him. In fact I found it difficult to discuss anything
with him after that.
At 8:37 on 29 May 2008 WhatamIdoing added some new references and selective
extracts to bias the article,
and in the same process misrepresented Oglesby Paul's review to exaggerate that bias, and then further exaggerated
it by putting biased and gratuitous remarks in the edit summaries
of the reference section. Soon after that, at 20:11 on 29 May
2008 Guido den Broeder told WhatamIdoing to stop telling
lies in the edit summary". However, the following day,
WhatamIdoing left these gloating and sarcastic remarks on my
talk page . . . "The talk page at Da Costa's syndrome has
been very active, and I didn't want you to miss my note to you
. . . Guido's been blocked for a week over edit warring, and claims that he is going to be off wiki for a months, so the
talk page should return to normal for awhile." WhatamIdoing
00:52 30 May 2008.
SmokeyJoe
After dealing with the two very
arrogant, ill-mannered, and offensive editors for several months
I decided to "defend" myself by writing an essay about
their tactics, however they called it an "attack essay",
and accused me of violating several policies, and then set up
several discussion pages to get it removed. Another editor named
SmokeyJoe saw it and concluded that it was a good essay, and
that anyone could write about such things, and that there were
many examples that were much more critical than that, and he
advised them to stop complaining about it. He also said that
he had read my contributions, and that I was a potentially useful
contributor who was providing top quality references and therefore
appeared to be a highly qualified academic individual.
WhatamIdoing came rushing in
and said such things as . . . "Posturewriter is not a highly
qualified academic, and hasn't done any 'real' research; he was
just a sports coach who sat on a fence and watched a few tired
people run around in circles'./P>
Within a short time SmokeyJoes
tone and attitude changed in a patronising direction with words
like this . . . "Posturewriter, you are just a 'newbie'
, and although I, as mediator here, am not familiar with this
particular subject, I do 'believe' WhatamIdoing to be be an expert
in this area, so you must comply with their requests, or you
will be banned.
After that it was obvious that
I was NEVER going to get any support from SmokeyJoe.
These were WhatamIdoing's
words . . . When Posturewriter started contributing to the
page "I didn't know much about Da Costa's syndrome (DCS) and had some hope that we might have a good editor involved'
WhatamIdoing 20:25 27 January 2009. see here. These were also WhatamIdoing's
words to me . . . "I'm asking for your personal opinion
as a relevant expert in this area" WhatamIdoing 18:44 15
July 2008.
These were the words of SmokeyJoe
"I am assuming that Posturewriter is a well qualified academic"
SmokeyJoe 6:53 5 August 2008.
This is the reaction of WhatamIdoing
a few hours later. . . "Posturewriter was a sports instructor
who got interested in exercise for people who got fatigued and
worked essentially as a coach or physical therapy technician
on a single exercise related study." WhatamIdoing 17:28
on 5 August. 20-008. See here
(Note that I had tertiary qualifications
in group organisation, and the support and co-operation of appropriately
qualified researchers, and I was actually the designer and co-ordinator
of the study, and the various roles were delegated to others,
including the task of field instructor. The first study was so
successful that it proceeded three times with me, and was continued
by someone else after I left the programme. WhatamIdoing deliberately
understated my role and told lies about me to get SmokeyJoes
help in blocking me.)
Avnjay
At one stage my two critics set
up an RFC page to get me banned from the topic, and two other
editors named SmokeyJoe, AND Avnjay told them that I was a polite,
and potentially valuable editor, and that they should try to
co-operate with me, and then Avnjay suggested that all three
of us prepare essays for the neutral editors to combine to ensure
'neutral point of view', namely, not WhatamIdoing's point of
view, not Gordonofcartoon's point of view, and not my point of
view, but every point of view that would be checked and combined
by neutral editors. However, WhatamIdoing wanted to dictate that
page, and would NEVER let that happen, and Gordonofcartoon didn't
know enough about the subject to write the first paragraph.
Consequently I was the only one
to re-write the essay, and when I finished it the 'neutral' editor
named Avnjay said it was unbiased, and a lot better, and a lot
more detailed, and better in every respect compared to the existing
one that had been controlled by my two critics. Avnjay then proceeded
to co-operate with me to improve it and make it the 'perfect
article', but WhatamIdoing then badgered him with thousands of
words of criticism that went on for months, until Avnjay asked
me to rewrite the entire essay again????
In January 2009 WhatamIdoing
advised Avnjay that I was being blocked for edit warring, and
Avnjay left a note on my talk page advising me that he had been
busy in his private life and didn't have time to co-operate with
me, and suggested that I did what I was told by WhatamIdoing.
Essentially Avnjay had two choices
. . . support me and be hounded and badgered and criticised by
WhatamIdoing relentlessly . . . or . . . support WhatamIdoing
and have a peaceful time in Wikipedia with thankyou notes and
barnstars.
These were Avnjays words to WhatamIdoing,
at 10:51
on 5 October
2008, about the version
of the Da Costa's syndrome article that I wrote . . . "To
be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far
more detailed than the one that's currently up and I can't find
anything which is COI, unsourced, or biased ".(end of
quote).See here
These were Avnjays words to me
four months later after several months of badgering criticism
from WhatamIdoing, and then a long break. . . "Apologies
for disappearing for a few months from the face of Wikipedia.
A few things came up in 'real life' that left me with too little
time to carry on looking into your article etc . . . Whilst I
still think that there are parts of your article which are better
than the original it would take an editor with a lot more knowledge
(or a lot more spare time) than me to select them. I would defer
to someone like WhatamIdoing for example. Avnjay 17:31 8 February 2009.
The three editors who made the decisions against me
My main critic named WhatamIdoing admitted to not knowing much about Da Costa's syndrome when I started adding information to the page. That editor always had a tag-team mate named Gordonofcartoon, who was interested in art. They couldn't win any content disputes against me so they went campaigning , canvassing, and forum shopping to find other editors who would agree with their arguments. They found EdJohnston on a COI page, who didn't know anything about the topic when he started, and he was the only one who agreed that my edits represented a conflict of interest after their massive and relentless series of arguments ended on 19 May 2008 here. Some months later they found Wizardman on an RFC page who threatened me with a topic ban on 18 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Conclusion. He was a sports biographer. They also eventually found Moreschi, who banned me on 29 January 2010 here , but I didn't see any evidence of him knowing anything about medical topics. I suppose that all of those editors were knowledgeable and able to judge the merits of an argument in art, sport, or their own hobbies, but not suitable to judge the merits of a medical topic, and my critic would have known that it would be easy to mislead them.
This is an extract from EdJohnston's comments at
2:57 on 15th
May 2008 . . . "Da
Costa's syndrome, as what sounds like (to me, a non-doctor)
a psychosomatic problem . . . I think the view of the disease
in Paul Dudley White's 1951 book is extremely dated. That
material should either be taken out or labeled historical. The lead of our current Da Costa's syndrome article needs to
be rewritten to present this as more of a historical item.
At a minimum it should track the ICD-10 understanding of the
phenomenon more directly. The rules of WP:MEDRS should be applied
to the sourcing of this article. I hope when the article is
finished most of its references will be post-1980". signed EdJohnston
Note that he was a non-doctor who didn't know anything about medicine and thought that DCS 'sounds like' a psychosomatic disorder, and that he 'thought' that the 1951 book was dated, but didn't know enough to say that with any authority, and that the information should be
"labeled historical" - when it was already in a section labelled as 'history'.
Also, my two critics could have provided modern references if they wanted, but they were not in any way co-operative, so I had to do it for them later, with top quality references that complied with all of the relevant policies, and they banned me anyway.
Seehere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
and the "History" section of an earlier page edited by me at 6:43 on 12 May here 2008http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=212440565&oldid=212440419#History
See more about the history arguments here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#anchor805483
Note that the only way that EdJohnston would not know that the information was already in the section called 'history' is if he had not actually read it, but was just 'believing' everything that my critic told him, on the mistaken belief that experienced editors are always honest and reliable.
This is what my main critic wrote about edit warring at 3:00 on 12 May 2010. "In particular that decisions about such things, and who started the edit war etc, should be made by 'smart' editors'. . . "Edit warring needs to stop as soon as any editor (hereinafter "the smarter editor") figures out that there's an unproductive series of reversions going on, no matter which version that leaves in place . . . During the RfC, it normally does not matter which version is 'on top', because the smarter editor will provide diffs or a link to his/her preferred version. Also, the point of an RfC is to get other smart editors involved, and they, too, know how to find the history page . . . If the smarter editor thinks that s/he can make an case for extraordinary circumstances (copyvio concerns, libel, previously stable policy page), then the thing to do is to explain on the talk page (perhaps as part of the RfC) or perhaps at ANI (we trust the smarter editor to use his best judgment to identify the most appropriate forum) why you think a reversion is important, and announcing that you intend to let other editors make that choice, because edit warring is evil. WhatamIdoing03:00, 12 May 2010 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment&diff=prev&oldid=361607403
Note also: I assume that Edjohnston, Wizardman, and Moreschi were knowledgeable and 'smart' in their area of expertise, but that does not make them authorities on topics where they know virtually nothing. I can assure them that I have got enough sense to keep away from arguments on pages where they have the thorough knowledge, and therefore the advantage.
The banning of support
The editor named Guido den Broeder, who,
at one period, supported me against my two critics, was banned
soon after, as can be seen at the end of another one of WhatamIdoing's
arguments.
Firstly, when I was advised that I could
only use independent research reviews as a source of information
I chose one of their references to avoid criticism about it being
unreliable. It was a paper by Oglesby Paul which presented a
ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart
Journal, so I decided to abbreviate it down to one page for Wikipedia. My objective was to give an independent
view of the
whole history for the history section of the Da Costa's page, with the intention
of improving it later by adding other sources to give a more neutral point of view (several points of view from several
authors). It was meant to be a page in process where other
editors could add their information from history. However my
two critics deleted it as if it was supposed to be immediately
perfect without any other input????, and then replaced ALL
of it with one sentence about
one of the ten or more theories that Oglesby Paul discussed (i.e. only their preferred opinion
with all others removed). Note that I discussed several points
on the RFC page, and it related to point number 5. WhatamIdoing
gave two replies (not just one), namely 5a, and 5b, and then tried to exaggerate the
size of my essay by describing
it as 5,896
characters (which
includes a count of all letters, commas, and full stops), when it was actually 856 words - and I later reduced that to 174 words on the final subpage. You can also see that WhatamIdoing was
saying that I was welcome to discuss anything on the talk page,
but it was a waste
of time then, and a waste of time again, and would be a waste of my time if I took it
to the talk page again. In fact
they took the discussion to my own talk page, and then back to
the Da Costa's talk page, with exactly the same outcome - The
one that they wanted. The conversation extracts can be seen below.
At 10:39, 27 July 2008 I made the following comments on the RFC page . . . "5.
Oglesby Paul was a Harvard researcher whose history of all of
the important research controversies of Da Costa's syndrome was presented in The British Heart Journal
here [2], and another editor had placed it as reference number
1 at the end of the page here [3] before I reviewed it and summarised
his ten page article and reduced it to a one page account
for wikipedia here [4], and then you deleted it and replaced
it with two lines about anxiety state, which misrepresents his conclusion here [5]" . . . Posture writer 10:39,
27 July 2008
At 00:50, 28 July 2008 (the next day),WhatamIdoing gave the following ridiculous reply
. . . 5a. Of course I reduced your one-page essay to a couple
of sentences. Wikipedia is not the place for a 5,896-character-long treatise on
a single paper
5b) If you think that a source is being materially misrepresented in any article, then you're welcome to take up your concerns (again) on the article's talk page. Note
that we
already went through this particular issue with User: Guido
den Broeder (now perma-banned). . . WhatamIdoing 00:50, 28 July 2008 here
(Note that Oglesby Paul described at least ten different theories of cause and my two critics wrote
this ridiculous misrepresentation of his paper while trying to
create the equally ridiculous impression of being welcoming and
helpful). . .
At 13:54 on 1-8-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "Oglesby Paul . . . OK, here
it is: http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/58/4/306. Do we all have
access? . . Re-reading, the thrust of Paul's summary appears
to be a) "The etiology is obscure" (which is
in the abstract); b) "it probably exists much as before
but is more often identified and labeled in psychiatric terms
such as "anxiety state" or "anxiety neurosis";
c) there's no harm in those diagnostic labels "as long as
the essential importance of the syndrome, its prognosis, and
treatment are properly appreciated". Gordonofcartoon
13:54, 1 August 2008
At 5:53 on 2-8-08 "WhatamIdoing replied . . . "Yes, that's
how I read it: Etiology unknown, Medical classification psychiatric/anxiety".
WhatamIdoing 05:53, 2 August 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Oglesby_Paul
You can see the way that editor twists the truth in one sentence. i.e. the first part states that the cause is unknown, and the end contains the implication that it is known to be caused by anxiety.
A
silly Question?
This was a question asked by an editor named
WhatamIdoing .
. . "I'm also not sure why you are bothering to leave messages
for me here" signed WhatamIdoing, 6:55 on 2nd January 2009
here
This was my reply
about four hours later . . . "because I found this section
on your talk page with the title of "Requests for comment/Posturewriter" signed Posturewiter, 11:34 on 2nd January
here
A lot of WhatamIdoing's
questions were meant to be deliberately stupid and annoying, such as (in paraphrase) . . .
'Why does Posturewriter want to leave comments on a discussion
called Request for Comment/ Posturewriter? . . .
or . . . "Why
does Posturewritere want to come here and defend himself from
1500 words of hostile insults and criticism????? . . . Answer?????
Maybe I just thought it was a good idea at the time?
Here is another
silly question: There is an editor in Wikipedia who has chosen
the name "WhatamIdoing"??? For the answer see here
The
WP:OWN policy
(the control and ownership of articles in Wikipedia)
My main critic gives every indication that she joined Wikipedia to learn all the rules so that she could then start acting as if she owns the place by telling everyone else what the rules are, and what they can and cannot do according to the rules.
She soon became the sixth highest contributor to discussions and changes to the policies, in manner that indicates that she was filling them with loopholes that would enable her to control any article, and any editor she wanted to.
She then, on one occasion, told me that I had to obey the rules, and that 'she didn't write the rules', but just had to obey them like everyone else'.
She was telling other editors that the "ignore all rules" policy should be the major rule in Wikipedia, and she encouraged and and rewarded her friends for using it, and told them to keep it a secret from the new contributors.
At one stage she had edited 18,000 times in four years, and could say anything she wanted about the rules, regardless of whether it was true or not, to any new contributor, including me.
All I knew was that her interpretations were ridiculous compared to the 'normal' rules of 'civilised' society.
She was always telling lies about me and accusing me of breaking almost every rule in Wikipedia. However when I described her unacceptable behaviour in plain English she naturally accused me of breaking the "rule" which says that I cannot make personal attacks like that, but have to "Assume Good Faith" in her, and I was told to respect her because she had been there for four years and done a large number of edits. Nevertheless she didn't tell me about the policy which says that all editors are equal regardless of them being there a day or a year, or whether they have added one edit or a thousand. Hence you can see that her behaviour is obviously dishonest and manipulative.
I recently saw her make the remark that she has 2000 pages on her 'watchlist', and on another occasion that she "lurks there" to make sure nothing is put on the pages that she disapproves of.
The founders of Wikipedia set it up to be the source of all information from all people in society, not to be watched over and controlled by one person who writes loopholes into every rule, so that she can control the information on 2000 pages as if she is the owner and dictator of all human knowledge.
If she wants to do that sort of thing she should be told to stop mucking around in Wikipedia and get out, and if she thinks that her opinions are that important, she should set up her own website, and start an encyclopedia of her own.
Wikipedia is suppesed to be a collaborative project, not a dictatorship
There is a policy in Wikipedia
that advises contributors that it is a collaborative project
where everyone can contribute to making good articles, and that
anything you add can be edited and changed by other editors.
You should not have the attitude that you own the article, and
that no-one can alter it without your approval. If you wish to
do that you should submit your article elsewhere.
I have had many articles published
in a wide variety of sources (more than 100), so I thought it
was a good idea to be able to discuss things and produce a better
article than I could write myself, and when I first started on
the Da Costa page I was quite pleased with the co-operation I
was getting, and it was actually making the article much better
than I could do on my own.
Unfortunately two arrogant and
self-opinionated editors came along and made it perfectly clear
that anything that was put on the page would have to meet with
their approval, and if it didn't it would be immediately or soon
deleted.
In any discussions one of them
would say "do we think this", and the other would typically
reply "yup" then "we" "all" agree
then", and they would nitter and natter like that as if
I wasn't there, or as if my opinion didn't matter.
When I gave them the opportunity
to contribute to the modern section of the history they told
the other editors that I was deliberately avoiding modern references
because they discredited the older ones. They would then delete
my references without adding modern ones, and then they would
link to a childrens novel and a few websites with a paragraph
of information and tell me that their contributions met all of
the policy requirements. They would even use some of the older
references that I provided, and add some from their own choice,
but never criticise themselves for using 'old' references.
When I tried to get co-operation
by discussing issues of content and policy with neutral editors,
the same two critics would typically barge in on the discussion
and interrupt it by saying such things as . . . 'NO! we are fed
up with this, nobody is interested in your opinion'. Also, when
I found neutral editors who were willing to co-operate with me
they told them that I was 'not a valuable editor', or that my
references were 'not reliable' because they were 'old' and not
'modern', and they would relentlessly insult me until the editors
who supported me were banned, or gave up, or turned against me.
They acted as if they owned Wikipedia,
and owned all of the policies, and owned the article, and owned
the other editors and administrators, and anyone who challenged
them would meet with the same relentless criticism, and anyone
who agreed with them would be rewarded with a barnstar.
If you have a look at the article
that I wrote, it actually contains some information and references
that were provided by other editors, but most of it was written
by me. That is not because I was unwilling to co-operate with
other editors, but because my two critics absolutely refused
to co-operate with me, and made it impossible for me to co-operate
with anyone else.
For an accurate description of their tactics see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Last_Word&diff=prev&oldid=352474419
For information that describes the type of behaviur that is not acceptable in Wikipedia you can have a look at the article called WP:OWN. It describes the genreal attitude and editing behaviour of my two critics quite accurately. here
The ID of WhatamIdoing is a question - That editor is trying to takeover Wikipedia by stealth
Both of my critics were trying to exert control of information in Wikipedia by using various dirty tricks about policy. The most obvious now, is how they were telling me to abide by policies or essays as if they were rules carved in stone, while at the same time 'ignoring all the rules' themselves with WP:IAR as their excuse.
However, they were also going to policy discussion pages and making suggestions about changes. For example, they tag-teamed to get loopholes put into the policy about tag-teams.
Also, Gordonofcartoon wrote a brand new page called "Only Martians should edit" and that same individual has made a total of 13 edits between 18th December 2009 and 26th Ariil 2010. Nobody else has bothered to edit it, or participate in any discussions about it, so it really is "just one guys essay", and yet, during that period Gordonofcartoon has misrepresented it as a source of supposedly 'independent' policy advice for another editor.
See the history of edits for that page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Only_Martians_should_edit&action=history
A more 'interesting' observation is that the other critic is masquerading as an ordinary volunteer who has no ambitions for being promoted to 'administrator', while actually doing as much as possible to control and manipulate all of the other editors and administrators. For example, the most important essay in Wikipedia would probably be, by majority consensus, "Wikipedia:Five pillars", which describes the five main principles upon which the encyclopedia has been built. It has been around for many years and thousands of editors have seen it and discussed it. However my main critic has been ridiculing it by describing it as being 'just one guys essay' that is no more important than any other 'simple' essay, which has no more value than 'a grain of salt'.
There is no mention of the fact that there is another page called "The difference between policies, guidelines and essays" which was just a small item until very recently when WhatamIdoing made one massive change that tripled it's size and made it look like an important essay that has been gradually constructed over many years by thousands of independent contributors.
It essentially is just that 'one' editors essay, and is full of loopholes, and that 'one' editor would like to get the WP:Five pillars essay deleted so that the new 'one' persons edit became the main essay controlling all other policies, interpretations, and editors.
My main critic wants everyone to change the fundamental principles of Wikipedia
(which would also mean changing the welcome pages and the introduction pages that have been in Wikipedia for many years)
If you join Wikipedia and look for information about how to contribute in a constructive and collaborative way you will most likely find the pages that welcome you, and provide you with links to an introduction, and more links to pages that give more details that are relevant to your questions. However my main critic, who ignores all the rules, has recently been trying to change the basic principles.
The following quotes are from a Welcoming page, and introduction pages 1 and 2, the five pillars and the Wikipedia help page for WP:P followed by my main critics typical attitude toward Wikipedia's rules and principles.
Welcome to Wikipedia . . . Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia - "Our Rules" 1. Five pillars (a summary of our fundamental principles) 2. Policies and guidelines - Help page/Overview 3. List of policies 4. List of guidelines
Be sure to read the above pages! they are very important, and they will help you — even if you're not perfect the first second tenth seventeenth 32nd time!
See here
Wikipedia:Introduction . . . "What is Wikipedia? . . . For a more detailed account of the project, see About Wikipedia".
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction&diff=379386519&oldid=379343751
Wikipedia:About . . . "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are the Five pillars".
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:About&diff=388039872&oldid=387451206
Wikipedia:Introduction 2 . . . "Find out more . . . Discover the Five pillars that define Wikipedia's character"
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction_2&diff=18218229&oldid=18217860
Wikipedia Help:Five pillars . . . "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates have been summarized by editors in the form of five "pillars . . . In fact if one had to build Wikipedia again, they would be the only page one would need to seed the whole project!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Five_pillars&diff=prev&oldid=343568641
Wikipedia:Five pillars . . . "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates have been summarized by editors in the form of five" pillars".
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&diff=prev&oldid=387339266
My main critics argument that the "Five pillars" is just one persons view
The following words are typical of what my main critic has been arguing about recently, as of 22:09 on 1-10-10.They are a response to an editor named Gigs, at the end of a multi-editor discussion . . .
"Gigs, this page was basically written by one editor (User:Neutrality, self-identifying as the author in 2008) as a means of expressing his own view and ideally helping new editors connect the dots. The fact that you are holding it up as "our fundamental principles" is a simple example of the practical problem. This page was written four years after Wikipedia was launched, so it's "not really foundational", and these principles aren't the "unchangeable pillars" that the original author said they were. This page is no better/more important/morevaluable/less essay-like, than any of the other pages about our principles including the essay-tagged pages that it was derived from. From the very beginning, editors have been saying, right here on this page, that this page is "just description", "not policy" and "not meant to be. It's like Wikipedia:Introduction", a "simple, general introduction". A trip through the archives shows a remarkable number of explanations about why this isn't a policy, or a guideline, or anything else. That we're still having to explain this, after all of these years, indicates that we've got a communication problem -- and one that IMO could largely be solved by listing the page in Category:Wikipedia essays." WhatamIdoing 22:08, 1 October 2010
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars&diff=prev&oldid=388174333#This_page_is_an_essay
My comment: Several million people joined Wikipedia and began adding information to it because they agreed with the fundamental principles upon which is was claimed to be based upon. That editor certainly does have a communication problem, and it relates to the failure to understand the difference between fundamental principles and the policies that are derived from them.
If that editor doesn't like the principles of Wikipedia then the thing to do is to go somewhere which has a different set of principles, and not mess around by trying to ignore, misinterpret, or change Wikipedia's fundamentals.
In fact that editor should set up their own encyclopedia with a different set of basic principles, and anyone who agrees with those fundamentals can go there. I could make some suggestions about that individuals choice of new principles but I would rather refrain from sarcasm.
(My main critic typically chooses wording to create false impressions. For example, in the argument above that editor has tried to trivialise the "five pillars" by implying that it was first written by one person in 2008 - only two years ago, when in fact, it first appeared at 4:45 on 4-5-2005 - five years ago, and has been the first advice that all new contributors have been told by consensus of all members of the welcoming committee, and in the introduction etc. The misreprentation of facts is a good example of my main critics deliberately devious, calculatng, and offensively deceitful pattern of behaviour)
See the first 2005 edit of the Five pillars page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&diff=prev&oldid=13207659
See how my main critic ignores all the rules of Wikipedia here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor297379
User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles
Here is another quote from the Statement of principles which was written by the founder Jimbo Wales, and that my main critic treats with utter contempt
"8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
Verifiable evidence of my main critics prolific lies can be seen here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#liestheytold
How my two critics faked consensus
My muddle-headed critic messes about with the English definition of the word "consensus"
Humans are different from animals for many reasons but mainly because they have the ability to communicate by language. The English language now has more than 1 million words which each define a different feature. For example a cat is different than a dog, and wood is different to iron.
However when I was in Wikipedia I was involved in some of their discussions where they made decisions on the basis of what they called "consensus". In "normal" English it means a majority of perhaps 9 out of 12, with the other three accepting the decision.
However my main critic often argued that other people, such as "immature" editors, or "newbies" were "stupid" for not understanding that Wikipedia has a different but very, very complicated definition of the word "consensus". She argued that it wasn't just a "simple" majority, and that sometimes a clear majority was needed, and sometimes it wasn't, and that sometimes the minority determined the outcome. She also argued that consensus meant the previous version of the article, or that it wasn't what the actual guidelines or policies said, but what actually happened in "community practice".
It was clear to me that she was muddled headed and stupid, and only had a childlike understanding of language, because if she or anyone else wanted a brand new way of making decisions then she should provide a completely new word, so that everyone from outside of Wikipedia would "clearly" recognise the difference. She would also give it "one" clear definition, and not mix several different, or opposite meanings into the "one" new word.
i.e. The decisions in Wikipedia are either going to be made by majority consensus, or the previous version, or the rules, or the actual community practice etc. etc., and each process should have different name and level of priority.
It is clear to me that she likes those muddle-headed, multiple meaning words so that she can pick and choose which definition to use in order to win a dispute. For example, if she tries to get a majority to agree with her and succeeds she will tell her opponent that they "must" accept the "majority" consensus. However, if she fails, she can argue that the previous version of the article was the consensus version and revert to it. In other situations she can and does argue that her own personal opinion rules because she knows and represents the Wikipedia "community" view. She has also argued that since the original rules was written the 'actual practice' has changed. I have also seen her argue that the consensus policy is the wrong policy in a given dispute, or that another essay, guideline or policy overrides the consensus decision. For example, if she sets up a discussion to get a majority decision and fails, or especially if the consensus goes against her, she would argue that the process failed because it was discussed in the wrong forum. Her use of words is comparable to the Wikipedia concepts called "Wikilawyering" or "Gaming the system", or "forum shopping". In Plain English she is just a stupid plotting and scheming cheat. |
Facts versus opinion
My primary concern in establishing the nature of a problem is to identify facts, scientific evidence and proofs, verifiable, and repeatable data, and personal experience.
My main critic was trying to write or influence the Wikipedia policies for the purpose of imposing dictatorial control regardless of the facts, and in defiance of the scientifically proven evidence that already exists. To do that the policies reflect that everything in Wikipedia is to be based on consensus. That essentially means that all my main critic has to do is to search for or recruit other editors who have the same opinions or prejudices, and who are prepared to tell the same lies, and allow for the deletion of verifiable facts.
i.e. My contributions were based on scientifically proven facts, and my critic was trying extremely hard to impose a consensus of opinion.
However their task was virtually impossible because, while there were a very small number of individuals who believed their lies, and were prepared to impose blocks on me, very few were willing to dispute the facts.
Consequently my main critic always tag-teamed with another editor and together they created the illusion that the entire Wikpedia community was against me.
In other words they couldn't even get consensus, so they had to fake it by arguing 'we' think this or that, and inflaming a bandwagon effect until, just as a snow flake is insignificant, it rolled on until there was a snowball of protest against me.
They also had to interpret the consensus policy and argue that when I had a majority it didn't matter, and when they had a majority it did. |
Three versions of the Da Costa's syndrome article
There were actually THREE VERSIONS of the Da Costa's article, but whenever my main critic wanted to delete my improved versions back to her version she would try to create the ridiculous impression that her version was the entire Wikipedia communities long standing and stable article.
The Wikipedia communities version had four lines of text and no references
When I started it had been there for about nineteen months from the 15th May 2006 to 9th December 2007. During that time seven editors, including my main critic, had made a total of 11 contributions.
My version had about three pages of text and 61 top quality references
I wrote my version of the article gradually while I was there for just over one year between December 7th 2007 and January 29th 2009, and added about three pages of text and supported it with 61 top quality references.
My main critics version had less than one page of text and 18 references
My main critics version contained less than one page of text which she put together by deleting bits and pieces, and sometimes whole slabs of information from my version which she didn't like, and keeping the bits which she agreed with, and by including some information from an editor named Arcadian, who was only there for one day, and Guido den Broeder, who was only there for one week. She used only 18 references which included a dictionary, some websites, and a link to a childrens story, and about a dozen other better quality articles, including several which were by the same authors in my list.
The reasons she gave for deleting my version and replacing it with hers
When she deleted my version of the article and replaced it with her preferred version she wanted to give other editors the false impression that I had been disrupting everyone else and that she needed to replace it with the previous long standing community version. For example, she would write explanations like this . . .
"Restore version from a few days ago to rm unreliable sources and unbalanced POV pushing. Posturewriter, you must get CONSENSUS before making this massive change." (end of quote) see here
My main critic, and her 'assistant' were responsible 99% of the deletions of my contributions to that topic. |
A recent comment from my main critic on 22-7-11
"The ideal situation is complete, enthusiastic, voluntary agreement by 100% of editors . . . When the situation is less than ideal, then a substantial majority (if any) wins. This is the meaning of the policy's plain statement, "if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. WhatamIdoing 22:49, 21 July 2011" See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Consensus&diff=prev&oldid=440736174
How my main critic ignores consensus
My main critic wanted to get me blocked, so she told lies and accused me of violating policies. However, she can't actually block me unless she gets a majority consensus from other "neutral" and "independent" editors to agree with her accusation. Nevertheless she gets around that requirement by writing words like this into Wikipedia's policy about "Consensus".
"Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus ''either way'': it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus ''not'' to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context." See here
I would now like to mention that in "normal" discussions, if she "fails" to get majority consensus, she can't block me or anyone else. However, now that she has rewritten the policy, she can block me anyway. All she has to do is get "one" editor, or one of her "friends" to block me, and say that it is the "communities" decision.
They created the illusion that there were large numbers of editors against me - i.e. the illusion of numbers
The following quote comes from the Wikipedia policy on consensus when my main critic made minor change to it eighteen months after I was banned. However, as you can see later, that is definitely not the way it was used in practice..
"Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes" signed WhatamIdoing 18:16, 22 July 2010 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&diff=prev&oldid=374891498 and here
A
6 to 1 "majority" "is" the "justification" for consensus
An example of that editors use of a "simple majority" as justification for a consensus decision can be seen in the following word by my main critic . . . "I also think that this is forum-shopping, and WP:GAMEing the system by trying to change the policies to 'win' an active dispute. The RFC linked in the previous section is currently running about Crum's passionately defended position, and Crum has been arguing with nealy every editor who posted a comment. IMO this discussion should be postponed at least until the RFC closes. WhatamIdoing 23:57, 30 July 2010
However, you can see the type of tactics that they actually use
in the following example. First of all there was always only ONE of them called WhatamIdoing, and only ONE of them called Gordonofcartoon, working as A TEAM OF ONE, while PRETENDING TO BE
TWO ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT PEOPLE who did not know each other, and have never collaborated before,
and who would arrive at talk pages with words such as "by
the way, I am as innocent as a new born lamb, and was just passing
by after a brief holiday when I noticed this discussion about
Posturewriter; does anyone here mind if innocent little old me
adds my two cents worth" (which was usually about ten paragraphs
of RABID INSULTS), and THEY WOULD SAY "WE" THINK THIS to impose the illusion that a whole group of their personal colleagues
were against me, but when I asked, they would not give me their
names, and they would tell the other editors that there was a CONSENSUS of many who disagreed with me, or then use words
such as the COMMUNITY was losing it's
patience with me, to convey the impression that much larger numbers
of editors were involved, when in fact they were the only two
who were losing their tempers. They
would continue to set up new discussion pages after losing each
debate, and were FORUM
SHOPPING for what the policy guidelines
call "pack dogs" in the hope that they would collect
enough of their friends along the way to eventually ban me. To
make that more likely they set up pages, or archived the page
with the topic being left at the top where all of their FRIENDS,
or SUPPORTERS, or PEOPLE WHO SHARED THEIR SAME PREJUDICE AND
BIAS would see it e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
That tactic was a form of campaigning, or canvassing for support which is a violation of various policies.
I eventually decided to defend myself against
their devious methods by writing an essay about their tactics
on my UserTalk page. A few months later, on the POV/Pushing page
Gorodonofcartoon tried to create the false impression that HE
WAS DEFENDING TWO
OTHER EDITORS from criticism, which also conveys the illusion
that FOUR critics were arguing against me.
These were Gordonofcartoon's words . . . "the user hasn't
been remotely civil. For six months, he has openly flouted WP:AGF
and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, with an extended userspace attack on TWO EDITORS" (end of quote) . . . (The Two editors WERE THEMSELVES, so they were trying to DOUBLE
the INFLUENCE of their own argument without having any support
from anyone else at all)
When Gordonofcartoon
was describing how I was banned he used these words about the
arbitration editors . . . "They
were cautiously moving toward accepting before the CAVALRY arrived in the form of ADMINS who were prepared
to bring blocks". Note that only one of their friends, named
Moreschi, rushed into the page and told the other twelve editors
that he was banning me on his own so their opinion wouldn't be
necessary any more. i.e. only one admin banned me, but Gordonofcartoon
deliberately chose to use the word CAVALRY to create the illusion
that a whole group of editors rushed in to ban me, and then added
the plural word "ADMINS. "here.
See also an example of them using the word 'community' in discussion. here
Another look at the issue of numbers
I am a reasonable person with a highly
developed sense of humor, and am very confident and very good
at arguing, but only if and when I choose to argue, and I have
common sense and believe in fair play. On many occasions in the
past I have taken on whole rooms full of people in arguments
for the sheer fun of it, and the topics have covered everything
that is typically controversial, so it is quite ridiculous for
someone whe loses an argument against me to say that I have only
When I was in Wikipedia and my contributions
were criticised for not complying with policy, I wasn't concerned
because I found it easy to provide contributions that met the
policy requirements. For example If I added references that they
called "old" (in the history section????), then I found
"modern" ones, and I had critics, of course, but there
"WERE ONLY TWO OF THEM", and they were always trying
to get help, and trying to create the illusion that they were
many. They were essentially trying to drag other people into
their mess because if two people are wrong, and fifty people
join them, then it is just as easy to beat 52 people in an argument
When they started an arbitration process
to get me banned from the topic, I thought, as a person with
common sense, that I would get to present my side of the story
to, say?, twelve independent editors???, and that after reading
their remarks I would be able to present my response and then
a decision would be made???? I assumed that it would go like
this - each of them would speak for themselves, and only themselves,
and each of them would have one vote, and only one vote, and
if, at the end of a day or so, the vote was six for and six against,
I would NOT be blocked. However, if, after reading my response
to their comments, the vote was two for, and ten against, then
I would be blocked from the topic???? which would be perfectly reasonable
Here is what actually happened - Gordonofcartoon
described me as a hostile person who was exhausting the patience
of the whole "community" and WhatamIdoing misrepresented
a lot of facts in his argument against me, and in the last paragraph
wrote "we" say this or "we" told him that (three times), to create the illusion that a lot of people were
criticisng me. They were trying
to inflate the situation to get other editors to come rushing
in and join the attack, because of a feature of human nature
where individuals who would not make decisions alone, will join
in if they think that "everyone" else says something
They were trying to get me to argue with
the whole of Wikipedia, so that other editors would be offended
and come to THEIR RESCUE, but I NEVER wanted to do that, or fall
into their childish 'garden variety' trap. However, I will mention
two other editors, without wanting to bring them into this.
In fair play, each person gets one vote,
and only one vote, and speaks for themselves, and only themselves.
For example, on a jury, twelve people have only one vote each,
and one person cannot say that he represents, or speaks on behalf
of ten, or fifty, or a hundred. However, on the arbitration page
another editor named Mast Cell wrote this "I'm as guilty
as the
other 1,600 admins who didn't handle this sooner. I don't know
if Mast cell was just doing that thoughtlessly or deliberately,
but it is the sort of exaggeration that a political lobbyist
would use to whip up a frenzy of support. Regardless of that
possibility, it is highly inappropriate to say something like
that when less than a dozen people contributed to the Da Costa's
page, and most of them had nothing to do with the content, and
when I only had two critics. Mast Cell only gets ONE vote, and
only warrants the INFLUENCE of ONE person in the arbitration
page and NOT 1600 unnamed and anonymous individuals who haven't
here
To highlight the inappropriatenss of such
inflation of influence I can recall WhatamIdoing saying that
i could not refer to Oglesby Paul as a Harvard professor, because
the only thing that is important are the facts in his article.
Also of course, an outsider could comment on my two critics by
representing themselves as the general public and say "we the five billion . . . think
you are liars". I'm sure they wouldn't like that.
The second issue is this. Another editor
named Moreschi was involved in a secret discussion arranged by
Gordonofcartoon six months earlier, and when I found it and joined
it, the discussion ceased, so I assumed Moreschi agreed with
me, because he completely disappeared for five months and then
came rushing into the arbitration page as if he had authoritatively
criticised me in the past?, and he was only
ONE editor, who told the other 11 that they weren't needed, and
he banned me before I had time to respond to the comments of
herehere
This is what another editor named Wolfkeeper said about WhatamIdoing's inappropriate exaggerations . . . "You think you speak for everyone else in the Wikipedia, and get to decide what they think and get to state it on these pages as fact? Don't you think that it might be proper to describe that as ''very'' arrogant of you?"Wolfkeeper'' 06:40, 27 July 2010 here
A
Quote from the Wikipedia policy for Consensus about 'numbers'
"Consensus
is not in number\s. . . Editors
can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum
shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and
more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is
a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to
the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions
on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system
of good reasons.
At the same time it is normal to invite
more people into the discussion, in order to obtain new insights
and arguments. However the invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and
addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject
or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects"
. . . from here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&diff=307515264&oldid=307435465#Consensus_is_not_in_numbers
Consensus - in practice it is always majority by numbers
My main critic likes to write and interpret policies so that there are so many ambiguities (double meanings), and so many different ways of interpreting them that they can twist the policy around their grubby little fingers and do anything they want. In practice it works like this - Supposing I had six people agreeing with me and none opposed, which clealy meant that I had a consensus by majority - my main critic would argue that Wikipedia policies are much, much, much more complicated than that - we don't use simple numbers to decide outcomes. However, if my main critic had only one person agreeing with them, and none against, then the the argdument would become - we have an obvious majority consensus here so you have to do what we tell you to do.
The following quote comes from a discussion in which that editor contributed . . . . The sub- title is "Headcount". The editor named Shooterwalker lists six in favor, two against, and three in the middle. The comment was "There isn't quite consensus".
My main critic then chipped in with some comments but they were based on "widely supported content policies", regardless of what "one or two" editors think. See here
Majority decdision are the "least evil"
This is a quote from my main critic about consensus . . .
"IMO following the majority (or plurality, and except where other policies specify the outcome for a no-consensus discussion result), although basically an undesirable option, is probably the least-evil choice." WhatamIdoing 02:29, 19 November 2011. here
Leadership decisions
That editor thinks that they are the custodian of all wisdom on the fine details about the difference between majority consensus and a reasoned argument, but in fact I studied group behaviour at tertiary level for four years, and most people are intelligent enough to understand the practical issues involved in consensus. Every delusional fool who dreams of utopia would like to believe that a group of people should be able to sit in a meeting and politely present reasoned arguments to come to a decision that everyone agrees with, but in practice there will always be dissent, and the only practical way to proceed is to accept the best sensible idea that the majority are happy with. Generally speaking, most groups have a leader, called a chairman or president, and he makes the final decision. Leadership training requires an education in leadership, which is primarily about goal setting. A good leader will make the best decision at the time based on consensus because he needs to get the majorities support to assist in the achievement of the goal.
A poor leader will be too fussy about details and won't be able to make a decision so nothing gets done. If he goes against consensus the task will be impeded by constant squabbles and the group will break up and will fail to achieve its goals.
In other words, regardless of how precious, or fussy, or pedantic that editor is, in practice, and in fact, group decisions will always come down to consensus by numbers - majority.
Nevertheless, superimposed on that sensible group scenario, my main critic undermines all of the principles of normal consensus, and acts like a fox in the henhouse looking for lunch - a dictator sneaking around in a democracy and making the decisions regardless of evidence, reason, or numbers. The technique involves treating the policies as if they are hanging on a coatrack, and deciding which one to pick or choose to win which argument.
Here are some examples . . .
Your 1956 reference is too old, so we are replacing it with one by the same author from from 1941.
Your review paper from the Journal of the American Medical Association is just an op-ed which isn't written by an expert, and isn't peer reviewed like normal reviews, so it doesn't meet our MEDRS policy standards which require reliable review articles from top quality peer reviewed journals. We are replacing it with our favorite childrens story because our hatnote policy demands it.
Your reference by Sir James MacKenzie, is not a reliable source of information because he was just an ordinary doctor who attended an ordinary meeting where the minutes were routinely published in a journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, but we will use it in our version of the article anyway. We have added a website called whonamedit.com which has a paragraph of information provided by volunteer amateurs, and meets our requirements for up-to-date evidence which insists on using references from the most recent five years.
Consensus Decisions???
If you read an article in Wikipedia that
said that your favorite football player was a cheat, you could
register with them and edit that page to say that he wasn't.
If an argument started another editor might say that you were
just an ordinary person who didn't know enough about the subject
to change anything, and that, as a member of the same football
club, you were too closely involved to give and objective opinion.
If the argument continued the other editor could set up a "Conflict
of interest" discussion to get you blocked.
Ten or twenty editors could then see that
page and leave their comments, and if fifteen agreed with you,
and five disagreed, then a neutral editor would make a decision
in your favor. If, however, fifteen disagreed and only five agreed,
then the deciding editor would probably tell you that you have
been banned from writing about football, and any form of sport,
including horse racing, the Olympic games, swimming, ski-ing,
or anything even remotely related to physical activity, but you
would be welcome to add useful information to pages about other
totally unrelated subjects such as flower arrangement and poetry.
In my case the topic was Da Costa's syndrome,
and because I have a knowledge of that subject, two editors kept
losing arguments against me, so one of them set up a 'Conflict
of interest' discussion to
prevent me from editing that page. Their first attempt failed, so after they lost some more arguments
they set up Conflict of interest number 2. More
than 3000 words of discussion followed, and then an editor
named EdJohnston made a decision that I should not write about
that subject anymore or I would be violating COI policy, and
be banned.
I would like you to spend a few seconds
guessing how many uninvolved editors contributed to the second
discussion prior to that decision being made, so please stop
and do that now. Please think about it and form an honest opinion.
For example, would it be none, five, ten, twenty or fifty, or
some other number. After you have made an estimate you can start
reading again because I will tell you the answer shortly. First
of all, I was the person being discussed, and the decision was
made before I presented my side of the story, so I wasn't even
one of them.
Now that you have had time to make a guess
to compare with, I can tell you that there were only four editors
in the discussion. Most of the words were written by my two critics.
The third editor was Guido den Broeder who told them that there
was no evidence that my contributions were being affected by
a conflict of interest. The only other editor was EdJohnston
who eventually made the decision after the relentless barrage
of criticism from my two critics. In other words there was only
one neutral editor who agreed with me, and only one who eventually
agreed with them. The outcome was actually one for, and one against.
Although EdJohnston was only one editor, he made
the decision about the topic ban, and therefore unwittingly left
the false impression that it represented the consensus of opinion
of dozens of neutral editors, and that the majority of them were
involved in the decision against me.
After that discussion was over other editors
would take a quick look at the decision and agree with the closing
admin without reading all of the details. My two critics then
continued to lose more content disputes on the DCS talk page,
so they set up more discussion pages and always started with
words like this . . . 'we have a disruptive editor with
a 'conflict of interest' which has been discussed by many
editors who have told him this repeatedly in COI
1. and COI 2. etc., and the entire Wikipedia community is thoroughly disgusted by his behavior and we are all losing our patience with him so we want him blocked. They continued
relentlessly and always exaggerated the outcome in their favor,
and even when I won by a clear consensus, and they lost, they
would never concede defeat, but would tell the other editors
that the discussion failed. It was part of their general strategy to look
for, and invent faults in me, and exaggerate them out of all
proportion, and to understate any major faults that I found in
them.
Have another
guess
Now that you know how my two critics exaggerate everything I would like you to have another 'educated' guess.
Here are your clues. I started adding to the Da Costa's topic
on December 9th 2007, and continued throughout a period which
spanned twelve full months plus fifty days until January 28th
2009. At that time I was banned on the basis of their allegation
that I had a conflict of interest and was using Wikipedia to
promote my theory with every word that I added. I was actually
adding information from 65 independent sources, including direct
quotes from people who did their research on a dozen other theories
before I was born, and Harvard professors who wrote the history
of the topic decades ago, and whose findings were reported in
international research journals. Here is your question: Was all
mention of my own research and theories deleted from the topic
page in January 2008, or January 2009????? Stop and guess now, without reading any further, because I am about to give you
the answer. It was January 2008.
Have a third
guess
Most authorities on Da Costa's syndrome
would say that if the patient does not have the typical type
of breathlessness which involves abnormally deep and frequent sighing,
then they do not have DCS. In fact, in 1956 Paul Wood was the top authority in the U.K. and he provided statistics
that it affected
93% of DCS patients and was the most
common symptom. The cause was a
complete mystery for seventy years until researchers such
as S.Wolf, and Cohen and White etc, found and reported, in
the late 1940's, that it was due to an abnormal function of the
respiratory muscles. Why did my two critics delete all of
that information????? Was it (a) because it was wrong, or (b)
because it wasn't scientifically proven, or (c) because the references
were old, or (d) because the other four main symptoms are more
important, or (e) because the authors weren't reliable, or (f)
because they weren't published in top quality peer reviewed medical
journals, or (g) because, in their contrived opinion, I was using
those references to support my theory about posture and breathing.
If you guessed a, b, c, d, e, or f, you
would be wrong. They deleted it because they argued that I deliberately
cherry - picked those references to support my own theory about
posture, chest shape, and breathing, and they expected me to rewrite the article on Da Costa's
syndrome without mentioning anything about respiratory research. These were Gordonofcartoon's words . . . "but
as I've said . . . everything you add spins the subject toward
a focus on breathing, breathlessness, the diaphragm etc - funnily
co-inciding with the Banfield theory" signed Gordonofcartoon
at 13:17 on 23-3-08.
Have a fourth
guess
How did the information
that I gave Wikipedia end up on my own website. Was it (a) because
I thought it was a good idea at the time, or (b) because I wanted
to use Wikipedia to promote my own theory, or (c) because one
of my two hostile critics asked me to????? Please guess now,
and then read on.
Here were WhatamIdoing's
words . . . "Posturewriter,
why don't you put all of this specialised material on your own
website? It would
be a more appropriate place for such specialized material".
signed WhatamIdoing 20:34 on 8-2-08 (end of quote) . . . Less than 20 minutes later Gordonofcartoon
gave this typically
ill-mannered advice to keep things brief in the
future . . . "It's meant to be an encyclopedia article for
the general reader. Liposuction
time?" signed
Gordonofcatoon 20:51, 8-2-08.
I took their advice but it didn't stop them from criticising. For example, I started by putting all deleted material on my own website. I also started a reference section, and added more references. I then began writing full reviews on my website,
and then selected information on the basis of
what complied with ALL policies, and then abbreviated it before putting it into Wikipedia.
This is what Gordonofcartoon
wrote about me on the Conflict of Interest number 2 page three
months later, when he was playing dumb and pretending not to remember the original request to be brief. . . "he's
adding large verbatim dumps of material from his own website: not neutral stuff, but Summaries of papers selectively collated and commented to support Posture
Theory. He's turning Wikipedia into an annexe of his own reference section, and it needs to stop." signed Gordonofcartoon 10:55
Summary of
their spin: When
I put all information on my own website because they asked me
to, and then when I reviewed and abbreviated it so that it complied
with all of their requests for neutrality and conciseness, they
spun it around to make me look disruptive by saying that I was dumping stuff from my website onto Wikipedia.
Have a fifth
guess
I made contributions to
the Da Costa's article for about fourteen months between December
9th 2007 and January 29th, 2009, during which time I had two
critics who would take turns at finding reasons for deleting
everything I wrote. i.e. I would add something on a Sunday, and
on Monday Gordonofcartoon would say that it violated a policy,
and on Tuesday WhatamIdoing would delete it. I would add another
paragraph on the following Sunday, and then WhatamIdoing would
say that it violated another policy, and Gordonofcartoon would
say 'Yup, I agree - therefore 'we' have consensus'', and then
delete it. They then tried to create the impression that dozens
of other contributors were complaining about me being constantly
disruptive every day of the year by using such words as . . .
'"we" can understand why "all" of the other
respectable editors on that page are becoming "thoroughly
disgusted" with this disruptive editor.'
Here is your question:
How many editors were arguing with me on the Da Costa's page.
Was it more than a million, five thousand, several hundred. ten,
or less than five?????
Answer, There was a grand
total of approximately 206 edits made to the page while I was
there. Of those, 27 editors made one edit each, and were mainly
routine spelling corrections etc. There were 8 editors who made
2 edits each, and one editor made three. Four editors made four
edits each. One editor made 6 edits in 1 week in early June 2008,
and another person made 11 edits in 3 days during December 2007.
An editor named Guido den
Broeder came to the topic page and made 33 edits in ten days,
and also made other edits on the DCS talk page, mainly agreeing
with me, and supporting me, and arguing with my two critics by
telling them that I was not violating COI policy. This was one
of his comments . . . " I don't care what he may have done half a year ago. He does not
need to be stopped, since he is not promoting anything or adding
any original research to the article now". Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29: 20 May 2008. (end of quote). However my two
critics then started arguing with him and insulting him, and
accusing him of violating various policies, and then one of them
came to my User talk page and left these sarcastic remarks .
. . "Guido's been blocked for a week over edit warring,
and claims he is going to be off wiki for a month, so the
talk page should return to normal for awhile" signed
WhatamIdoing 00:52, 30-5-2008. (The name Guido den Broeder has
since been changed to Roadcreature on the edit history).
The topic page had an associated
talk page with the following edits. The grand total was about
260. Ten individuals made one edit each, four made two each,
one editor made five, and a auto edit made 9. Guido den Broeder
made 51 edits in three weeks starting in July. There were only
three other editors. WhatamIdoing made 69 edits and Gordonofcartoon
made 60, and most of their 129 edits were aimed at criticising
me or trying to convince other editors that I should be blocked.
I defended myself only 49 times because they would find fault
with every word I wrote anyway, something like this . . . WhatamIdoing
would say . . . 'Oh yes, you have complied with policy a, b,
and c, but you have violated policy d', and then Gordonofcartoon
would reply . . . 'Yup, we have consensus on that'.
In essence there were only
three people editing that page throughout most of the year. I
made 40 contributions (less than one a week), and WhatamIdoing
did most of the arguing with 30 edits, and Gordonofcartoon collaborated
with 24 criticisms (i.e. a total of 54 between them). They criticised
me more times than I made contributions.
When the topic page, and
the discussion page were combined, the total number of edits
was 470, and of those I made 90 edits, and my two critics together
made 190, and they set up and continued to argue on at least
ten other pages to block me. The majority of their 190 comments,
even with other editors, were critical of my editing.
Did you guess right?????
(less than five - in fact, only two) Perhaps you might like to
answer this question? Would you be able to defend yourself from
a relentless onslaught of 190
criticisms, with only 90 replies???? Here is a tip. If I replied
to their criticisms every five minutes, they would have "predictably"
criticised me fifty times a day, so I tried to keep it down to
one contribution per week, and they would keep arguing until
they deleted everything, or until they had talked another editor
into blocking me or banning me, generally in a hurry, before
I had time to respond. They would then build up a tally and say
'look at all of the other editors who agree with us'.
Have a sixth
guess
On the conflict of interest
page (number two), EdJohnston wrote these words of advice to
WhatamIdoing . . . "There are several other editors active in this COI report who should
be able to review any changes. If you have any ideas for improvement of the
article, just start making them and see what happens". signed
EdJohnston 19:06 17th May 2007.
Here are your questions:
EdJohnston said their were "several" other active editors
on the COI page. How many were "several"; was it ten,
five, three, one, or none??? . . . Also why didn't WhatamIdoing
like that advice?????
Answer: Gordonofcartoon
set up the COI page to block me, and WhatamIdoing wrote the
largest volume of criticism to convinceEdJohnston that there were vast numbers of other editors
arguing against me so that he would block me. EdJohnston actually did
believe that there
were "several" "other" editors involved in the COI discussion. However,
at that time (17-5-08), there were only three editors on the
page besides EdJohnston, namely WhatamIdoing, Gordonofcartoon,
and Guido den Broeder. i.e. besides my two critics there was
only one "other" editor. The decision was made
before I gave my side of the story, so I wasn't even there.
The reason that my two
critics didn't want to let "several" "other"
editors review their additions, was because there was actually
only "one" "other" editor, named Guido den Broeder,
and he was telling them that they were both wrong, so they arranged
for him to be banned.
Here is a quote from another
editor named Father Goose on the Consensus policy talk page .
. . "When it's a close split like 3 to 2 or something, that's
'no consensus'" signed Father Goose 5:25, 14th February
2010 . . . which means that my two critics were repeatedly claiming
consensus on COI when they knew that they didn't actually have
it.
Have a seventh
guess
There were about fifteen editors discussing
whether to ban me or not on the arbitration page. How many of
them influenced the decision???? . . . Was it one, five, ten,
or fifteen.
Answer: It was one, named Moreschi, who
had lost one brief argument against me five months earlier; on
an ANI page that was started by one of my two critics at 11:29
on 25-8-08. The only other editor in that discussion was anonymous,
and he agreed with me.
This was a section heading in bold print
at the end of the arbitration page . . . "Arbitrators
opinion on hearing this matter" . These were the first
words in that section . . . "Awaiting statement from
Posturewriter" signed Carcharoth at 22:08 on 26-1-09.
Twelve other arbitrators then left their opinions and were aware
that I was preparing a response to their comments, and would
be presenting it on Sunday 1st of February 2009.
Moreschi barged in on the discussion and
wrote these words four days before I was due to make that final
statement . . . "I've banned Posturewriter, as I should
have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. This will save you a case I think" signed Moreschi
at 00:24 28th January 2009. (i.e. Moreschi took the
case away from the twelve independent arbitrators and made
the decision to ban me on his own). On the next day he threatened
to argue with anyone who challenged his decision. Here were his
words" . . . "I would take extreme issue with
the overturning of" (the ban). signed Moreschi 20:39, 29-1-09.
A few months later WhatamIdoing rewarded him with an Outlaw
Halo award for being the only administrator who was
willing to break the rules and ban me.
In the Wikipedia guidelines
on consensus there was a discussion about what was required
and at 3:29 on 14th February 2010 WhatamIdoing made this comment
"If you want a practical answer . . . you need a four to one ratio to
enforce any proposed change". coi
Their idea
of consensus
Two independent editors recommended that
the question of bias could be resolved if each of the three current
editors of the DCS page wrote a version independently so that
the neutral editors could merge them to ensure that the eventual
text complied with ALL policy requirements, including "neutral
point of view". I responded by spending several weeks writing
a draft, but Gordonofcartoon blatantly refused when he wrote
"No. I'm fed up with this", and WhatamIdoing cut and
pasted my essay and subjected it to more than 80 points of criticism.
One of the neutral editors wrote that my essay was "a lot
better" than the existing one, and when I used it to replace
the text that had been controlled by my two critics, they reverted
it four times, and at 18:57 on 26 January 2009 WhatamIdoing gave
this reason . . . "Restore version from a few days ago to
rm (remove) unreliable sources and unbalanced POV pushing. Posturewriter,
you must get CONSENSUS before making this massive change"
(end of quote). Note that most of the time their idea of consensus
was two to one when in fact they were only one tag-team, not
two individuals, which is a violation of the Wikipedia editing
guidelines, and that they did absolutely everything they could
to interfere with any chance of getting a real consensus. However,
WhatamIdoing wrote those words to create the false impression,
in uninvolved editors minds, that the change was not expected,
and that they were trying to give polite and helfpful advice
and had a "proper" reason for reverting.
Their method
of banning me
At 5:50 on 30-1-09 on my UserTalk page
I explained that my two critics had arranged for a 'requests
for comments' page to be closed in violation of RFC closing
policy, and then they subverted the normal arbitration
process to get me banned, and I later learned that they had
thanked another editor and awarded him with an outlaw halo award
for being the only administrator in Wikipedia to break the
rules and ban me. I was banned on 27-1-09 and this was WhatamIdoings
reply a few days later at 21:55 on 1-2-09 . . . "in your
comments here you seem to be confusing Requests for Comments
about user conduct with Requests for Arbitration. The rules
about closing RFCs do not apply to ArbComm. actions,
(In this case, by the way, the Arbcomm case was tentatively
declined on the grounds that you have been blocked indefinitely
by an independent administrator: It was never officially opened and
never officially closed.) Note
also that you weren't blocked solely for abusing your conflict
of interest. WhatamIdoing 21:55 on 1-2-09 (end of quote).
Note that I was not confused about anything,
but WhatamIdoing was trying to give everyone else that impression.
Also note that I was banned by an editor who WhatamIdoing described
as independent???? but Gordonofcartoon attempted to have a private
discussion with him on an ANI page and influence his attitude
six months earlier (at 11:29 on 25-8-08), and the discussion,
involving only one small sentence by Moreshi, stopped immediately
after I joined the page, and that every word that Gordonofcartoon
wrote was carefully chosen to create prejudice against me, and
to provide excuses for avoiding the rules of evidence, breaking
the rules of RFC's, and ignoring the rules of Arbitration.
This is the essence of their argument;
The violation of RFC closing policy didn't matter, the arbitration
process never happened, and one of their personal friends broke
the rules to ban me because they couldn't do it within the rules
of Wikipedia.
The words
of the editor who banned me
The name of the editor who banned me was Moreschi, and here are the words that he wrote on the
arbitration page . . . ""I've banned Posturewriter,
as I should have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to
this sooner. That will save you a case, I think".
He then responded to one of the arbitrators
questions with these words . . . "Actually, no, I meant
an indefinite block. As in a block that is intended to
be permanent, a block that came with no conditions to
be fulfilled, and a block that I would take extreme issues
with the overturning of. Frankly Posturewriter, the worst
type of troll, has shown nothing but contempt for basic Wikipedia
policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:DE/TE. Under such circumstances
a one-year ban would have been the only result to have come out
of an arbitration case. I, however, unlike you chaps, am fortunately not limited to block length".
Moreschi 20:39. 29
January 2009
You would get the impression from the
words used by Moreschi that he had tried to get some sort
of neutral point of view on this issue and that I had been unco-operative,
but he had never made even the slightest attempt at resolving
any issues at all????? Furthermore he did not discuss anything
with the fifteen independent arbitrators, but simply told
them that if they overturned his decision he would "take
extreme issues" with them. In other words he was threatening
them with an extremely
hostile argument if they didn't
agree with him, and yet he wanted me banned for being argumentative
when I had never had an argument with him or the arbitrators.
As I have mentioned before, my two critics
spent 12 months following me around like a couple of blood hounds
criticisng and deleting every word I wrote and going to ten or
more discussions to find editors to block me, and were using edit warring methods of deliberately insulting and goading me to drive
me out of Wikipedia or make me respond in an ill-mannered way
so that they could ban me for being uncivil, and they eventually
gave an outlaw halo
award to the the only editor who
was prepared to
break the rules to ban me.
These were Gordonofcartoons exact
words at 6:57 on 3-2-09, a few days after I was banned . . . "Finally
I raised it at Requests for Arbitration. They were cautiously
moving toward accepting before the cavalry arrived in the form of admins who were prepared to bring blocks, ultimately
an indefinite one for disruptive conduct". (end of quote)
At 23:08 on 26 November 2009,
ten months after I was banned, Moreschi complained about other
editors getting away with such practices with these words relating
to different topics . . . "Remember how long it took to
ban VK, for all his meatmpuppetry, sockpuppetry, edit-warring,mentorship, personal attacks,
dozens of blocks, you
name it? For how long have Domer
and Dunc got away with flagrant tag-teaming?
Or now Sarah777 is allowed to get away with not-so-subtle attacks like this and nobody bats and eyelid?"
Moreschi 23:08, November 2009..
If Moreschi was consistent with his editing
he would ban my two critics permanently.
Moreschi's
idea of junk
Wikipedia's policy about Civility has been
compiled by hundreds of well meaning editors over a period of
several years, and these words are a direct quote from the page
of 30-11-09 . . . "The civility policy is a standard of
conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always
endeavour to treat each other with consideration and respect".
However, at 11:29 on 15 August 2008, Gordonofcartoon
copied a sample of the Da Costa's page that I was trying to develop,
and that he and WhatamIdoing were continually trying to disrupt
and block with criticism, deletions and alternations. He then
added the following words to the top of the incompleted page "This is an
old version of this page as edited by Posturewriter as of :45,
23 March 2008" (end of quote).
Note that it is
ill-mannered to misrepresent the page that way. He then showed it to Moreschi who wrote these
words at 13:36 on the 25th of August 2008 "take a look at this junk" (end of quote).
This is one of the three sentences that
Moreschi wrote on his User page to introduce himself to Wikipedia,
and it was still there on 30-11-09 . . . "I also have an alternative civility policy - I hope this will become the real one some day,
as the current one
is sheer junk." (end
of quote). Needless to say that Moreschi is
being disrespectful to hundreds of other editors who obviously
have a superior understanding of what civility actually means.
If Moreschi thinks that
the existing policy page for civility is "JUNK" then
he should "be bold", and replace it with his version
and see what happens.
In order to hide the fact that he had such a ridiculous attitude toward the Civility policy he has deleted his comments so that other editors can't see it any more. Linking to that page for November 30, 2009, now leads to the page for November 2007, with the words "(Changed protection level for "User:Moreschi" [edit=sysop:move=sysop])". See here.
Note also that his User page now has a "barnstar of Diligence", and a link to his new comments about "Civility" which in his current opinion require "constructive discussion" and "reasoned debate", and "the principles of good wikiquette". In other words he has replaced his ridiculous attitude with new words which make him look respectable. See here.
In summary, after I criticised Moreschi on my website, for his ill-mannered attitudes and behaviour, he has hidden the evidence which proves it.
My two critics
attitude toward consensus and the arbitration process
On 2:25 on 18th May 2008 WhatamIdoing was complaining because the majority of other editors were
saying . . . "Y'all
play nice now. It's
a content dispute and they were giving WhatamIdoing the following advice . . .
"you should work for consensus"
At 17:48 on 26 January Gordonofcartoon told the arbitrators this . .
."The material added is
disputed, but Posturewriter's
attitude to discourse has made it impossible to achieve consensus
bythe normal collaborative
process" (end
of quote). Note that the "material added" refers to "content", and only two critics were disputing
the content 95%, if not 100% of the time. Their idea of consensus was two to one majority, and they refused to co-operate with the normal collaborative
process in almost
every discussion of content, and particularly when the opportunity
was specifically available at RFC.
Less than a day later,
at 10:47 on 27 January 2009, the day before I was banned, Gordonofcartoon responded to a question by one
of the arbitrators named Wizardman, and wrote these words . . . "This is emphatically
not about content . . . Posturewriter has repeatedly stated the central bad faith
assumption that all critical responses - to content and conduct
- are 'tactics' motivated by a hostile agenda to suppress what
he's advocating". (end of quote). Note that the fact is
that their dispute
was always over content,
and that they were using every trick in the policy book to say
that it wasn't. I was writing the history of Da Costa's syndrome
based on independent reliable sources, and my two critics were
using policy as their excuse for removing any verifiable aspect
that they didn't like, and they expected me to "assume good
faith" in them, when they were secretly arranging for a
friend of theirs to break the rules to get me banned - and later
rewarded him for it.
At 19:08 on 12 November
2009 WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "What would ArbCom
do? . . .it
is nearly worthless for content issues" (end of quote). Note that Arbcom
refers to the Arbitration Committee.
My two critics
are obviously too arrogant for their own good.
Lynch Mob
Justice
As a relatively new contributor
to Wikipedia I was not aware that I could be put on some sort
of trial, but when Gordonofcartoon set up an arbitration page
to discuss the topic, I expected that it would have some similarity
to "normal" justice where 12 good men would be selected
and examined to ensure that they had no previous involvement
in the case, and no relationship or contact with either side,
and that they wouldn't be pre-influenced (made prejudiced) in
anyway. I also thought that the contributor would be given ample
opportunity to defend themselves from any accusation of policy
violations before any decision was made. Hence I was surprised
when Moreschi barged in on the page and banned me - on his own,
and he did it on a Wednesday, when I had advised the other editors
that I would be giving my final response to criticism on the
following Sunday.
This is what Moreschi wrote
at 21:49 on 3-12-09, about another situation . . . "Disingenuous,
as you then repeated the lynch mob accusation at (link),
this time quite clearly aiming it at the admins who imposed the
bans specifically the one on Zeq. That would be myself, as I
extended the initial block of a week to 1 year" (end of
quote) signed Moreschi.
Moreschi was being accused
of interfering with "normal" justice by another editor
who said that he was acting as if he was part of a lynch mob.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about lynching . . . "It
is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, usually by
hanging . . . Lynchings were more frequent in times of social
and economic tension, and were often means by the politically
dominant population to oppress social challenges" (end of
quote), and it gives the example of white's lynching Negroes.
Here is another example
of Moreschi appearing to plan against a different "normal"
arbitration decision . . . "It would be good to see roughly
what line arbcom is going to take so Ottava, and everyone else,
can prepare themselves for it" (end of quote). In other
words Moreschi wants to give plenty of time and opportunity for
contributors to defend themselves, but only if he agrees with
their views, whereas he deliberately prevented me from defending
myself.
Here is another example,
where at 16.25 on 1-12-09 another editor named Sulmues reported
his observation that his critics gave "banning stars"
to other editors to promote their own views, and at 20:29 on
1-12-09 wrote "The block, as proposed by athenean and CinemaC
is part of the plan of keeping out of the Albanians from the
Albanian related issues. I did not even have a chance to defend
myself. These guys keep calling their friends to ban me, and
the admins are too busy to read carefully what they write".
In responding to that criticism at 22:14 on 4-12-09 Moreschi
acknowledges that "gang editing groups have existed"
and "doubtless still do", and they control content
in Wikipedia by blocking anyone who has different views to their
own.
The evidence is that the
experienced editors know all about edit wars, and how to conduct
them to control content on any subject, and that denying contributors
the opportunity to defend themselves, and giving gang members
barn stars for blocking them is a standard hallmark of the process.
Regardless of all other
issues, I was a new contributor, and I thought that I was going
into a "normal" arbitration situation, while WhatamIdoing,
Gordonofcartoon, and Moreschi were experienced editors who knew
exactly how to plot and scheme to get me banned regardless of
the arbcom decision. I knew that I wasn't the first person to
be dealt with that way, because they did it with the level of
skill that could only be achieved by a vast amount of practice.
The Outlaw
Halo award given to Moreschi
Some editors in Wikipedia
are rewarded for their contributions by giving them barnstars
which are generally illustrations of a star that is placed on
their Userpage. However at 23:41 on 8-5-09 WhatamIdoing rewarded
Moreschi for banning me by presenting him with the Outlaw Halo
award. The opening words were . . . "I saw this just now
and thought of you" (end of quote). It was an illustration
of the standard Wikipedia symbol of a globe covered in the pieces
of a jig-saw puzzle, and it was modified to look like
a head with horns on either side at the top, and a halo between
them????? - with ample ambiguity to allow for interpretation
as the devil causing confusion by wearing the costume of a saint????
Forum shopping and related behaviours
The following quote comes from the Wikipedia policy page on "Consensus" - WP:Consensus
"Forum shopping means repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums (e.g. the village pump, article talk page, admin noticeboard, deletion discussions, etc.) until you get a result you like." here
Another editor named Wolfkeeper accused WhatamIdoing of gaming the system to turn consensus on it's head" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=378753604&oldid=378735065
Also, my two critics have seen other editors contrive or fake consensus and know how to do it themselves, as can be see in the advice that WhatamIdoing gives to another contributor with the following words . . .
"It's pretty much like any other social endeavor: beg your friends to watchlist the page (hit the Village Pump to find some people currently fired up about this issue, and maybe post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists), post messages on the project's talk page about any relevant work you're doing -- and hope that others will respond in kind." WhatamIdoing 18:38, 21 August 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=prev&oldid=380189351
e.g. see the first topic at the top of a list of 100 discussions that are visited by hundreds of other editors on my main critics talk page. here
Placing that discussion at the top of the page and leaving it there while 100 other discussions proceeded was essentially the way that individual brought it the attention of their friends and recruited them to get me blocked.
Cavassing
My two critics spent twelve months setting up more than ten discussion pages one after another in an attempt to get other editors to block me, and continued relentlessly until they achieved their objective. In the process they also obviously sent emails to other editors, and left messages on the talk pages of several, and where hundreds more of their own supporters would see them. Wikipedia has a guidelines page called "canvassing" which describes their behaviour. The following quotes are from that page.
"Canvassing on Wikipedia refers to the sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion . . . canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate because it could serve to compromise the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore may be considered disruptive behaviour. . . For other types of action which are inappropriate in the consensus-building process, see the policy on Consensus. Apart from canvassing, these include forum shopping (raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want), sock puppetry and meat puppetry (bringing real or fictional outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint), and tendentious editing. (end of quote)
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Canvassing&diff=384892780&oldid=384891733
I recently added a small section to my website requesting the assitance of respectable editors and members of the public to get them banned, and about 2 days later my main critic wrote these words . . .
"The updated proposal is to cover all forms of canvassing on one page, ie merge WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS. CANVASS would then cover the community's view on all canvassing activity (both internal and external), regardless of origin and type. Should CANVASS be merged with MEAT? Should CANVASS then be promoted as an official policy?" (end of quote written by WhatamIdoing at 16:54, 15 October 2010) here
My response - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
See also PUPPETS here
They were experts at creating illusions
My two critics have been in Wikipedia for more than four years, and learnt all of the tricks that had been used by rogues, and became experts at using them before I joined.
One of them was how to create the impression of consensus when they didn't have it.
Their grubby box of magic tricks included . . .
1. Always work as a tag-team of two
2. Say "we": think this as often as possible
3. Claiming consenus immediately after getting one person to agree with them.
4. Using the bandwagon effect to drum up additional support on the basis that they need more editors to join in the consensus which never actually existed in the first place.
The fact that some editors create illusions is revealed in the following quote from an editor named Ludwigs2 who was discussing another method which involves sockpuppets, and meatpuppets.
"Socking and 'meating' are the same problem - Trying to manipulate or circumven consensus decisions by giving the 'appearance' of uninvolved support." Ludwigs2 02:49, 21 September
see here
So
many labels??
There are so many psychiatric labels used or linked to the Wikipedia page about Da Costa's syndrome that there would be enough to brand the founder, and all of the editors and administrators, and their family and friends, with at least a dozen forms of mental illness. I could add a few such as 'internet addicts', 'obsessive compulsive Wikipedians, and in the case of my main critic, a form of neurosis called ''trichtillomania'.
In the past some psychologists have referred to poor people as having a mental illness called 'spendthriftiness'. I would therefore like to suggest an equivalent label for my main critic. She has a severe form of mental illness called 'toffee nosed snottery', which fits into the category of 'malevolent sociopathy'.
I have no wish to brand other people with such labels, but my two critics make it easy, so blame them. I'm just the messenger.
There are also other editors adding psychiatric labels which describe normal human behaviour to such as extent that you could brand every man woman and dog on the planet as 'mad'.
My maijn critic was fond of discussing my 'behaviour', but I would prefer to label her as ill-mannered and impudent. My advice to her is that if she wants to discuss such things she should become a police officer and talk about juvenile delinquents, because if she acts like that toward other adults they will put her in her place by telling her to pull her bloody finger out and stop having a lend of herself. I could give her more advice by using language that is universal, but I won't bother.
labels on the page
My two critics want readers to believe that the history of Da Costa's syndrome research has proceeded harmoniously with all of the experts always co-operatively agreeing with each other and that ideas have evolved from objective disuucssions of facts and evidence. That is as naive as arguing that the history of the world consists of one nation and that there have never been any wars).
In the version of the Da Costa's syndrome article that I wrote for Wikipedia I mentioned that the cause was unknown and that there had been many heated arguments, controversies, disputes, and labels used throughout the 140 years of it's research history. As evidence I provided more than a dozen references with five or more labels in their introduction, and one medical consumers website which listed 80.
My two critics argued that I was making sweeping statements based on one unreliable source and deleted all of that information.
However if you have a look at my critics version on 27 January 2009 there are 11 different labels in the first two sentences, and more in the text and reference list, and the top right side of the page has links to ICD-9 and ICD-10 entries associating it with many other labels.
If you go back to the four lines of text that existed on 27 Oct. 2007, before I started, you can see a "Related" section which has five labels and two were put there by my main critic, and two were the subject of relentless arguments by them, and a third has since been removed. If you also go to the bottom left side of that page there is a 'category' link to 'Diseases', and another link to 'Anxiety Disorders', and soon after I deleted the link to 'Anxiety Disorders', WhatamIdoing put it back and deliberately left the entire link window open so that a list of more than 50 different psychiatric labels occupied half the entire page, and Da Costa's syndrome was two small words somewhere in the middle. (that window was left open for many weeks, and was a deliberate violation of policies relating to neutral point of view, undue weight, and window display, that could only be contrived by an experienced editor).
Their final version included these words Da Costa's syndrome, Soldier's heart, anxiety disorder, 'no physiological abnormalities', cardiac neurosis, chronic asthenia, effort syndrome, functional cardiovascular disease, neurocirculatory asthenia, primary neurasthenia, subacute asthenia and irritable heart, Somatoform autonomic dysfunction, psychosomatic disorder, 'non-psychotic mental disorder', 'psychiatric or non-psychiatric complaint', 'imprecisely characterized postwar syndrome', orthostatic intolerance, chronic fatigue syndrome, mitral valve prolapse syndrome, 'neurological condition', exercise intolerance, organic disease, postural and orthostatic hypotension, it had a 'physiological explanation', 'a form of neurosis', 'somatoform disorder of the heart and cardiovascular system', 'a variety of similar or partly similar conditions', a 'physiological malfunction arising from mental disorders', depression, neurasthenia, 'functional cardiac disorder', posttraumatic stress disorder, mental and behavioral disorder and ,'neurology' disorder.,
As you can appreciate, the average patient who was born with this condition and lived to the age of 80 would have been to dozens of doctors and psychiatrists and been prescribed countless different medications and treatments, and been given more than 100 different psychiatric labels during their lifetime, but none of them made any significant difference to the course of the illness, as has been evident by numerous studies, including Edmund Wheelers 20 year follow-up of 173 patients in 1950, but, of course, my two critics deleted that reference as well.
See their preferred version at 18:27 on 27 January 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214
The version at 17:08 on 17 Oct. 2007 can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=165216444&oldid=151708868
See where WhatamIdoing replaced the link to 'Anxiety Disorders' at 21:33 on 18 Dec. 2007 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=178801481
My version at 7:46 on 25 January 2009, showing more than a dozen articles wih more than five labels, see the full link here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266273949&oldid=262846727#
Alternative_names_for_Da_Costa.E2.80.99s_syndrome
To show how easy it is to add labels and categories to people and topic pages see Pre-trichtillomania here
Labels as insults
I added this small item on 21-2-2011
Labels of any sort can be used as methods of identifying something or someone, or for the deliberate purpose of insulting or "silencing" them, and in many cases psychiatric labels can be used for good, or for social or unethical reasons. For example, the words neurotic, mental, or mad can be used offensively in general discussions, and mad can even refer to the opposite in terms of quaintness, or it can refer to being humorous.
Although respectable doctors try to emphasise that labels should be used for strictly diagnostic purposes, they almost always come to be used inappropriately as insults.
Furthermore, those labels are generally used as insults against individuals who a person or group disagrees with, and for no other reason.
Most typically when there are heated arguments or controversies one group will refer to their opponents as being stupid, mad, or crazy, even though the individuals may have never had a psychological problem, and are not actually displaying any of the characteristics of such disorders.
When I started contributing to the Da Costa's page it had only four lines of text, and only one comment about it being an "anxiety disorder".
Within a short time other editors had added links to ICD-9 and ICD-10 lists, and to categories of "somatoform" and "anxiety disorders" which collectively contained several hundred entries, most of which were psychiatric labels. My two critics added dozens of labels or inferences in the text to post-traumatic stress disorders, post-war syndromes, 'non-psychotic' mental disorders, or psychosomatic disorders, and one of them added a gratuitous comment about cowardice in the reference list notes, as well as using, or more pertinently "cherry-picking" references about 'mental factors', "psychological breakdowns', the 'social psyche', responsibility, reason, behavioral disorders, and depression. At the same time they were deleting references to such things as surveys which showed that many patients were not anxious and not depressed, and were not suffering from any other diseases that were supposedly caused by anxiety. They also set up the talk page with my real name as a heading near the top of the page, and they proceeded to harass and hound me, and put me on a watchlist, and tell all of the other editors that my return criticism was disruptive 'behaviour', and that I didn't know how to "behave" in a co-operative environment with others, and that my suggestions were "stupid" and that I didn't understand the policies.
This was that editors last words in an essay of lies and offensive and patronising insults on the arbitration page where I was banned . . .
"I understand: he believes that his theory or posture and exercise has practically saved his life. But it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome. " signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009
Note that everything about my theory, and all links to my website had been deleted a year earlier, and I made no further attempt to put them back, and that I had only contributed one or two paragraphs of information to about six topics such as "varicose veins" and "human posture", and only one of them was put there in the most recent 12 months after another editor requested a better reference which I supplied, and was in turn deleted.
Conclusion: It is a violation of policy to use the name of an individual as a title, and an extreme and offensive violation to use their real name. It was also completely unnecessary, and it became more and more obvious that it was put there as a threat such as to imply this . . . "if you keep contributing to this page we will keep adding psychiatric labels until you get the message and shut up or leave Wikipedia." They knew that I had this disorder, and their purpose also included the attempt to discredit me as a source of objective information, and of course, an appeal to prejudice to get others to help them get me banned.
Recently that individual edited a page called the "Chilling effect". Here is a quote from it . . .
"A chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group.[clarification needed] It may prompt self-censorship and therefore hamper free speech." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilling_effect_(law)&diff=414352995&oldid=403150797
Another editor had been accused of breeching my copyright so I had to reveal my ID to confirm that I had given her permission to use some of my material. My two critics used that as their excuse for accusing me of being self-identified, and adding links to my website at every opportunity. Two other editors who saw those links asked me to tell them more about myself, so, as I haven't got anything to hide, I added some more details and mentioned that I actually had this disorder. I had essentially been put in a no-win situation as my two critics were filling the topic page with psychiatric labels, and telling all of the other editors that I was exhibiting disruptive, and uncooperative 'behaviour' in order to create the illusion that I had the characteristics which they were claiming to be typical of the disorder.
Their problem was that they couldn't win the content disputes, so they had to discredit me personally.
Their problems became much worse when two neutral editors asked me to write a neutral version of the article outside of Wikipedia and one of them described it as a lot better than theirs with no signs of bias.
Fortress Wikipedia
When I stared contributing to the Da Costa's syndrome page I was hounded by two editors who would delete every word I wrote, especially about the independent scientific proof of physical cause and they set up about 10 different discussion pages to get me blocked and then went to my own User talk page to harass me with insults.
I responded by writing an essay on their devious tactics and placed it at the top of the page so that it would be the first thing that independent editors saw. They would then be able to judge the criticism in the proper context.
My two critics immediately set about the task of getting that item deleted by describing it as an 'attack essay', but it is no different to the Wikipedia page called "Wikipedia criticism" which is number one on the Google search engine for "Wikipedia criticism", and the first thing that the rest of the world sees. It is essentially a defence of Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors, not a criticism by unbiased independent members of the public.
However my two critics managed to get me banned on the basis of my defence, which was the first thing that readers saw on my User page.
If you have a look at the progress of the Da Costa's syndrome topic since I was accused of disrupting the contributions of the 'entire Wikipedia community' you can see that virtually nothing has changed in the text, indicating that essentially no-one, except my two critics, had any real interest in it.
However they put a slant of psychiatric disorders on the entire topic and were hell-bent on keeping it that way even if no-one else cared.
Since I was banned, they, or their email friends with similar bias, have managed to get that topic's discussion page fortified so that there is no hope of anyone ever shedding doubt on their loaded opinion, or of doing edits that even remotely resemble a neutral point of view.
If you have a look at the articles of 20:30 on the 10-12-2009, about a year after I was banned, you can see that there is no further information or evidence, but the same bias has been cemented in a conformity of concrete with three windows or 'templates of advice' at the top of the page - before anyone decides to add anything. The first template states . . .
"This discussion page about the topic "is not a forum for general discussion about the topic"?
and . . . "click here to start a new topic"
and then . . . "Welcome - ask questions, get answers"? which essentially means 'if you don't agree with the existing article, don't bother.'
The second window says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks".
It is suggesting that the page is now a page for psychologists to collaborate in keeping it a psychology article where none of the previous contributors were psychologists. You have to leave the neutral discussion page about Da Costa's syndrome and go to a discussion page where every editor is a psychologist with a professional and financial conflict of interest in proving that it is a mental disorder.
The third window states this . . . "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follows the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine"
Eventually, if any ordinary normal person gets to read past those three windows of instruction, there is the actual discussion.
Of course, there is something that is deliberately missing which should be something like this . . . "bye the way, if anyone else has something to add there is a quaint little insignificant thing called 'neutral point of view" policy, with a link to the 'endangered species list' which includes the truth, and the print media, and the extinct category which includes 'neutral point of view' and dinosaurs - we just thought we'd mention that in case any deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid person didn't notice the bloody obvious".
I conclude that Wikipedia has already been infiltrated by highly paid anonymous editors who have hidden agendas and that there is no hope of ordinary people doing anything except for fixing spelling errors.
If you don't believe my conclusions then just try adding scientific evidence of a physical cause from top quality independent peer-reviewed medical journals, and watch what happens
See the instructions at 8:37 on 29 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=228565696
See the three windows of instruction at the top of the page at 20:30 on 10-12-2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=330928531&oldid=266982962
Talk pages are not for discussing the topic?
The window which has been put at the top of the Da Costa's talk page includes these words
"This discussion page about the topic "is not a forum for general discussion about the topic"
Apart from the fact that it is contradictory to say that you can't discuss the general topic on the discussion page attached to the topic, there is the fact, that in practice, virtually every discussion page in Wikipedia is a forum for discussing the topic.
If you have a look at the Da Costa's syndrome talk page you can see that my two critics were using it as a forum. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=330928531
The varicose veins talk page is typical of all others, where all of the editors are treating it as a general discussion about every aspect of the topic. Notice that nobody has put a window at the top with advice that they shouldn't use it as a general forum. . . see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varicose_veins&diff=prev&oldid=348915702
The
great floods of criticism that I was expected to deal with precisely?
Gordoonofcartoon made the ridiculous accusation that I was adding
large volumes of text to confuse the other editors. He also made
the ridiculous accusation that I was not being precise in responding
to discussions.
Nobody on earth could be precise in responding
to the massive onlslaughts of criticism that he and his tag-teamer
relentlessly flooded the pages with. One of the many examples
can be seen in the history of edits where he set up one discussion
about me with fifteen
edits in one day.
The
fifteen edits that Gordonofcartoon made to start the RFC page
to get me topic banned
(cur) (prev) 12:19, 21 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,601 bytes) (ÆStatement
of the dispute: tidy intro) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 23:38, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,578 bytes) (ÆApplicable
policies and guidelines) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 23:35, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,519 bytes) (ÆDesired
outcome) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:54, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,486 bytes) (ÆDescription: expand WP:DE area) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:51, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,417 bytes) (ÆDesired
outcome: expand) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:46, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,328 bytes) (ÆDescription)
(undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:45, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,310 bytes) (ÆDescription)
(undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:43, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,294 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior: corrected descr.) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:48, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,252 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:46, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,227 bytes) (ÆDesired
outcome: expand) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:40, 20 July 2008 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (14,132 bytes) (ÆUsers
certifying the basis for this dispute: Adding my name, due
to my discussions with this editor at WP:COIN and a warning
I left on his Talk in May 2008) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:35, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (14,043 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior: add PA) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:31, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of failing to resolve the dispute) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:26, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (13,469 bytes) (ÆDescription: expand WP:DE) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:11, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) m (13,088 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior: typography) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 18:16, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) (13,091 bytes) (create Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter)
to see that edit history you can scroll down the list herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&limit=500&action=history
The only other editor to comment in that 24 hour period had
previously made a decision about COI after reading massive floods
of criticism from the same two critics, and before reading my
defense. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
The two editors who I had to deal with did hundreds of edits per day.
Gordonofcartoon always worked together with WhatamIdoing, and at one stage I saw a statement that Gordonofcartoon had made four thousand edits in four years, and WhatamIdoing had made eighteen thousand in the same time, with a combined total of twenty two thousand. I also observed on many occasions that WhatamIdoing would do more than 100 edits per day, and would drop by my single edit to add six paragraphs or six separate edits of criticism. I realised that they could win arguments by being complete fools who wrote so much nonsense in their six edits that other editors wouldn't be able to see the sense in the first edit that I did. (they simly wouldn't go to the trouble of reading back that far). An example of WhatamIdoing doing more than 180 edits in one day occurred on 29 June 2010 in seven hours between 15:49 and 22:46. On a previous occasion I saw that editor do 300 edits over a period of 16 hours in the one day, and when I asked them if they had a conflict of interest, or who was paying them to edit Wikipedia they told me that I was violating the 'assume good faith' policy and wasn't allowed to ask the question???
The first of the 180 edits on 29 June 2010 can be seen and followed from here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_education&diff=prev&oldid=370805518
If they wanted to fill Wikipedia full of lies nobody could stop them, so there should be a policy that restricts each individual to a maximum of 20 per week (1000 per year), which would make Wikipedia a publy compiled encyclopedia instead of a dictatorship by the few (an oligarchy)
See also here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#anchor114336
They rarely did anything precisely
and were often deliberately vague, and tossed their own personal opinions about as if they were muck in a pigsty, without bothering to provide verification from 'reliable' independent references.
I had two critics in Wikipedia and I will
later describe how they argued, but to introduce the issues I
will give two typical examples.
Fact 1. I provided information for an article about Da
Costa's syndrome from 60 top quality research papers and medical
books, including some that were written by the most knowledgeable
experts in it's history including J.M.Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie,
Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Wood O.B.E., and Harvard professors Paul
Dudley White and Oglesby Paul.
This was what one of my critics told the
arbitrators to get me banned . . . "Posturewriter's use
of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet
Wikipedia's basic standards" signed WhatamIdoing 4:42, 28 January 2009.
Fact 2.One of my critics added the name of a "novel"
at the end of the page, and the other one moved it to the
top line at 19:07 on 29th May 2008 where
it was the first words the readers would see, so I read
it. The title was Soldier's heart" which is one of
a hundred different labels that have been used as an alternative
name for Da Costa's syndrome. It was a 128 page children's fiction
book and after I finished reading it I could see that there was
no mention of any of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome. I then
realised that neither of my two critics had even bothered
to read it, but had used it on the basis of their assumptom
that it must be relevant because of the title on the cover. I
then said as politely as possible, in paraphrase . . . 'I can't
see any evidence that it is relevant to a medical topic, so if you can't give me some precise page numbers where the symptoms are mentioned can you please delete the link'.
They argued about it with other editors,
including myself, and six months later, on 22nd December 2008 another editor deleted it because it was wrong to use it.
They would have seen that explanation because they have reverted the topic page twice each between 25th and 27th January 2009, and would have had at least two opportunities to see that it had been removed from the top line.
i.e. they would have known that it was deleted because they were wrong.
However, these are the
words that WhatamIdoing wrote on the arbitration page the next day, on 28th January, to give the ridiculous impression that I lost the
arguement . . . "There's a
novel named Soldier's heart, so we provided a link to the article
about the book. PER WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote
instead of a See also section. Posturewriter complained at length
and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being "in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter never
seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became
a regular disambiguation page."
signed WhatamIdoing 4:42,
28 January 2009.
Summary: I used top quality medical journals and books as
references but my two critics continued to describe them as unreliable
sources of information, but they put a link to an irrelevant
children's fiction novel on the top line of the page and found
a way of justifying it, and WhatamIdoing used both ridiculous
arguments in the same section of the arbitration page at 4:42
on 28th January 2009, a day before one of their friends banned
me.See here
Note that their
attempt to make the disambiguation page "appear" regular
by adding poems, plays and movies with the same title (Soldier's
heart) did not solve the problem that they created. It was solved
because another editor deleted the link and nobody has put it
back in the 12 months since. Note that they also put the word 'Soldier's heart' in the first line of the first sentence, and it was highlighted
in blue color to indicate that they had added a link (to the
children's novel), but four days after I was banned a neutral editor deleted the link as well, on the grounds that it was unrelated). See here.
The main issue is that my two critics were using that label to give it prominence, and not for any other purpose. They argued that it was the 'chief label', and they were hell bent on using any and every method of making it their 'chief label. See here.
See also my report here
Would you call anything my critics said "accurate" or "precise"?
Da Costa's syndrome has been studied and commented on for 135 years since 1871, and during that time there have been thousands, if not tens of thousands of research papers about it. When I started contributing to the article it had only four lines of text and no references but within three months I had two critics who were trying to criticise and delete everything I wrote and replace it with their opinions and references when, by 12:04 on 4th February 2008, the page contained 18 references, of which only 8 of mine remained.
One of the references was Paul Wood O.B.E. whose 1956 text book reported that breathlessness affected 93% of patients which was more than any other symptom.
This is what my main critic wrote . . . "I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia benefits from a blow-by-blow account of nearly every paper that mentions it." See here and here
Needless to say if my two critics think that I quoted nearly every research paper about Da Costa's syndrome, or the breathlessness, then they have obviously spent too much of their time reading children's fiction, and not enough time reading factual information about this topic.
Another quote from their version of the article
"The syndrome is also frequently interpreted as one of a number of imprecisely characterized "postwar syndromes".
See here
I don't think that I need to discuss how many of the comments in that small quote are obviously ambiguous and imprecise.
Manual of Style
Another example of the hypocrisy and double standards of one of my critics
The general advice given to new contributors is that there are many policies and essays about how to do things, but also, that they are not rules carved in rock, so just use common sense and make sure that the information is reliable and can be supported by independent references.
When my two critics deleted everything about my own research I didn't particularly care but they tried to give everyone else the idea that I did. They also thought that I didn't know anything else about the subject so in their foolish attempt to be disruptive by acting helpful one of them said that they appreciated my other efforts.
My other contributions were about the history of the subject, and the other critic had given that section of the page a sub-heading called "History", so I proceeded to complete it by going back to 1871, when Da Costa did his original study, and letting my two critics, or any other editor do the section from 1987 to 2001 if they wanted to. In order to make it easy for me and everyone else to contribute I provided the information in date order, and put the dates in bold print, and added sub-heading for the main periods. For example the period leading up to Da Costa, and soon after was 1863 to 1900, the period up to and Thomas Lewis renaming it effort syndrome was 1900-1919, and the period when the cause of symptoms was determined from 1919 to 1949 etc.
However it became obvious that my two critics had absolutely no intentions of being useful and co-operative, and did everything to make complete and utter pests of themselves by nitpicking everything I did and deleting every word I wrote. In Wikipedia that type of disruptive editing is called Trolling.
When a neutral editor described my version of Da Costa's syndrome as 'a lot better' than theirs, my main critic became hostile and vindictive and started picking fault with it by writing these words . . .
"I tried marking things that need repaired, but it's basically a disaster. The history section is much, much, much too detailed . . . The style is horrible. Medicine-related articles do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors when discussing research work. That's what your citation is for. He doesn't even have complete names for some of these people. We don't blather on about "In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa’s syndrome in the British Heart Journal"
On another page, set up for the sole purpose of nitpicking my essay to bits that editor wrote the words "Formatting wrong" alongside every date printed in bold. In another instance that same individual wrote 'we can't even stop him bolding the dates'. I didn't have any particular objection to removing the bold print, because it wouldn't make any difference, but the person who was complaining was a serial nitpicker who was doing it for the purpose of being a disruptive pest, and was making a big fuss about it to give everyone else the false impression that I was the problem?
It is very easy to argue with hypocrites like that because all you have to do is wait for them to reveal the truth about their actual opinions - and that can be seen when that individual was giving advice to another editor 18 months after I was banned - note that MoS is the abbreviation for Manual of Style. . .
"Reviews that "enforce the entire MoS" or "require my favorite citation style" and such waste time, annoy editors, and convince the less-experienced editors that they aren't capable of reviewing articles, since you apparently need to know far more than what the criteria say you need to know -- so they won't even try". WhatamIdoing 02:05, 9 October 2010
See here and here and see the comment about wasting other editors time here
An essay that accurately discribes my main critics disruptive style can be seen here
TAKE
A BREAK?
How
my two critics twisted their interpretation of policy to suit
their own purposes
The Wikipedia guidelines for discussions
recommend that heated arguments can be more effectively settled
if all of the individuals involved take a break of a week or so to allow things to calm down before resuming
the attempt to resolve the issues. These are the words from Wikipedia:
Etiquette of 22:19 on 10th
March 2008 . . . "Principles
of Wikipedia etiquette . . . If you're arguing take a break. If you're mediating, recommend
a break . . . Take it slowly. If
you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come
back in a day or a week".
However, on a "Conflict of interest
discussion" (COIN), my main critic
started relentlessly arguing about me at 19:20 on 15th May 2008,
when two days later, at 19:06 on 17th May 2008, an
administrator named EdJohnston placed the word BREAK in
bold print at the end. I was very pleased to see an administrator
take that initiative, but to my surprise WhatamIdoing completely
ignored the advice and just kept on writing. I didn't get involved
in the discussion, partly because I was expecting the administrator
to block that editor for disregarding instructions, but instead
of that happening he eventually accepted the criticism and blocked
me. (without even seeing my side of the story???). See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Break
Some time later another editor named Avnjay
spent "several hours" reading the discussions and recommended
that all individuals take
a break from the Da Costa's page
for awhile to calm down, and in the process gave me the impression
that WhatamIdoing had a reputation for being temperamental and
hostile in disputes. Here is an extract from Avnjay's suggestion
. . . "Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic but instead
of starting another long, protracted debate here as has happened
at COIN and talk pages could I humbly suggest that the
involved editors take
a break from each other for a while.
If all could agree to stay away from and remove any controversial
material from the relevant article and talk pages etc. then perhaps
we could draw a line under it all . . . As an outside and
completely neutral editor (who holds you all in high
esteem) I plead with you all for peace". signed Avnjay
18:32, 21st July
2008. See herel,lo
I didn't want the same thing to happen
as before so I watched with interest, and then saw that, within a day,
at 22:39 on 22nd
July 2008, Gordonofcartoon had
added one small word "here", at
the end of the existing words "externally linked here", so I clicked on it and it led to an online copy
of a three page criticism of my theory in the Skeptics magazine.
i.e. Gordonofcartoon tried to hide his actions by adding
only one small word that most people wouldn't check, and he effectively rigged the argument by making it three large pages to nil against me during
a period that was supposed
to be a break where nobody made
any comments at all.
About two weeks later at 20:36 on 3-8-0 Avnjay left a message on my talk page which made the meaning
of the word 'break' perfectly clear with these words . . . "Hello
Posturewriter . . . From reading through all the comments I really
think this could be cleared up if everyone was willing to be
humble and step away from the battle lines. There is a particular
line in a song which says, 'We all talk a different language
talking in defense' and this seems rather appropriate here. This is why SmokeyJoe and I have suggested a break . . . So, Posturewriter are you willing to take
the first step by: . . . agreeing not to edit Da Costa's syndrome and similar
articles for while?
. . . and .
. . Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing, if Posturewriter
agrees to the above would you be willing to: . . . also agree not to edit
Da Costa's syndrome and similar articles for while?". signed Avnjay 20:36, 3 August 2008. see here
Eleven hours later, at 11:31 on 4th August Gordonofcartoon replied . . . 'Short
answer no." and then gave
some 'typically' 'evasive' reasons.
At 13:02 on 4-8-2008Avnjay wrote these
words to Gordonofcartoon . . . "I hear you Gordon . . . I made the suggestion
of you not editing Da Costa's more as a way to resolve the article dispute than
the user problem - give a chance for another editor to combine
your ideas with Posturewriter's according to quality of sources. However, I also think it
will be hard to get Posturewriter to agree to stick to a break
if he sees those he feels are his 'critics' making changes he
disagrees with". signed Avnjay
13:02, 4 August 2008.
I discussed those issues with Avnjay between 27th July, and 3rd
August , and during that time,
at 8:45 on 30-7-08 I mentioned that Gordonofcartoon had ignored his advice to take
a break, but then I looked back
on those discussions and noticed that someone had inserted the
word "BREAK" in the middle of some comments
on my Usertalk page and made it look as if I had ignored Avnjays
advice to take a break. I checked the details and found that
it was WhatamIdoing who put it there at 20:39
on 1st August 2008, and it was an obvious retaliation against
me for accusing them of ignoring similar advice two days earlier.
When I discussed that devious way of doing
things WhatamIdoing gave this response . . . "About breaks in talk page discussions . . . When
a talk page discussion gets long, or seems to have two or three
separate ideas being discussed together, it's common to split
the long text block into multiple sections. The standard
convention is to insert a level 3 header (===Something===) at any arbitrary point, and
to label it with words like "Break" or "Arbitrary break" or some
such phrase. If you had wider experience with Wikipedia,
I'm sure you would have seen this before" signed WhatamIdoing 16:58, 4th August 2008.
I don't want to appear
to be arrogant like my two critics, but my experience is a lot
wider than that and I know how to identify "obvious" deviousness and misrepresentation of the discussion that is intended to be "offensively"
blatant. (It is the equivalent of boasting like this . . . "we
have so much power and influence around here that we can say
and do anything we want and there is nothing that any new contributor
can do about it" - the theme of 'power corrupts; absolute
power corrupts absolutely').
I later found that WhatamIdoing had been criticising me relentlessly
for a month on their own Usertalk
page between 16:15
on 5th October 2008 and 18:29 on 3rd November without telling me, so when I found out
about it, I went there to defend myself. The discussion
continued for awhile when I noticed that WhatamIdoing had gone
back to the place where I joined in, and placed a bold heading "Fit the second". However, by then I was familiar
with how that editor argued, and it was obvious that the word
"fit" was used because of it's dual meaning of "fit
it in that place where the second part of the discussion starts",
and "fit of criticism starts for the second time" to
imply that I was being tempermental for a second time???? (in
fact I was always calm in my responses and it was my two critics
who were losing their tempers and using foul language and on
the verge of 'tearing their hair out'). I responded at 8:46 on 10th January 2009 by replacing the words "fit for the second"
with the words "WhatamIdoing's attempts at undermining
NPOV policy". (i.e. WhatamIdoing had been undermining
neutral point of view policy by discussing me without telling
me about the discussion and thereby not giving me the opportunity
to present my side of the story), and then, when I did start
defending myself I got this typical response . . . "But
I say again, "You are wasting your time. You cannot
change Wikipedia's policies by leaving messages on my talk page" signed WhatamIdoing 18:30,
10th January 2009. (INote; I wasn't
tryng to change policies, but was accusing WhatamIdoing of violating
existing ones). WhatamIdoing then reverted the heading and I replaced it again at 1:16
on 11th January 2008 with this
explanation . . . "Wikipedia is not a one way street",
and then WhatamIdoing reverted it again, and on the third
occasion went to an administrators noticeboard and accused me
of making personal attacks against them on their own User talk
page, and told them that I had started an edit war by violating
the "three revert rule" (WP:3RR), and asked them to
block me for edit warring?????? (I was just defending myself
from more than a month of one-sided criticism) However this is
how WhatamIdoing explained the situation to the administrators
about an hour later at 2:42 on 11th January , . . . "I have
asked the editor to stop posting on my talk page in general,
and specifically to quit posting personal attacks. This behaviour,
as I pointed out to him before this last edit, violated the talk
page guideline (specifically, see the fourth bullet item in this
section) as well as WP:NPA . . . we're not talking about a particularly
valuable editor here" signed WhatamIdoing 2:42 on 11th January 2009.(note; the fourth bullet linked to the "Wikipedia:Talk
page guidelines" in the section about new topics and headings
on talk pages, which included this advice . . . "Never use
headings to attack other users".
WhatamIdoing reverted and I reverted again,
and this was the response . . . "He did it again, of course.
That makes four times in less than 24 hours that I've had to
remove this attack from my user talk page, so now it's also a
3RR violation" signed WhatamIdoing 17:15, 11th January 2009
Gordonofcartoon then set
up an arbitration page at 17:48
on 14th January to get me blocked.
I wrote a brief defense
and then told the arbitrators this . . . "note that this
has been going on for 12 months and I prefer to contribute on
Sundays only so if that is a problem please let me know, but
I don't think anything I say will change the way they do things"
signed Posturewriter 8:32,
27th January 2009.
At 20:25 on 27th January 2009 WhatamIdoing wrote by far the largest essay of
criticism.
I was banned by an editor
named Moreschi at 20:39
on 29th January,
which was a few days before Sunday
1st February 2009/B>,
and a few days later Gordonofcartoon thanked him, and a few months
later WhatamIdoing gave him an "Outlaw halo award"
for breaking the rules to ban me.
Summary;The words "take a break" mean
"take a few days off and stop contributing to the discussion
for awhile". However, WhatamIdoing
ignored EdJohnstons word "break",
and in the process got me topic banned on the second "conflict
of interest" page, and Gordonofcartoon ignored Avnjay's advice to "take
a break" on an RFC page by
adding a link to a three page essay, and then, while I was taking
a break on the arbitration page they both arranged for one of
their friends to ban me. etc.
Their diversionary argument was that
the word "break"did not mean "take a break",
but was just an arbitrary way of adding a large bold word in the middle of a long discussion to make it easier to read.
Hidden Agenda's
My main critic is a disgusting two faced hypocrite who pretends to be open, honest, and respectable, and yet keeps their own personal identity a closely guarded secret, but recently had the cheek to advise another editor to reveal their involvement in any topic that might pose a conflict of interest and wrote . . . "you should certainly not tell lies" about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=404783257
Of course, I have previously answered questions of that sort honestly because I have nothing to hide, but I was later accused of having a conflict of interest and blocked. However, my main critic, who is definitely not an honest person, and who slyly hides their motives, and therefore doesn't want anyone to know who they are or why they edit, refused to tell everyone else their real name. That type of devious behavior is called 'deceit by omission', and is an indirect form of lying which allows that editor to make contributions to any topic in Wikipedia, including ones related to their own studies or interests, without being blocked.
Despite those denials it is obvious from that editors pattern of edits that they make contributions to articles where they obviously have a very strong bias and are passionate or angry or dictatorial style of bossing other editors around to get their way - like a spoilt little rich brat who throws a tempers tantrum if they don't get what they want
That editor also has university qualifications but will not reveal what they are, and yet contributes mainly to medical topics, and particularly to adding psychological interpretations to articles, and tries to control their content, supposedly as an independent uninvolved dispassionate and objective volunteer? Needless to say a dispassionate person would not get so arrogant, and rude, and hostile, and bitter as that fool.
In real life everybody has interests which may be golf, or cricket, or football, or engineering, or science, or surfing, or travel, and they may be interested in the history of sport, or the history of science, or the history of England, and one editor in Wikipedia is interested in the history of baseball, and is writing biographies in Wikipedia for every player who hit more than one home run in the past 150 years, but no-one describes them as non-notable, or not important enough for an article, or not valuable to Wikipedia, or not of interest to the broader community, or that it is a waste of space, and nobody says that they should delete every baseball player who hit less than fifty home runs, or played for less than ten years, and no-one has argued that they should only include players who were top scorers, or captains or coaches whose teams had won important games which had been reported in major international newspapers in the most recent five years. There is the biography of a player who hit only one home run about 120 years ago and nobody complains.
I am not an arrogant person but I have written a theory which took me five years to develop, and in the process had fifteen essays published in a nurses journal, and I have been involved in formal medical research for about two years, which solved a problem that no-one else at that time was able to solve, and I developed an exercise programme which has obviously been copied by many international researchers since, and it was reported in local, state, and interstate newspapers for a couple of years, and I have written a thousand page book on health that has been purchased by hundreds of libraries where some had up to six different editions.
However I had two critics who argued that my book wasn't notable or not good enough, or took up too much space, and that my essays weren't published in the 'real' medical literature, etc.
I don't care about such things because if I did I would, like most people, become discouraged and would have stopped twenty years ago, or ten years ago or at any time, but criticism is something that I have come to expect and if flows off me like water off a ducks back. However, while I was in Wikipedia I had two critics who were ignorant, arrogant, rude, and bloody stupid, and were insulting me in the most offensive way by describing me as non-notable, worthless, and fringy, and I don't have to put up with bullshit like that from a couple of nitwits who appear to be tossing their weight around in Wikipedia because they haven't had the courage or the brains to accomplish anything of any significance in real life.
One of my interests is the history of medicine, and particularly a medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome. That does no mean that I am not able to write objectively about it, but it does mean that I know enough about the topic to see when someone is telling lies about it, and my two critics were liars.
My study of the subject revealed that the physical basis for all of the symptoms has been found and scientifically proven, mainly between 1916 and 1985.
I therefore wrote the history of the topic from the time of Da Costa in 1871 to 2008.
My two critics are arrogant and think that the readers are ignorant and stupid and easily misled, and treats the other editors and administrators (experts on sport and mathematics etc) - as if they are just sheep and cattle.
They told them that they were making changes to the Da Costa's page for policy reasons such as making additions because of information in a reliable dictionary or data base, and they would make deletions because of conflict of interest or because the information was old.
However, their hidden agenda was to turn the article into a topic about an imaginary or anxiety disorder. They achieved their objective by filling the page with psychiatric labels in the text, and their choice of references, and their links to outside sources, and their categories of anxiety and somatoform (imaginary) disorders.
They then kept the history that I wrote from 1871 to 1876, which was mainly about the soldiers who were affected in the American Civil war, and they removed the major part of the history from 1876 to 2009 where I described the civilian studies and the scientific discovery of the physical causes.
The general reader and the other editors will read their version of the article and think that it represents the complete history and gives an accurate account of all the main facts.They might not care, or think that it matters much, but if the patients who suffered from that ailment knew how my two critics were distorting the facts about them and the disorder they would describe them as a couple of lying arseholes.
Their sly editing style could be summed up like this . . .
Typical reasons for additions of psychological interpretations
By the way does anyone mind if we remove the words 'unknown cause' from the top line, and replace it with 'considered to be', an anxiety disorder - Nope didn't think so.
By the way does anyone object to me adding a link to a children's story called Soldiers heart at the top of the page - nope - so we have consensus then.
By the way I've just improved the article by adding some alternative labels and classifications - post war syndrome - that sort of thing.
Oh, while we are at it does anyone mind if I add a reference about military compensation and pensions and toss in the word 'cowardice'. from the middle of one of the pages of a 200 page book.
Bye the way does anyone mind if we add a little reference with 'depression' in the title
AND
Typical reasons for deleting scientific evidence of physical causes
By the way I am removing the article by S.Wolf which shows the spasm of the diaphragm which proves that the breathlessness is not imaginary - it is a violation of our original research policy - I will be telling posturewriter that he must, must, must only use 'reviews' of articles which we experienced editors keep telling him are called secondary sources.
By the way I just noticed that the Volkov reference shows scientific measurements of the severity of DCS that is much, much, much too much detail for an encyclopedia - I am telling posturewriter that we must, must, must be precise.
By the way has anyone noticed that this comment about Da Costa's syndrome being a chronic fatigue syndrome is from a 1951 book. We keep telling posturewriter that he cannot fill Wikipedia with all of these old trashy books that have out of date information and that it must, must , must come from books published in the past two years - our policy demands it.
By the way this review from the Journal of the American Medical Association is not a normal review but just an op-ed, that's not good enough for Wikipedia so I've just trashed it .
By the way has anyone seen Postuewriters review of the 20 year follow up study of 173 patients published in JAMA - I'm deleting it because the self reports of patients aren't reliable.
By the way I have just deleted that information about Da Costa's syndrome being common in civilian society and more common in women, along with a lot of other rubbish - it's much much, much, too much detail.
By the way it is much too much trouble for us busy editors to rewrite the history properly so we will just delete everything from 1876 onwards and replaced it with these words . . . "Since then, a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described."
(end of examples)
Final comment: If you have a look at their version article you can see the distorted result of all of their additions and deletions here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750
An administrator was overwhelmed by their lies
On one occasion my two critics wrote so much criticism about me that an administrator named EdJohnston thought that there were "several' other editors watching the dispute. In fact, apart from those two, there was only one, and he was telling them that they were both wrong. The administrator also told my main critic that she hadn't provided evidence for her accusations (which was typical), and that she was contradicting what had actually happened. She nevertheless kept arguing until he warned me to stop editing the article? see here
A truly neutral view of "Conflict of interest" policy
WP:COI
An editor named Deathmolor, in a discussion with other editors about "conflict of interest," wrote this . . .
"I also want to propose the obvious, that COI section is a cautionary note to conceal your interest. I propose it is impossible to have no interest at all. If your editing then you have interest. The shear act of editing is an act of interest." Deathmolor 15:48, 29 May 2011 here
As an editor named Guido den Broeder said - my two critics were accusing me of having a conflict of interest to divert attention away from their own. See 7:23 on 21-5-2008 here
This is a quote from another editor named MastCell's User page item "Some people never do anything without an ulterior wikipolitical motive. That motive may not be clear immediately, but it will be clear eventually." See here |
Their conflict of interest arguments
An introduction to how they faked the illusion of consensus
My two critics spent ten months telling a massive number of lies in order to create the false impression that they had a 'consensus' of opinion from previous 'Conflict of interest' disputes which gave them the authority to block me from an article called Da Costa's syndrome.
Four facts will show that they were telling lies
Fact one. Here is a quote from Gordonofcartoon's request for help from a group of editors called WikiProject Medicine. . .
"Da Costa's syndrome . . . Any chance of a bit of medical input? There's a dispute, but too few editors to form a proper consensus, about the general thrust of the article (which appears to me to contain WP:SYNTH by an editor with a distinct conflict of interest) Gordonofcartoon 12:17, 27 March 2008
Fact two. There were probably hundreds of editors in that group but only one, named EdJohnston, showed enough interest in the topic to come to the discussion. The first discussion failed to get a firm decision, so Gordonofcartoon set up a second dispute where only one more editor became involved.
HIs ID was Guido den Broeder, and he told them that my two critics were wrong and that they were telling lies.
The second one was EdJohnson who eventually 'caved in' to their massive onslaught of lies and agreed with them.
Fact three. If there wasn't a proper consensus before the dispute, and the new discussions had one in favor, an one against, then their still wasn't a consensus after it.
Fact four. My two critics failed to get consensus.
However they spent the next twelve months using inflammatory language to convince dozens of other editors that I needed to be blocked because I was supposedly going against consensus.
See gordonofcartoons quote here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=201305222
See conflict of interest discussion number 1 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
and conflict of interest discussion 2 here
In November 2011 my main critic has changed the consensus policy so that even if she fails to get consensus, she can still find another way to do what she wants.. See here |
Gordonofcartoon's conflict of interest and tactics
My man critic was named WhatamIdoing, and was always supported by an editor named Gordonofcartoon who acted like a subservient sidekick who was tag-teaming to argue against me. When I started contributing to the Da Costa's page on 9-12-2007 Gordonofcartoon had this information about himself on his Userpage . . .
"User from way back: after long break, rejoined under fresh name to concentrate on art topics, which are under-represented in Wikipedia. I've a particular interest in English artists of the late 19th and early 20th century. I dabble in other topics, such as artist and biographical AFDs. I take a hawkish attitude to unreferenced material." Gordonofcartoon 18:43, 10 August 2007
Note that if he has "a particular interest" in some periods of art then he should not contribute to those topics because technically he is voloating the policies relating to "conflict of interest", "original research" and "neutral point of view", but he NEVER saw fault in himsrelf or gave a dam about whether or not he was violating policies, and NEVER looked for fine print reasons, and NEVER rewrote the policies to invent reasons for blocking himself.
However, throughout the year he constantly disrupted my contributions and tried to make it look as if I was the problem. He did that by trumping up the argument that I was a "single purpose account" (SPA), with a "conflict of interest" (COI), who needed to be blocked for "tendentious editing". His objective was to divert attention away from his ridiculous arguments in the content disputes. He also gradually changed his Userpage comments so that within a few weeks of me being banned on 29-1-2009 it had these pompous self-justifying claims . . .
"User from way back: after long break, rejoined under fresh name initially to concentrate on art topics, but I take a broad interest here. Personally, I think generalism should be mandatory on Wikipedia because single-purpose accounts are so seldom anything but tendentious.
I also think Wikipedia would be improved by simplifying the conflict of interest system (I suggest that editing in COI areas should still be allowed, but with a simple and rapid veto mechanism of a topic ban if a consensus of uninvolved editors feels it appropriate).
I'd like to see far more awareness at admin and arbcom level of the problem of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, a form of low-level disruptive editing whose highly toxic long-term effects often go unrecognised, simply because on short-term examination there's nothing overt enough to merit action."(end of quotes).
This is may advice to that individual . . .
If you are interested in art, then write about art, and if you only dabble in other topics then don't delude yourself that you actually know what you are talking about or that you can win arguments about them.
If you want to argue about the content of research papers then don't waste your time unless you are prepared to read past the first paragraph, and if you make a spectacular fool of yourself and lose, then admit it and apologise, and politely concede that you are not competent in the area and move back to "art" topics.
If you lose an argument, don't think that you can fool everyone else by changing the subject, and don't think that you can hide your loss from other editors by writing thousands of words of criticism against me so that they won't bother to read back that far . . . and don't tell other editors that I have "long-running tendentious and disruptive editing patterns" . . . and . . . when you spend twelve months insulting me don't tell a group of administrators that I am putting a "focus on personal attacks" on "other" editors who opposed me, when I was just being critical of "you", and your tag-teamers editing practices - and no-one else's, unless there was clear evidence that they were wrong, in which case they retracted their comments.
When you spend twelve months being as insulting and offensive as you wish at every opportunity, and I decide to criticise you, don't tell me about the "no personal attacks" policy, as if it only applies to me, and doesn't apply to you.
When I criticise you for your double standards don't tell me that there isn't a policy on double standards, and when I tell you that there should be one, don't tell me that it is "not going to happen".
If you set up a conflict of interest page, then don't ask for the opinion of other editors by starting with the words "Is this sufficiently close a COI", because your "near enoughs" are not good enough.
If one editor joins that discussion and tells you that you are wrong and proves it, and only one person agrees with you after being drowned in your verbiage, then don't spend the next twelve months telling other editors that you have consensus for your opinion, and don't exaggerate your support by referring to "other" editors and saying "we" think this or "we" told him that.
When you failed to get a consensus according to consensus policy, then don't tell other editors that I failed to follow COI guidelines
When you set up a discussion and the consensus of uninvolved editors goes against you, don't tell other editors that it failed for "procedural" reasons, just do what you are supposed to do and comply with the consensus.
If you tell me not to add my name or theory and I stop, don't keep repeating it yourself and then say "He argued then that we should put this information "back in the box" because he was forced to disclose it during an AFD; I'm not sure this washes, and in any case he has since repeated the disclosure in all but name" (end of quote).
If one group of editors asks me to prove that I have been involved in a research programme, and tell me to put the proof on the internet so that it is "easy" for them to verify, and I put a copy of a newspaper article about it on my website, don't tell other editors that I did that to promote my own website.
If the main symptom of Da Costa's syndrome is breathlessness which affects 93% of patients according to Paul Wood O.B.E. then don't tell other editors that everything I add "spins the subject toward a focus on breathing, breathlessness, the diaphragm etc", and don't insidiously imply that I am doing something wrong by saying "funnily enough" I did it because it conincides with my theory, and if you think that the article needs to be reduced to make it more concise, then don't be deliberately insulting and offesnsive by saying that it is "bloated", and needs "pruning" or that it is "liposuction time".
If you want to argue with me about the reliability of my references then don't try and support your own opinion by linking to a children's fiction story which was written by a children's fiction author, and published by a children's fiction publisher . . . and . . . make sure that you actually read it before you use it . . . and . . . answer my questions about it instead of evading them . . . and . . . don't use hatnote policy as your silly excuse for putting it on the top line. . . and don't add poems, plays, and telemovies to the linked page and then argue that you have solved the problem.
When I provide information from "reviews" in top quality medical journals (which are "secondary sources"), don't tell other editors that I have been using "primary sources".
When I spend two weeks writing an essay on your policy violations don't tell me to "cut this readable length", and when I tell you to review a relevant article on your own Userpage which takes only five minutes to find and read, don't tell me that you haven't got time . . . and when "you" set up four or more pages of discussions to accuse me of violating policies, don't tell me that you are getting confused by my replies because the discussions are spread about in too many places.
Don't join every discussion to support your tag-team mate and then tell other editors that you were not tag-teaming . . . and . . . don't set up secret discussions about me behind my back, and don't tell other editors lies about me without informing me and giving me the right of reply . . . , and . . . don't follow me around to every page and forum shop to harass me, and then accuse me of harassing you, and don't take part in an edit war against me and then accuse me of edit warring just because I defended myself . . . and . . . don't refer to your belligerent methods as the "normal collaborative process".
You knew that I preferred to contribute only once per week, so when you set up discussions to criticise me, and I ask the other editors how long I have got to answer their questions, don't tell them that I am just "jerking them around" wasting their time, or using "delaying tactics".
When you set up discussions to find editors who will agree with you, and some of the "neutral editors" agree with me, then don't tell other editors that they are "my" "friendly editors" when I have never met them, and I didn't go looking for them.
When I politely accept the suggestion of two neutral editors, and you rudely refuse, then don't accuse me of being unco-operative just because I don't agree with your dictatorial demands . . . and if they ask me to write a complete essay on the topic for them to check later, don't say "Discussions over: no-one's interested in seeing further essays from you here".
Don't call my description of your policy violations an "attack essay", and don't pretend that you are heroically defending "other" editors "x" and "y" when you are slyly trying to get an article about yourself and your tag-team mate deleted to hide the evidence.
When I spend twelve months complying with the policy that requires me to be polite to an ill-mannered pig like you, don't squirm through the policies to find something to use as a devious way of criticising my courtesy . . . and . . . don't falsify history and then search through the policies to find excuses . . . and . . . Don't tell me to go away and fix spelling errors on pages about rare Patagonian butterflies while you are removing important facts from the history section of Da Costa's syndrome.
If you tell lies, ignore all the rules, and cheat, and use words like "crap", "bilge", "beef brained", and "f***ing f***ing on", then don't accuse me of violating the "civility" policy, and don't accuse me of "uncollegiate conduct" . . . and don't complain about me refusing to "assume good faith" in you . . . and . . . don't tell other editors that you have given "me" "Advice on general editing etiquette and standards".
Finally don't write new policies to help you win disputes which you previously lost because of your complete lack of knowledge, competence, and merit, and don't use foul language when you are frustrated, and also, if you have to get someone to "ignore all the rules" to get me banned, then don't kid yourself that you won, or that you achieved an "honorable" victory, and don't delude yourself that it is over.
Read the Wikipedia essay called "Don't poke the bear". Here is a quote from that page at 11:18 on 21-11-2008. . .
:"Bears are lovely creatures that often hibernate and are, for the most part, non-violent. However, when poked, bears can become quite angry. As such, it's always best to not poke the bear . . . and . . . Even the more harmless-looking variety might not appreciate being poked."
See his userpage at 11:46 on 5th November 2007 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gordonofcartoon&diff=169360037&oldid=169305720
See his Userpage at 23:18 on 1st March 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gordonofcartoon&diff=next&oldid=274271159
See the second COI dispute here
See the one-sided POV monologues here
See the discussion about their use of a children's story here
See their tag-teaming and lies on the arbitration page here
See don't poke the bear here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_poke_the_bear&diff=253168379&oldid=253160631
Closing comment: You may wonder why I didn't do anything about those matters while I was in Wikipedia but firstly, I joined to contribute knowledge, not to learn policies, so when they did something that was obviously wrong I would say so in plain english, rather than quote a policy violation, and I didn't know how to set up a discussion page to block them, or even want to waste my time doing that sort of thing. Also, everytime I criticised them they would huff and puff and accuse me of being disrespectful for not trusting their judgement, and threaten to block me or ban me if I criticised them again. Secondly, when I did criticise them the other editors sometimes cautioned them, but never threatened to block them, so I had no choice but to comply with the civility policy and be polite to them regardless of how arrogant an offensive they were to me. I thought that they were so stupid, and so blatant, that sooner or later an independent adminitstraotr would see through all of their lies and block them. Thirdly, I didn't think that they would have the cheek to "ignore all the rules", and ignore all of the common sense principles of consensus, and deny me the right of reply in order to get me banned. |
The ridiculous Conflict of Interest argument presented by my two
critics
When another person provided an article
about my theory to Wikipedia, everything was accepted until 28-11-07
when, within eight hours, seven editors recommended that it be
deleted on the grounds of breech of copyright or non-notability.
When I found out about it I responded the next day by informing
them that I was the author of the book and had given that person
permission to use the material. On 30-11-07 an editor named Someguy1221 wrote these words . . . "Did anyone who isn't you and didn't
collaborate with you, ever publish on this theory"(end of
quote). I then spent a few days providing information about where
my theory and research had been presented and reported on, and
then on 1-12-07 the same editor said . . . "We just need dates, titles (and most preferably online versions of all of this) so
that it can actually be verified
that everything you said is true. I can only verify that which is available
online" (end
of quote). I then provided them with the names of some of the
publications, and the dates and page numbers where my theory
had been reviewed. I also contacted the newspapers where
reports of my research had been published but they told me
that items published thirty years ago were not available online and that I would need to go to the various state libraries
and get the actual newspapers from their crypts. I then explained
those facts to the editors of Wikipedia but on 5-12-09 an editor
named Fang Ali deleted the article with this explanation . .
. "The result was delete".
I then found that anyone was welcome to
set up a new discussion if they wanted to, and that they could
provide evidence of notability at any time in the future,
and then ask for a review of the decision. However, I
had already discussed the issue for about a week, and didn't
see any urgency in it, and I knew that I had copies of articles
that were published in several local newspapers, and about four
major interstate newspapers, somewhere in my records, so I decided
to look for them and add the information in the next few weeks.
In the meantime I looked through the pages
of Wikipedia for topics where I knew that I had factual
information from old books that most authors would not be aware
of, and which I could add to improve the encyclopedias range
of knowledge. I then found a page about Da Costa's syndrome so
I started contributing to it on 9-12-07 and about a week later,
on 18-12-07, I added some information about my own theory and
research. An editor named WhatamIdoing then added information
to it on the same day, and three days later, on 21-12-07, set
up a talk page to criticise me. To my surprise my real name was
placed at the top of the page in bold print. The opening words
were "No
copyright material this time",
and the first words describing my contributions were by WhatamIdoing who said that it was just about "garden variety orthostatic
intolerance and hyperventilation syndrome".
The second comment was by Gordonofcartoon who wrote "Nothing
I can find in real medical literature sugests it merits
such undue space." (note the
spelling of the word "suggests" was wrong (he spelt it with one "g") and has never
been corrected). See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Remade
I then offered to abbreviate that section so that it took
up less space, but WhatamIdoing responded by using my own personal first name?? and these words
. . . "Max, I apologise if my previous comments weren't
clear. I don't want your made-up theory shortened: I want it
removed entirely from this article" signed WhatamIdoing 18:42,
27th December 2008, and then Gordonofcartoon wrote these words . . . "I agree, and am removing it . .
. I've also posted it to WP:COI/N" (the Conflict of interest
noticeboard) signed Gordonofcartoon at 1:05, 29th December 2007.
At 1:56 on the same day I
addressed the following words to WhatamIdoing . . . "I
understand that Wikipedia policy allows for a person to present
a reasonably arranged set of facts, so long as each of them can
be independently verified from multiple quality sources".
I then went through my old records to find
a copy of a newspaper article from 1982, and scanned it onto
my computer. However, I couldn't find a postal address for Wikipedia,
and although I knew how to add text to articles, I didn't know
how to add images, so
I placed the copy of the newspaper article on my own website.
I also explained to
Gordonofcartoon how aspects of my own research were similar
to the findings of many others since, which had been favorably
reviewed, and I included these words
. . . "I
have added a scanned copy of one of the newspaper article jpegs
to my website ref.16 for
verification of the project". signed Posturewriter 00:41,
14th January 2008. (I also included
that reference to show other editors where to find a copy of
the article to verify that I actually was involved in a research
project, and that it was reported in at least one major interstate
newspaper, to fulfill the only
outstanding requirement
for notability). See the last paragraph at the end of the section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Banfield
Within less than an hour WhatamIdoing deleted
the information anyway with these words . . . "Posturewriter, did you 'forget' that promoting your own non-notable research
ideas constitutes a conflict of interest, or were you just hoping
that no one would notice when you added the information again"
signed WhatamIdoing 1:49, 14th January 2008 (end of quote). See here
(Note that I didn't 'forget' anything, and if fact, I made it
obvious by clearly explaining what I was doing, and why I was
doing it. !!! Also I have got no doubt that WhatamIdoing made th0se comments so that future readers would get the false impression that I hadn't already explained my actions).
As a result of that criticism I haven't
added any information about my theory or research since that
day, but proceeded to write the history of the subject., so I
only actually added it once in full, and once in an abbreviatedj form, and it was then deleted for the second and final time
on 14th January 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=184167516&oldid=184167421
Nevertheless the same two critics kept
complaining about it and tried to convince the other editors
that I was adding it every week for the next twelve months.
For example, four months later,
at 21:13 on 13th May 2008 Gordonofcartoon set up a "Conflict of interest" number
2 discussion after COI number one failed. WhatamIdoing then added a few thousand words
including these . . . "I
think we can all agree that describing your own clinical research
in an article, complete with reference to a newspaper article
about yourself is a clear cut violation of WP:COI. Of course the first time could have been an innocent
mistake, but sticking it back in there after it's been deleted according to the agreement of every independent editor who has
looked at his additions cannot be construed as an unknowing mistake,
especially since he's been repeatedly warned on his talk page
and elsewhere about WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:COPYVIO concerns"
signed WhatamIdoing 1:39, 18th May
2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
(Note how my two critics were being extremely calculating and deceitful about my reasons for adding the newspaper report).
As a matter of interest, that newspaper article was published twenty five years earlier, in 1982, and I have had more than 180 letters
and articles published in newspapers, journals, or magazines,
and no other editor has ever asked for a copy of it, and I haven't
seen any reason to put it on my own website before, and as such,
if the Wikipedia editors didn't ask me to provide it online,
I wouldn't have put it there.
One
of the conflict of interest arguments
On December 9th 2007 I
started adding information to the Da Costa's syndrome page, and
increased the number of references from nil to six, and then
at 05:58 on 18-12-07 I mentioned my own research and theory.
Sixteen hours later, at 21:33 another editor named WhatamIdoing
added the statement that the ailment was a type of anxiety disorder,
but did not provide a reference. However, two hours later the
same editor added another sentence after it, and supported it
with a reference to a 1987 research review by Oglesby Paul. That
reference was added without the proper coding and had to be corrected
by another editor the next day. By January there were fifteen
references, and WhatamIdoing and another editor named Gordonofcartoon
had become two constant critics who would find fault with almost
every word I wrote, and they had deleted information about my
own research twice, on the grounds of a conflict of interest
policy that says a person should avoid adding information about
their own ideas. All information about my research was deleted
for the second time by WhatamIdoing at 1:34 on 14-1-08. That
did no bother me, so I started adding information from other
researchers in other decades and other countries. However, when
I added information about respiratory research from the 1940's
they said that I had chosen it to support my own theory, and
deleted it on the grounds of a policy called 'Synthesis".
I continued to add references but it didn't matter where I got
them from, the same two critics would find some reason for deleting
them. At that stage, I decided to look at the references provided
by other editors, and noticed the article by Oglesby Paul, and
I found that it was put there by WhatamIdoing. That particular
editor was claiming to be a strict rule-abiding expert on Wikipedia
policy who only used top quality references that complied with
all guidelines, so I assumed that I could review it for Wikipedia
without someone telling me that it was 'nonsense' or crap' (their
words). When I read the ten page article I noticed that it discussed
at least ten different ideas, and concluded that the cause was
unknown because for every scientific study which showed a particular
cause there were others which showed it couldn't be. For example,
If one study showed a virus as the cause, another researcher
would find patients who didn't have a virus at the time of contracting
the ailment. However, it also showed that for each study that
showed anxiety as the cause, there were other researchers who
found patients who were not anxious, and didn't develop any of
the other 'so-called' anxiety diseases. That, of course, meant
that WhatamIdoing had deliberately misrepresented the article.
However, when I mentioned that DCS was a disorder of unknown
cause, my two critics would delete it and replace it with the
words "Da Costa's syndrome is considered to be an anxiety
disorder", and use Oglesby Paul as a reference. When I told
them that they were misrepresenting his article they started
a hostile argument with me and other editors. Of course, WhatamIdoing
was the person who added Paul's research paper to the reference
list, but obviously forgot (or thought that I wouldn't be able
to find out), and tried to convince the other editors that I
had "cherry-picked", or carefully gone through many
research papers and specifically chose only those studies which
supported my ideas????? - Note, it was WhatamIdoing's choice,
and my research wasn't mentioned in it.
Here are the exact words
that WhatamIdoing wrote on the Conflict of interest number 2
page to get me blocked . . . "As for cherry-picking: He lists a BMJ (Heart) paper that
discusses the history of the syndrome, but skips the letter
published in response that says it's all a bunch of
garbage . . . I'm at the "give up" level with this
editor. I do not
think that Posturewriter has an interest in contributing
anything other than his original research" signed WhatamIdoing, at 19:20
on 15-5-2008.
Two months later, when
I criticised them on an RFC page for misrepresenting Oglesby
Paul's article again, I wrote these words . . . "Oglesby
Paul was a Harvard researcher whose history of all of the important
research controversies of Da Costa's syndrome was presented in
the British Heart Journal . . . and another editor had placed
it as a reference number 1 . . . before I reviewed it"
signed Posturewriter 10:39 27-July
2008
WhatamIdoing gave the following
response . . . "Oglesby Paul's paper is a review . . . .BTW
(by the way) I
added it".
signed WhatamIdoing 00:50, 28
July 2008 (note
that WhatamIdoing acknowledged adding it to the reference list which means that they knew all the time that it was not
put there by me, and
that my use of it had
absolutely nothing to do with cherry-picking, original research,
or conflict of interest.
WhatamIdoing also knew that the reference was no 'garbage'.
Here is a quote
from the Wikipedia page on Civility (good manners when dealing
with others) "Editors should always endeavor to treat each
other with consideration and respect" . . . and it gives
some examples of uncivil behavior . . .
"Lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information".
Incidentally, when an editor
makes a comment, especially a harsh one, they are supposed to
verify it, but WhatamIdoing did not provide a citation to support
the statement that someone else called Oglesby Paul's article
garbage. However, in a later edition of the British Heart Journal,
Volume 59, p.727-8 Jenny C. King and P.G.F. Nixon wrote a letter
in the Correspondence section, that was critical of his article,
but did not use the words "all a bunch of garbage".
The
Conflict of Interest allegation (COI)
My two critics repeatedly accused me of conflict
of interest related to my own theory despite the fact that there
has been no mention of it, or link to it by me since it was deleted
about a year ago, during which time I have been adding to the
history of the topic.
e.g. on the Requests for arbitration page
where I was banned e.g.
The
user conduct RFC concluded that he should find other editing
interests and avoid editing articles where a COI applied"Gordonofcartoon 17:48, 26 January 2009"
. . . those words can be seen here
On the next day, on the same arbitration
page, WhatamIdoing states "So Posturewriter
cites his own self-published book (He stopped using the DCS article as a coatrack
to publicize his own theory on Wikipedia when an admin promised to block him if he does
it again) . . . WhatamIdoing 20:25,27 January 2009" . . . here
On 27 March 2008, ten months earlier, on the COI number 1
page Gordonofcartoon wrote the following words about
me . . . "In December/January he was warned about the COI of having
inserted a self-reference into the article - see Talk:Da Costa's
syndrome#Banfield - and it was removed by consensus. However, his subsequent edits invariably add material relating to breathing-related
studies, which comes across as WP:SYNTH supporting his own theory (even though it's no
longer explictly mentioned). Gordonofcartoon 12:09, 27 March 2008 herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
. . .
Note Gordonofcartoon's ridiculous attempt
at disrupting my contributions by suggesting that a reference
about breathlessness was synthesis of my theory, when it is the
main symptom of the ailment in 93% of cases according to Paul
Wood O.B.E. - No-one could write about Da Costa's syndrome without
mentioning breathlessness, and one of my critcs favorite modern
label's was hyperventilation syndrome????
Note these words of another
editor on the COI number 2 page . . .
"I don't care what he may have done half a year
ago. He does not need to be stopped, since he is not promoting
anything or adding any original research to the article now". Guido den Broeder 17:29: 20 May 2008 here
Interest
in a subject does not equate with Conflict of Interest
The fact that
someone is interested in a subject, and that they have extensive
knowledge of it does not justify accusations of Conflict of Interest.
If it did doctors would not be able to add content to medical
topics, and historians would not be able to add to history articles.
In fact, no expert would be able to contribute to Wikipedia because
they virtually all favor their own personal or group views. It
is extremely offensive to say that because they have knowledge
of the subject they are incapable of discussing it objectively.
My critics are implying that they themselves are objective, but
that is brought into question as evident from them resorting
to foul language and rule-breaking practices to get their way.
However, when they deleted the small number of references to
my own theory, I started supplying information from verifiable,
independent, peer-reviewed sources, and that is essentially all
that I am required to do according to an objective assessment
of policy. The fact that my two critics choose to nitpick finer
policy details to disrupt that process is evidence of their lack
of objectivity, not mine. Re: they may try to convince every
one else that my ideas are wrong. That is their petulant choice.
However, if they try to discredit the facts that I provided from
Paul Dudley White etc. they are just making fools of themselves.
They are also implying that I need Wikipedia to promote my own ideas
and that rejection from Wikipedia is something that I am supposed
to attach great importance to. Whilst it may be an advantage,
I don't need to do that because I have been commenting for 30
years, and on average one in three of my essays and one in four
of my letters to the editor section of newspapers have been published,
so acceptance is common for me, and so is rejection. Just par
for the course. I am also accustomed to people who matter of
fact, or courteously, and often agreeably comment on my essays,
and those who are argumentative and hostile. Again, it is just
the way it is. Nothing special or new. I have also been a critic
of my own critics and I actually feel confident in situations
which many people would find difficult to deal with, so it is
a matter of horses for courses. Some people are good at criticsing
others, and some are good at dealing with criticism. I am good
at both.
The following quote comes from an editor named Atama on the Conflict of Interest policy talk page 18 months after I was banned . . . "Nobody has ever been blocked for violating WP:COI and I don't think there's any reason they should be. Having a conflict of interest in and of itself isn't against any "rule" on Wikipedia . . . We have plenty of perfectly productive accounts who operate without any problems on Wikipedia despite having a COI. -- Atama? 18:27, 27 August 2010
This was my main critics two-faced response . . . "I agree that the problem is abusing a conflict of interest, not merely having a conflict of interest. It would be unfortunate indeed if well-intentioned, non-disruptive editors were blocked over merely having a conflict of interest. We'd lose most of our subject matter experts (and semi-experts)." WhatamIdoing 19:23, 27 August 2010
See Atama's comment, and WhatamIdoiong's reply here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=381354370
Criticism
of me promoting my own theory???
I added a few paragraphs of information
about my own theory and research to the Da Costa's syndrome page,
and abbreviated it between December
2007 and January 2008, and didn't
mention it again because of the
generally ill-mannered criticism by my two critics. I also added a sentence or a paragraph of information to five other
pages. Since then I have added more than 60 references about
the history of Da Costa's syndrome from top quality independent
sources that comply with Wikipedia policy. However, the criticism
continued and never ceased. Here is a brief example of WhatamIdoing's
attempt to argue with an editor who said that my contributions
were very good quality. The typically hostile comments are
from an MFD page on 27-7-08, six months later) . . .
"All of his contributions
outside of Da Costa's syndrome have been reverted. Here's the
complete list . . . Human position -- add his own website
(where you can order his self-published book). It's removed as
spam. (March 2007) . . . Chest pain -- add his
personal theory. It's removed. (Nov 2007) . . . Chronic
fatigue syndrome -- add his personal theory. It's removed
within minutes. Repeat. (Nov 2007) . . . Varicose veins -- add, and claim non-existent "ref.26". It's removed.
(Dec 2007) . . . Kyphosis -- add his personal theory.
It's removed. (Dec 2007) . . . Da Costa's syndrome -- Add his personal theory. Cite
self. It's removed. Add personal website. It's removed. Add some
history and parts of his personal theory. Cite favorite primary
sources. It's heavily edited. Complain. Add exhaustive catalog
of every single primary source that might support personal
POV. It's
deleted. Complain.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat " WhatamIdoing 23:50, 27 July 2008
I continued to add information
from top quality 'secondary' sources for the next six months but the more reliable they were, and the more
independent they were, and the more modern they were, the more
hostile my two critics became until they wanted me blocked from
every topic and then banned from Wikipedia.
Note that WhatamIdoing tried to create and inflate the illusion that I was causing trouble for many other editors
continuously for six months by mentioning all five articles that I had added a sentence of
paragraph to six months earlier, and then wrote "It's deleted. Complain. Repeat. Repeat.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat".
However, in fact, tI only contributed to five other pages, and only made one more
comment on one of them in the recent six months, and
most of the newer references on the Da Costa's page were secondary sources, not primary
sources.
They wanted
me banned for being a 'single purpose account', a SPA, with a 'conflict
The real reason for me continuing to edit the page about Da Costa's syndrome was to stop them from filling it with lies and misrepresentation.
My thousand page book discussed dozens
of different illnesses, not just one, and while I was in Wikipedia
I contributed to six different topic pages. One of them was the
varicose veins page where I added information about tight leg
garters being a cause. It was deleted on the grounds of me not
adding the reference properly. However, I was new to Wikipedia,
and experienced editors are supposed to assist me in that aspect
of editing, and they were violating another policy by deleting
an "OBVIOUS" cause without discussing it first. Nevertheless,
I didn't criticise them, but I did provide another source which
was a university and general practitioners reference book from
1951, and another editor deleted it for being 'unreliable'????.
I could have gone back to the page and explained that garters
had gone out of fashion, and that there was not likely to be
anything in modern text books about it, but I came to the conclusion
that the editors who deleted the information were friends of
my two critics or had the same attitude, and would find a reason
for deleting everything I added just because I wrote it.
My two critics started telling me that
I couldn't contribute to the Da Costa's page but could still
discuss their contributions on the talk page but each time they
lost arguments about the topic they became more resentful
and more determined to block me, and more restrictive about the
limitations. Eventually, twelve
months after all reference to my own research
had been deleted they told the arbitrators that I was a 'single purpose account'????? and that
they wanted a "broad???? topic ban" on me on pages about 1. Da Costa's syndrome,
2. chronic fatigue syndrome, 3. varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to????? 4. human posture,
".
See the last sentence in WhatamIdoings statement here
At that time I thought that
they were being extremely petulant and childish. They were telling
the arbitrators that they wanted a broad topic ban, but their implied message
to me was that they were powerful and influential editors and
they were never going to let me contribute to any pages.
SPA policy?
They wanted to get me banned before I started editing the next topic
The idea that I have only one interest in one topic is ridiculous, because I have knowledge of many illnesses, and other topics unrelated to medicine. My main critic knew that I had finished the article about Da Costa's syndrome, and was about to start on any one of 100 other topcis.
Here are some relevant quotes from the Wikipedia polilcy pages about 'Single Purpose Accounts' . . ."New users will commence editing on topics that interest them. Such accounts will warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of something they canot have known previously" . . . "they may also have found the article in a bad state with a deletion notice and think they can improve it instead of simply wiping the knowledge. Labelling a user with 'single-purpose account' in such a discussion is not done without some concern as to either their knowledge of wikipedia policies, or their edits." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account&diff=prev&oldid=187624421
Their COI argument and the Travelling
Topic Ban
After he lost several content disputes
against me, and failed to win arguments on several other discussion
pages that he set up, Gordonofcartoon responded with spite and
revenge by setting up an RFC with his repeatedly
failed objective written near the top of the page in these words
. . .
"Desired outcome: a topic ban on Da Costa's syndrome" signed Gordonofcartoon 18:16
on 20-7-08
I had two critics who always tag teamed
together, and often made it easy for me to win arguments by contradicting
themselves and defeating each other.
These are the words from the policy page
that the other one edited . . . "The Rfc process cannot impose involuntary
sanctions on a user, such as WP:Blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing
voluntary agreements and collecting information." Signed WhatamIdoing 20:55 on 22-12-09
Here are some more words from the same
page . . . "RFC's brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted"(end of quote)
Their
Conflict of interest argument, and their traveling topic ban
I wrote a theory about posture and Da Costa's syndrome more than thirty years ago,
and later wrote a thousand page book about posture and health at the rate of about 150 pages per year for about
eight years, and during that time I documented how postural factors
influenced more than 100 different ailments from back and chest
pains, to stomach and kidney pains, to breathlessness, faintness,
and fatigue etc. The text was supported by 130 references from
all sources, including journals and books from most medical specialties,
and from public sources about health and society, and from each
decade for the previous hundred years, and then selective books
from previous centuries.
While I was in Wikipedia I had two critics
who were trying to pretend that they wanted me blocked from the
Da Costa's syndrome page because I had a conflict of interest
and was using it to promote my own theory. However, my own theory
was deleted from the Da Costa's page between December 2007 and
January 2008 and I didn't put it back again because of their
COI arguments, which I didn't think were valid, because they
were insulting me by suggesting that I was incapable of editing
objectively, but it was a part of policy, and I didn't want to
waste my time arguing with them about it.
Nevertheless Gordonofcartoon set up their first Conflict of interest discussion against me which consisted as a 1250 word discussion which involved him and me and only one other editor named EdJohnston, and was closed without a decision. After losing
some more arguments Gordonofcartoon set up their second Conflict of interest page which proceeded as a three thousand word discussion where he and WhatamIdoing were the only ones criticising
me, and were trying their hardest and arguing as fast as possible to get someone to ban me before I got there to defend myself. There were only two other editors involved and they included Guido Den Broeder who spent 90% of his time supporting me before my two critics accused him of having a Conflict
of interest and threatened to block
and ban him. The
only other editor was again EdJohnson who made a decision to block me before I arrived at the page.
I then joined the discussion and tried to defend myself but essentially
I knew that once a person makes a decision they will not upset their own pride by admitting that they were wrong.
Hence my only two critics were Gordonofcartoon
and WhatamIdoing, and the only admin who supported their
COI argument after
about 4000 words of hostile lies and criticism was EdJohnston.
My two critics constantly and repeatedly
used that decision to create the false impression in all future discussions that I was starting the arguments which they
called edit wars, and they used these words . . . "Every
single correction or discussion was met with a hostile litany of complaints", and
that I was "exhausting the patience" of dozens or hundreds
of rule-abiding editors from the entire Wikipedia community,
and they would write words like this which I paraphrase . . .
"'we've tried COI number 1 and 2 but "all editors"
concerned were getting fed up with his constantly disruptive
behavior and personal attacks on respectable editors'.
They had been arguing that I should not
add information about my own theory, and then proceeded to argue
something like this . . . when I said OK here is some information
from the 1940's and 50's about the history they said that I should
not add information about breathlessness because it supports
my theory, so I said OK here are some references of a general
nature by Paul Dudley White from 1951 etc., and then they said
that my references were out-of-date and unreliable, so I said
politely OK, one of the references that you provided was by Oglesby
Paul from 1987, so it must comply with policy, and I have reviewed
it, and they said Oglesby Paul was just some guy who wrote an
ordinary review which 'we' don't blather on about, and we need
references published in the last five years, so I said politely,
OK here's ten, and then they set up an arbitration page. They
told those editors that I was an uncivil, tendentious and disruptive
editor who never takes advice and that . . . "every single
discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints. The article's
talk page and his own talk page is filled with endless arguments
about every single point. The article is full of edit wars as
he tries to force unreliable and misrepresented sources into
it."(end of quote).
WhatamIdoing ends by by telling the arbitrators
this . . . "I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue
syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related
to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome."
signed WhatamIdoing 20:25 27-1-09.
They were trying to give the ridiculous
impression that they would accept my contributions if they were
not about those topics. However, if I then added something about
another subject they would say predictably . . . "by the
way we also want him banned from adding everything about medical
topics, and then . . . by the way we want him to be banned from
adding everything about everything".
You would need to have a highly developed
sense of humor to see how ridiculous they were.
You would also need to read everything
from the start to see how they followed me around to ensure that
everything that I wrote was deleted, and how they were selecting
and interpreting dozens of different policies to use as their
excuses.
Age and Experience, and their 'trumped up' COI arguments
(the issue that my two critics didn't want to talk about)
WhatamIdoing had been pretending
to use policy reasons to get other editors to badger me for information
about myself, but it was actually for the real purpose of stitching
up a long list of replies that could be used to falsely
accuse me of repeated "Conflict of interest", and repeated "Self-promotion".
I provided information
about a research programme that I designed about thirty years
ago, in 1982,
which WhatamIdoing has read often, and repeatedly pestered
me about. Therefore, at an early stage, I became interested
in how old that person was, so I had a look at their UserPage which included the following statement . . .
"This user is a member of Generation X".
Generation
X refers to people born between 1961 and 1981.
WhatamIdoing was also very "skilled"
and "experienced" at misrepresenting things, and at
17:20 on 17-1-09 came to my User page to insult me with these
words . . . "Please quit leaving nasty comments on
my User talk page" (end of quote),
Note that my two critics often
used childish expressions "such as "oops" - to indicate
a mistake, and "yup" - to state agreement, and "Aaaargh" to show anger, and
"nasty" to show offence?
I therefore gave the following
reply . . . "You are younger than me, but you are stil an adult, so please stop using childish expressions such as "nasty"on my talk page".
At 20:31 on 2-2-09 WhatamIdoing
misrepresented some more information about me and ended with
the signature - "WhatamIdoing", followed by these words
. . . "who is distinctly middle-aged by the way".
That individual knew that I had
been banned on 28-1-09 and would not be able to reply, and thought
that it was safe to give other editors the ridiculous impression
that I was not aware of that obvious fact.
The value of editors using the score sheet method
When my two critics deleted everything I wrote on the grounds of 'conflict of interesst' or that it took up too much space etc. I set up a new page on my website and cut and pasted all of the deleted information there.
I then began looking for information from top quality independent research papers. For example, I would find about 20 per week and read the abstract or the first paragraph. Fifteen would be irrelevant or not good enough, so they would go straight into the bin. I would then read the remaining five articles and throw them in the bin. The remaining three would be relevant or excellent so I would write a few paragraphs of summary for each, and add about an A4 page of text in total.
On Friday I would check it and think about it, and on Saturday I would select the best article and abbreviate it to perhaps one paragraph of very accurate, relevant, and precise information. I would check it, and post it onto the Wikipedia page on Sunday, so essentially, I was trying to do one good edit per week. However I would then check it in Wikipedia, and sometimes found an error, or decide to add a sentence, or fix a link, or add a reference. It would therefore appear in the history of edits as a total of 2 or 3 edits per week, or 150 per year.
My two critics had me on their watchlist, and were obviously checking that page as their first task of the day, because they would sometimes invent an excuse for deleting it within a few minutes. They would then spend the remainder of the day fixing 10 spelling errors, or adding their opinions to 20 other topics discussions, or add 20 templates to pages etc, and could easily add 100 to 300 routine edits per day to their score to get a total exceeding 4000 edits per year.
In summary, I was only doing 150 edits per year, but my main critic was adding more than 4000, and was telling the other editors that I wasn't doing enough to be regarded as valuable to Wikipedia, and that Da Costa's syndrome was only a minor topic that didn't deserve their time and effort when they were busy dealing with other more important articles. For example see here
Directly opposing Conflicts of interest
Apart from all other considerations, and from an entirely neutral point of view, there are two obvious opposing conflicts of interest for the information about health that is likely to be put in Wikipedia, or deleted from it.
For example, in any controversial or obscure health topics there will be patients who would add information which confirmed or proved that there was a scientific basis for their symptoms because it would bring an end to them being ridiculed as having trivial or imaginary ailments, and as having to deal with the indignity of having a mental disorder. That information would also make it a lot easier for them to claim compensation, insurance payouts, or pensions etc.
By stark contrast there would be many organizations who were responsible for making financial payments to such patients, and they would be motivated to hide or delete such information, and then argue that there is no scientific basis for the patients 'subjective' symptoms or their 'self-reports' of health problems. They would also want people to believe that they had 'honorable' or 'respectable' reasons for deleting such information, so they would argue that it might make the patients worry, or make their mental disorder worse. They would then place the burden of proof on the patient without mentioning that the proof had been hidden.
If you now have another look at what happened while I was in Wikipedia you will see that my two critics were arguing that I had to be blocked or banned for having a conflict of interest, so they would ignore the fact that the information that I provided was from independently verifiable sources. They would also tell all of the other editors where they could find personal information about me, but when I asked them to reveal their own personal identity, and disclose their conflict of interest, they acted with feigned indignation and argued that they were very respectable and experienced editors who had established trust and didn't need to. They also failed to mention that they told an enormous amount of lies - which is not a respectable or trustworthy thing to do.
At the same time they were systematically deleting almost all scientific evidence of a physical causes such as the research of Cohen and White which reported that all of the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were not just the 'subjective' complaints of patients but actually did have a scientifically proven physical of physiological basis. They also argued that Edmund Wheeler's independent 20 year follow up study of 173 patients, which showed the chronic nature of the ailment, was just the 'self-reports' of patients and that it was therefore unreliable so they deleted it.
While they were deleting all scientific evidence of a physical cause they seeded the article with psychiatric labels and inferences and added a link to the category of 'somatoform disorders'. This is a quote from the Wikipedia page about "Somatoform disorder" . . . "a mental disorder characterized by physical symptoms that mimic physical disease or injury for which there is no identifiable physical cause." (end of quote) See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somatoform_disorder&diff=391273557&oldid=388834097
What they want the other editors to believe is that I was being evil and disruptive for adding scientific evidence of physical cause, and that they were being honorable and respectable for deleting it and hiding it from the Wikipedia readers.
In my observation most patients are honest and trusting individuals who are waiting for someone in authority to accept the existing level of scientific evidence of cause, or to find it soon, and they are not aware of the opposing influences.
However the organizations who are trying to hide that knowledge have enormous financial resources and could easily fund highly paid agents to control the type of information that the public gets to see.
This brings up a third group with a conflict of interest, namely the paid agents of those organisations, and those who see some sort of social advantage in assisting them.
To some extent those agents could use Wikipedia to suppress knowledge, and to keep it suppressed by denying the human right to freedom of speech, and oppress entire classes of people.
The Self-identification Issue
See also here
My main critic resents being asked to give her real name, and insists that she has a right to remain anonymous, but she spent 12 months telling everyone my real name, and insulting me at every opportunity. She is obviously a sly and disgustingly craven person who enjoys hiding behind a silly mask while using her 'attitude readjustment tools' as a form of internet harassment on anyone who disagrees with her personal opinions about what should or should not be in Wikipedia. She writes and changes the policies, and adds loopholes into as many of them as she can to make it easier to identify the real names of other individuals. e.g. See here
However, she 'obviously; won't ever be writing a policy which bans 'Double Standards'. See also here and here
*******
On the 8th August 2008, a neutral editor named SmokeyJoe wrote these words addressed to me. . .
"I'll agree with you with you that all editors editing in areas related to their professional interests should explicitly declare their interests.
An hour later Gordonofcartoon gave this reply . . . "Nobody else is obliged to demonstrate a thing. See here
They refused to give their own real identity
At one stage I learned that my
two critics had been in Wikipedia for about four years and had
accrued 20000 edits between them, so I had a closer look. I
noticed an example when WhatamIdoing did more than 300 edits in one day that spanned 16 hours, and that it was not uncommon
for that person to do more than 100 edits in one day. I therefore
considered the possibility that such a person would be highly
paid to do that, or have a staff of three to six people to assist
them with that volume of edits.
Also, on 20-7-08 Gordonofcartoon
added 15 edits in five and a half hours to set up an RFC page
against me.
I think that it is extremely
doubtful that anyone would spend that amount of time editing
for free so I asked them to tell me their conflict of interest
but they argued that I was violating the policy that says I have
to assume good faith in them.
I think that anyone who assumed
good faith under those circumstances would have to be called
naive, unless of course there was some independent investigation
to verify it.
Note that they were quite liberal
in their questions to me about who I was, and my research and
publications, and they even asked me to tell 'more' about myself
on several occasions, and I answered them politely, only to be
told over and over again that I had a conflict of interest. They
even used my personal Sir name as the title of a section at the top of the main page where
they criticised me here, and they kept telling all of the other editors
those personal details to build prejudice against me.
However when I asked questions
about who they were and what conflict of interest they had they
acted with hostility as if I was being deliberately offensive???
Their double standards were extreme and offensively ridiculous.
Here are some examples of that individual doing large numbers of edits per day . . .
Several hundred edits in a few days starting at 18:18 on 2 April 2010 here, and at 00:05 on 28 September 2010, and at 18:09 on 7 October 2010 here, and 17:37 on 10 Novermber 2010 here, and 29 November 2010 here, and starting at 18:09 on 7 October 2010 here
My main critic arrogantly refused to give her real identity
My main critic had the odd Wikipedia ID of WhatamIdoing. That editor wrote this about me at 00:54 on 21 July 2009. . .
"I'm not prepared to quite being anonymous. See this page (and others on the same site, e.g., [5]). Would any rational person want to make their identity available to a person like this? . . . I edit Wikipedia to get away from my real world commitments." (end of quote) See here.
This is my comment . . . If that editor wants to cravenly hide behind the mask of an anonymous ID, while demanding that new contributors reveal their true identity, and or, while directing other editors to that information at every opportunity, then this is what I suggest - If they don't have the courage of their convictions then they are not in a position to have any credibility when judging the character of other individuals.
I can also use the same tactic of my main critic by giving this response . . . "Would any rational person want to make their identity available to Wikipedia if they were given advance knowledge that some of the established editors treat it as an internet video game, and think that it is humorous to refer to other contributors, as "newbies", "bastards", "jerks", ""little shits", and "easy prey". See the Wikipedia page here.
The existence of that page is justified on the grounds that it is obvious satire and humour. However, it is equally obvious that any experienced editor who has come across it could use it as an 'instruction sheet', and that WhatamIdoing has made a minor edit on it, and used it to perfection. See the discussion about that page here
This is the opinion of another contributor named LeadSongDog. . . "As pseudonymous editors, we have no independent credibility. The reader can only trust the article if it can be verified in reliable sources. Sometimes we get so caught up in details we forget that. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:26, 3 November 2010 See here
No Personal Attacks policy WP:NPA
See also my report about their use of the No Personal Attacks Policy here
My report about the use of persnal names, and breeches of privacy can be seen here
One of their ridiculous COI arguments
I only had two editors making a lot of fuss to promote their own point of view on the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and they would issue a lot of threats and warnings and try to get someone to agree with them, and use it as an excuse to delete perfectly valid and verifiable facts provided by me.
This was one of Gordonofcartoon's ridiculous rants about me . . . "In December/January he was warned about the COI of having inserted a self-reference into the article - see Talk:Da Costa's syndrome#Banfield - and it was removed by consensus. However, his subsequent edits invariably add material relating to breathing-related studies, which comes across as WP:SYNTH supporting his own theory (even though it's no longer explicitly mentioned). Is this sufficiently close a COI to expect that he shouldn't edit the article directly?" Gordonofcartoon 12:09, 27 March 2008
Here a a few facts . . . In their very first pompous comments of the talk page they said that Da Costa's was just 'garden variety' hyperventilation syndrome, and later that it was text-book perfect hyperventilation syndrome, and later that they favored the 'opinions' of Jenny Craig who wrote a research paper about hyperventilation syndrome, and they said that all of the symptoms could be explained by hyperventilation.
At one stage one of them used a link to a book called "Behavioral and psychological
approaches to breathing disorders"
This was their words . . . "New source . . . ISBN 0306444461 has information about how the disease has been reinterpreted over time. Table 1 on page 127 may be particularly useful . . . Much of the relevant chapter is accessible via Google Books: see Psychiatric and Respiratory Aspects of Functional Cardiovascular Syndromes." WhatamIdoing 00:58, 28 July 2008
I found it via the Google search engine, but noticed that it was from 1994, and if I used something from that period it would have been deleted as being old and out-of-date. it is for sale at $80 so someone is making money out of it, which violated the conflict of interest guidelines. It contains over 300 pages with the first 160 pages free to read, and the remaining 140 pages are blank. It is not available in Australia so the only way to read the whole book is to buy it, which makes it difficult for neutral editors to check and verify.
Page 127 has a list of alternative labels for Da Costa's syndrome, however most people may not be able to see it because I have noticed some changes on the number of pages which are free to view. I did however notice, before some changes were made, that the table of contents included Posture for page 169. and Clothing for page 170.
My two critics were pests who told me to delete information about my theory so I abbreviated it and they deleted it again so I couldn't be bothered putting it back, but they kept on telling other editors that I was promoting it anyway, and they tried to stop me from writing about the cause of breathlessness, which is the main symptom. They chose reference and selected page numbers or details that pushed their own point of view, and childishly deleted or failed to mention, or hid anything which verified my theory.
They were so stupid that even when I wasn't trying to promote my own theory they were selecting references that did it for me.
(There is the posibility that other authors have copied aspects of The Posture Theory without acknowledging the source. It was published as an essay in 1980, and the first three editions of my book were published between January and October 1994, and included chapters and illustrations about tight waisted corsets and breathing disorders)
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.2s_syndrome
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Banfield
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Physical_v_psychosomatic
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#New_source
The
control of content in Wikipedia using puppets???
After I started adding information to the
Da Costa's syndrome page it soon became apparent that I had two
critics who were trying to control the content by deleting everything
that I added and replacing it with their own biased opinions.
About six months later two neutral editors offered me the opportunity
of writing the entire essay a second time on
a subpage where they would assist me in making it comply with all policies. I therefore spent several weeks rewriting
the article, and posted it to the subpage. One of the neutral
editors was intelligent, articulate, co-operative, constructive,
and genuine, and described it as "a lot better" than
the existing one, and the process of improving it continued harmoniously
until the first section had been satisfactorily rewritten by
him, but then he asked me to slim down and rewrite the remaining
history, and transfer some of the information to other sections.
Essentially, he asked me to rewrite most of the article for a third time. During those discussions I was responding to
a lot of his questions and became suspicious that one of my earlier
critics had suggested the ideas to annoy me and waste my time.
I soon found that the editor called WhatamIdoing had cut and
pasted my whole essay onto another page and invented more than
80 faults in it, and was then using their own talk page as the
venue for telling Avnjay that everything I wrote was 'a
disaster'.
I then knew that WhatamIdoing was trying
to control content by using the neutral editor as a puppet.
In other words, WhatamIdoing had a track record of inventing
a never ending series of objections to my contributions, and
by later providing a page of 80 things to change, and another
page of relentless criticisms, Avnjay would read them and then
ask me to rewrite everything, without knowing that the intention
was to annoy me and ensure that my article was never finished
or accepted.
In an earlier discussion with my two critics
an anonymous editor deleted the whole page of text and replaced
it with the words "I love cheeseburgers". I suspected
that one of them had gone to their local library and deleted
the article without using their Wikipedia ID. However, when I
mentioned it they both denied it, and made various plausible
excuses. I later found out that such anonymous editing by one
person trying to hide their ID is a common problem in Wikipedia,
and is called sock puppetry. Also, they could have sent
private emails to their interstate or international friends and
asked them to do the deletions anonymously, or with a different
ID, in which case the recruited editors are called Meatpuppets.
Another example is where one person is having difficulty controlling
content on a topic page, so they will go to six of their local
libraries and register six different ID's and then edit the same
page to create the illusion that there is a consensus of seven
people who think that their opponent is wrong, and then use that
consensus as an excuse to make deletions. When groups of 'experienced'
editors or administrators do that they are called cabals.
The whole purpose of using puppets is to hide what is actually
going on behind the scenes, but as they say 'if it looks like
a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably
a duck'.
***
Another example would be where other websites
are used as internet puppets to make their content look
consistent with the descriptions on a particular topic page in
Wikipedia so that it could be used as a reference. Such websites
invite anyone to help them improve their content, so they could
be influenced, or directly edited by my two critics who often
do more than twenty edits a day in Wikipedia, and could easily
do an extra few edits on other sites. One such website that they
used as a reference was 'whonamedit.com'. This is a quote from
it's home page . . . "We need your help . . . Many biographical
entries are incomplete . . . We are grateful for any help in
filling in the gaps and getting things right. You will reach
the editor through the Contact function on the left side of this
page" (end of quote). Of course the editors on that site
may not be aware of the motives behind the people who are 'helping'
them.
For a video on paid editing, and content manipulation and control in Wikipedia see here
The double standards in COI and Paid editing
In the 1980's I would write letters to newspapers or phone talk back radio shows and often criticise large corporations who were making profits at the expense of public health.
The typical example was the tobacco company executives who didn't smoke themselves and thought that the only people who did were the stupid, the poor, the uneducated, the female, and the blacks etc.
They would also pay scientists, or set up their own laboratories to do studies which shed doubt on the independent findings.
Their stooges would then argue that there was no scientific proof that smoking caused lung cancer etc.
I would tell the public that you can't trust the tobacco companies because they want profits, not public health, and you can't trust the scientists because they are being paid to find what the tobacco industry wants them to say, and you can't trust the media because they were being paid millions of dollars each year in advertising revenue.
Essentially there are a vast number of organisations who use science and the media to distort the facts in their own favor at the expense of public health. For example, car companies will hide the fact that their vehicles have a defect which is resulting in deaths, and chemical companies will report that toxic spills are harmless etc.
Some of the 'typical' arguments were that the scientists were intelligent, highly educated, honest, and reliable professionals who based their opinions on 'objective' studies. and that the victims were unqualified, and didn't understand scientific principles, and were just giving unreliable "one off' 'anecdotal reports', or that their problems were 'all in the mind' etc.
As you can appreciate, I was trying to help the public by informing them of the plain fact that you can't believe everything that you are told in the name of science.
By stark contrast, when I was in Wikipedia I was confronted by two editors who were trying to do the exact opposite.
They were arguing that scientists employed by large corporations are highly trained and experienced and that Wikipedia needs their expert contributions, and that individuals who suffer from diseases are unreliable sources of information because they aren't qualified and have a conflict of interest which requires them to be blocked from pages about that ailment. They also use sly innuendo's and sometimes blatant comments about the intelligence or mental status of individuals, and link to pages such as "Wikipedia is not therapy".
Here is a quote from Wikipedia as of 32-5-11, about the problem of allowing paid employees to edit . . .
"Disruptive Tactics . . . Some of tactics used by paid editors not getting their way include the Following; disruption, personal attacks against opposing editors, attempting to use made-up words or Corp-speak to confuse editors away from the problem, and gaming the system." See here
|
Who's paying and who is being paid?
Wikipedia was set up as a volunteer organisation but now has paid editors, but as far as I am aware they do not reveal who is being paid, or what their allegiances or other conflicts of interest are, or how much they are being paid?
The various discussions and policies now condone many types of paid editing by corporations and governments who employ staff to edit Wikipedia to ensure it reflects their interests favorably, and yet those employees are not required to tell us their real identities, or who is paying them or how much they are being paid, and what their employers objectives and instructions were.
COI contradictions: volunteers or paid editors?
This is a quote from a guideline that WhatamIdoing added to the page called "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" at 05:29 on 5th July 2010 . . .
"Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish". See here
The following words come from an earlier discussion between an editor named Will Beback and WhatamIoing on 30th October 2009 . It was about people who have a paid job with a company or government, which involves spending some of their working hours editing Wikipedia.
WhatamIdoing gave "a personal opinion" with these words . . . "Except, of course, that they are getting paid for doing a job, and that job (at least in their own interpretation) results in Wikipedia being edited. Some people will consider this 'paid editing', others won't" 01:43, 30 October 2009 See here
Here is a quote from the official "Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline)" . . . "Paid editing, broadly construed, is any editing where an editor is being compensated in some way, e.g. employees and contractors for money". See here
This is a quote from another page called "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)" which WhatamIdoing added at 5:00 on 29th August 2010.
"We do not have a complete ban on paid editing" See WP:PAID for links to the two (currently unapproved) proposals, both of which would permit some kinds of paid editing. See [[WP:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project]] for one example of paid editors that the community is—far from "completely banning them"—grateful to have helping us." WhatamIdoing 05:00, 29-8-10 See here
WhatamIdoing made some amendments to the following section of a page called "Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project" at 4:54 on 19th August 2010.
"Initiated at Google.org and then announced at the doctors' mess, this collaboration is intended as an exploration of active cooperation between professional medical editors (hired by the Google Foundation) and any interested Wikipedians to further improve the quality of articles selected by the Google Foundation. Work began with the identification of a short list of articles for review, selected as a cross-section of medicine-related topics. Each article on the list now has an assessed "Class" and "Importance", harvested from its talk-page banner, reflecting Wikipedians' initial assessment of their state. Google reviewers review the articles, identify problems, and make suggestions for improving the articles." See here
At 22:55 on 3rd October 2010. WhatamIdoing wrote another comment on a page called Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard . . . "The fact that the website is for-profit is absolutely irrelevant. We want the best experience for the readers, regardless of whether someone's making money". WhatamIdoing 22:55, 3 October 2010"
You can see how insidious and nitwitted my man critic is in this contradictory quote from 06:02 on 2-10-10 during a discussion on the Verifiability talk page . . . "The classic "third party" in a dispute is the judge before whom a lawsuit is being presented. Wikipedia doesn't want to be written from the perspective of either the "plaintiff" or the "defendant". e.g., we don't want to write "Microsoft, according Microsoft's marketing department", or "Algebra textbooks, according to textbook publishers". We want Microsoft and Textbook according to people who aren't getting paid (or some other benefit) for promoting (or denigrating ) these things." WhatamIdoing 06:02, 2 October 2010. See here
This is another editors comments about paid editing from the page called "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)"
"NOOOOOOOO Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on financial gain, this proposal runs against the very core ideas of what it is we are doing here. There should never be a profit motive involved, I can only imagine the terrible mess this would make of this entire project. Wikipedia is not even remotely the same thing as YouTube, thankfully. Beeblebrox 20:32, 23 August 2010" See here
For more information related to who would pay people to edit Wikipedia See here
The Paid Editing policy which "failed", or was "quietly" subverted?
The proposed policy for banning paid editing was strongly endorsed by the founder, "Jimbo Wales", but my main critic, an extremely arrogant and manipulative editor who is trying to control Wikipedia, left this comment on the paid editing policy page at 05:16 on 30 December 2010 . . . "Failed to gain consensus in a reasonable period of time", and a few minutes later, at 05:24 . . . "No longer proposed". That editor also left the following comments of the paid editing guideline page at 5:27 on the same day, '''for the failed policy proposal see Wikipedia Paid editing (policy)
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(policy)&diff=404943495&oldid=404942471
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(guideline)&diff=404943795&oldid=404943751
The founder, Jimbo Wales, wrote this at the top of the policy page . . . "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok!. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all humnan knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose.
— Jimbo Wales."
This was part of the proposed policy . . . "Prohibited paid editing" . . . "Paid advocacy is any contribution or edit to Wikipedia content that advocates for your employer's point of view. Advocacy of any sort is prohibited by our policy on neutral point of view, anipaid advocacy is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. Editors such as employees of public relations firms, lobbyists and lawyers, who advocate for their clients outside of Wikipedia must be especially careful not to edit their client's articles on Wikipedia, as they may be presumed to be paid advocates . . .
"Undisclosed paid editing of policy pages, requests for deletion, requests for comment, peer review and similar pages is prohibited . . .
Advertising for paid editing services is prohibited. This includes advertising services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, or bureaucrat . . . bidding on advertised jobs to edit on behalf of, or to advocate for, the benefit of the employer, or actively seeking payment for taking on a particular position in any editorial decision, or policy dispute. Any of these activities may result in a block. . . Who is a paid editor? - a part time employee of a PR firm writes an article on one of the firm's clients. Even if the employee did not get a direct order to write the article, it can be presumed that the PR firm can exercise some control over the content of the article via the employee's paycheck.
A salesman, who is paid mainly by commission, writes an article calculated to increase his company's sales.
Since the article is expected to increase sales, and thus his pay in the form of commissions, he would be considered a paid editor . . . Prohibited activities . . . A political consulting firm or public relations firm hires an editor to edit Wikipedia articles to promote a particular view."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(policy)&diff=404943495&oldid=404942471
The founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, also left this comment on the topics talk page . . . "I just made some edits strengthening what has been written. Feel free to revert, these are not exactly *proposals* so much as an indication of my own views.
The best reason for any edit to Wikipedia is a passionate commitment to the facts of reality; anything else should be strongly discounted and it should be clear that dishonesty of any form, including as a simple sub-type paid advocacy, is a blockable offense.--Jimbo Wales 03:24, 25 August 2009 see here
Here is a comment from another editor . . . "How can we regulate what undisclosesd accounts do secretly?" Will Beback 18:06, 15 September 2009 . . .
and later this . . . "The reason we have both pages can be traced back to the disruptive influence of user:Benjiboi, who was working as a paid editor and was strongly opposed to any policy or guideline that disapproved of it" Will Beback 22:20, 15 December 2010 See here
The following comments come from a related page called "Paid editing/Requests for comment" . . .
"YellowMonkey gave an example of a known paid article on a businessman which did not contain details of lawsuits for fraud against the businessman; Fred Bauder felt that endorsement of paid advocacy opened the door to influencing Wikipedia content . . ."see here
Needless to say the individuals who would be most interested in ensuring that the policy for prohibiting paid editing "failed", would be highly trained professional advertisers or lobbyists, or their associates who know how to influence and control decisions. The people least likely to influence the policy are the genuine volunteers who aren't being paid and don't care, and who are more interested in adding content than bickering about policy, so they wouldn't see the importance of the issue. Of course, there would also be other individuals turning a blind eye to the difficult implications, and putting the issue into their 'too hard basket'.
With the failure of that policy the founding principles of Wikipedia have been, for all intents and purposes, sabotaged, and any new contributor can find themselves being opposed by teams of highly paid, highly organised anonymous individuals who have hidden agendas who are free to use merciless editing techniques such as can be seen here.
*****
It is rather obvious that many paid editors would have joined Wikipedia in the very early stages, and would have written policies to make it progressively easier for them to control the content in their particular area of interest. They would have also established unwritten relationships with other paid editors for their mutual benefit. For example, one of them might want to delete information or ban a 'newbie', and the other would stroll in and say . . 'by the way, I don't have anything to do with this subject generally, but I just come across it while fixing spelling errors. Does anyone mind if I add my two cents worth - ban the sucker.' A few months later that editor would return the favor and recommend the banning of another 'newbie'
Paid editors would also be lobbying furiously behind to scenes to stop anyone from introducing a policy to ban paid editing. Some of them would probably offer substantial bribes, bonuses, or rewards to anyone who blocked that policy, and say to any critics of the process . . . 'You are a very nasty person who must, must, must obey our 'assume good faith' policy that has been written by very respectable anonymous 'rule-abiding' editors who have acquired trust over many, many, many years.'
The New Group Dynamics or Structure of Wikipedia
When I joined Wikipedia I was, like most people, under the impression that it was an organisation of volunteers who had the objective of producing an encyclopedia with the largest volume, and broadest range of information, from all parts of society. However, I soon found myself in disputes with two ill-mannered and hostile individuals who were deleting verifiable facts and leaving behind a distorted view of the topic. I therefore became interested in how they could tell so many blatant lies and not be banned by the other editors.
This is my summary
Wikipedia began with the best of intentions, but has since been described as a human experiment, an animal farm, or an internet game, and I would describe it as an intellectual pyramid scheme where those who got there first get most of the benefits and acquire most of the power. I would also describe it as an edit war zone where people who have opposing interests compete to see whose view of the world is kept, and whose is removed. In many instances the ones who win are treating the public as if they are mushrooms by deleting some information (keeping them in the dark), and adding different information (feeding them on bullshit).
The edit wars have changed the power structure in the following manner.
The original founders of the project have delegated all of the responsibility to the volunteers. Now, anonymous editors are in control, and so, in effect, no-one is accountable for anything. The buck usually stops with the owner or the managing director, but in Wikipedia the buck stops nowhere.
The honest volunteers have been subordinated or defeated by corporations and governments who include the editing of Wikipedia in the written or unwritten job descriptions of paid staff, and who pay commissions and bonuses to any individuals who assist in the control of content.
The honest contributors have also been defeated by an assortment of sociopathic individuals who could be classified as status climbers, control freaks or power drunkards who are more interested in controlling other people than helping them.
Those individuals spend a lot of their time learning the policies, and influencing or rewriting, or re-interpreting them, to establish and maintain control, and their arguments can be summed up like this . . . If someone adds information that they don't want the readers to see they will present a plausible excuse for deleting it such as 'we have deleted it because it violates policy a, b, c, d, etc, etc. and they will replace it with information which they prefer.
Such editors will identify allies to assist them in gaining the illusion of independent support or consensus in disputes. They will also establish and maintain watchlists, and appoint watchers to ensure that such information, or the individuals who provide it do not get back in.
The second rung of power are the officially appointed paid editors such as medically qualified editors who are supposedly appointed to ensure that the medical information is reliable. However they have the ability to control medical information for any reason, which means, like any group, that they will favor any information that suits their own professions vested interests (they are a 1 in 1000 minority group). It also makes the fundamental principle of getting all information from all sources a falsehood, or a fraud.
The volunteers have therefore been reduced to the status of suckers who give information to Wikipedia for free without knowing that it can be deleted at will, and or, scattered about Wikipedia, and used in inappropriate ways to to suit the interests of the 'anonymous' information mercenaries.
The readers are mushrooms, who, by reading that encyclopedia, are seeing what the paid editors want them to believe. You might be able to get reliable information about the color of a butterflies wings, but you won't be able to learn anything reliable about controversial topics.
High school and university students have been told by many teachers and lecturers that if they use Wikipedia as a reference in any of their tests they will get an automatic fail.
Of course, I might alienate the honest contributors by criticising Wikpedia but that is not my intention. They should be on my side.
Addendum
The ultimate problem for Wikipedia would seem to be complacency, where the good editors don't think that they can do anything to stop the direction of the information juggernaut, and, or, that it has become too big to sink - like the Titanic. As if icebergs can all be dodged, and two holes in the side don't matter.
For example, it doesn't matter how good or bad an article is, if you type a topic word into the Google search engine then Wikipedia's article will probably come up as number 1. (Some of their editors have devious ways of reading and stealing information from every other website, and making it look like they weren't violating anyone else's copyright - in my case they deleted almost all of the information that I provided, on the grounds that it was nonsense, and yet, since then have scattered bits and pieces of that same information to about a dozen other topic pages in Wikipedia, and elsewhere).
If you want to find out if there is anything seriously wrong with Wikipedia, and you type the words 'Wikipedia criticism' into the Google search engine, you will see that Wikipedia's own article is number one, where it's own editors criticise it, but such an article should not exist because every editor who contributes to it is violating their own 'conflict of interest'. policy. You would expect them to argue that their are faults with Wikipedia, but only minor ones that don't matter.
There is even another website that questions whether it matters if Wikipedia is criticised or not. I could ask - will it make any difference if it's content is controlled by liars and rogues or not.
How to study independently and objectively
If you want to know how to study human group behaviour objectively I can't tell you because the two nitwits of Wikipedia would undermine the process, but without that knowledge written somewhere for them to repeat like dumb parrots they will be incapable of success. However I can give you some clues.
Firstly you should completely detach yourself from any personal involvement, which means that you treat any of their personal comments and insults with total disregard, and maintain your focus on their motives and behaviour. They won't want you to do that but keep studying and reporting on their behaviour. Report on the way they are interacting with other individuals or groups, and consider yourself to be just another individual, in fact, any other individual. A simple analogy would be to treat the whole process as if you are watching a television comedy, for example a parody of two political parties. As you KNOW one will say . . . 'Our very best members have studied the nations problems in great detail and have developed a solution.' A representative of the opposing party will immediately respond as if with amazingly instant assessment that their solution is flawed and will cost more than it is worth, and they will demand a new election so that they can be voted into power before the existing group of politicians ruins the country.
Exactly the same observation can be made with any two opposing groups, including individuals or groups within Wikipedia who will try to convince you that your selection of top quality references is wrong, and that their use of a children's fiction story is impeccable.
Also, if two individuals co-ordinate their efforts, they can be identified as a 'group of two'. or a tag team, and if they indiscriminately find fault with everything someone does (yourself), then report their 'indiscriminate', 'fault finding' 'team work', and their 'failure to annoy'.
If you just watch and report the events you will be humored and entertained by the predictable hi jinks, but if you become personally involved you are at risk of being discouraged and frustrated by all of the hackneyed and deliberately provocative bullshit.
The
Conflict of Interest in Political elections
Here is a discussion between an intelligent editor named Stevenmitchell and My duplicitous critic who is using an anonymous ID to conceal their hidden agenda. . .
Stevenmithcell wrote this . . . "Isn't it an obvious Conflict of Interest to have someone from a political candidate's office . . . who make . . . changes to his article. In particular, Isn't the removal of referenced material directly by the candidate's office (using the geolocate tool), a clear Conflict of Interest? Even without the Conflict of Interest, removing legitimately sourced information that reflects the content of what is said in the article(s) is in itself, anti-collaborative. However, coupled with the existing Conflict of Interest that all political candidates have (or actually their staff members which in this case are most likely paid - particularly with the exorbitant sums of money . . . why isn't there a prohibition or strong warning against political candidates or their offices (obviously supporters or opposition supporters would still be enabled to contribute) editing Wikipedia. I cannot think of a clearer Conflict of Interest, since they only get paid if they win (this Wiki article references the earnings incentive), and more importantly, there is an deeper incentive for those that will achieve power (the classic corrupter) that far exceeds remuneration. Shouldn't political candidates and their machines be singled out in this article as having a Conflict of Interest? Stevenmitchell 02:02, 5 November 2010
My main critic then gave this reply which is obviously self-serving double talk. . . First, the policy does not actually prohibit people with conflicts of interest from editing articles. It recommends against it, for a variety of real world reasons plus our own concerns about producing balanced articles, but sometimes the person with the COI is the best-informed editor. You would not, for example, want the article to contain inaccurate information simply because the person who corrected the name, birthdate, or other simple information was (or appeared to be) the subject of the article.
We want good, verifiable, balanced articles. If a person with a COI is able to help us achieve that goal, then we're okay with that. As a general rule, people with COIs aren't reliably helpful on that point (which is why we discourage it), but when the individual is, then they are permitted to be one of the "anyones" at "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
Second, do you think that our editors need to be explicitly told that politicians have a conflict of interest with respect to their own elections, or do you think that the typical editor could probably figure that out for himself? If you think the community is smart enough to identify that issue, then we don't really need to name it here." WhatamIdoing 02:17, 5 November 2010. See here
My response: My main critic is deliberately avoiding the real issues with COI. The only effective way of solving the conflict of interest problem is to make it compulsory for everyone to reveal their real life identity so that that no-one can hide behind a mask. The wearing of masks is the stereotypical behaviour of burglars and bank robbers who don't want to be identified for obvious reasons, and when they get caught they all say 'it wasn't me behind the mask, honest'. Also, it isn't appropriate for one group of editors to have "geolocate tools" while the other group is obsessively and compulsively defensive about their own precious privacy.
A situation in which my main critic can demand that an editor reveals their real life ID, and then tell every other editor where to find that personal information, while refusing to reveal their own is an offensive joke. It should be a case of reveal one, reveal all. Also, the conflict of interest policy violates the civility policy which requires editors to discuss content and not the person.
To put it more plainly - neutral point of view should be based on content, not on who writes it. i.e. not on the basis of prejudice.
Of course "the typical editor could probably figure that out for himself" but my main critic is too busy pushing the prejudice bandwagon down a one way track.
Comments from an internet Newspaper called WorldNetDaily
Wikipedia boasts 684 million annual visitors. I can't think of too many sources of information that attract that much attention.
And that's really the problem – that too many people looking for easy and cheap sources of information turn to this wholly unreliable website run by political and social activists promoting their own agenda . . . Wikipedia claims "anyone" can edit its information. But I was even told I was not a reliable source of information about me. Others apparently knew me better, according to the Wikipedia gatekeepers . . . Am I just bellyaching because I'm a victim? No. There's a much bigger point to be made here . . . You should make sure your children and grandchildren know what a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution it truly is." See here http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=83640
Linking to websites that charge a fee to view their articles
I made much of the important information from my 1000 page book available on my website for free so that people who couldn't afford iti could still benefit from it.
However, my two critics tried to put a grubby spin on that by saying that I was using it to advertise my book and therefore had a conflict of interest which prohibited me from adding the information to Wikipedia.
This is a comment from my main critic who endorses linking to pages that require a fee for each topic that the Wikipedia editors and readers need to read in order to check that the facts are verifiable . . .
"Editors should use the best sources available to them, regardless of cost or format. The content policies require that it be possible for someone to verify a given statement—not that it be quick, eaasy, and free to verify it."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals&diff=prev&oldid=391592359
Needless to say that some of those website are journals that would make millions of dollars in profit annually, and would carry advertising that would involve bias and conflicts of interest of all sorts at multiple levels. Also, of course most academics are promoted on the basis of the principle of 'publish or perish', and many of them would produce articles that were aimed at pleasing their superiors rather than challenging them for fear of risking retaliation and their future carreers in science.
This is a quote from the discussions which resulted in a page about my theory being deleted. . .
"Comments. We just need dates, titles (and most preferably links to online vesions of all this) so it can actually be verified that everything you said is true. I can only verify that which is available online. If these verifying materials are not available online, I suggest taking the same information I have just requested to either Wikipedi:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia to request assistance. Someguy1221 00:02, 1 December 2007
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_posture_theory&diff=next&oldid=174946920
A quote about content control from another website
There is an organisation called the "National Alliance for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis" - NAME U.S. - which is having difficulty getting information into Wikipedia. Their website has a link to another site which states . . .
"A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.
Another statement from that website is . . .
"CalTech graduate student Virgil Grifftiht built a search tool that traces IP addresses of those who make Wikipedia changes". See here and here.
It is obvious that there would be many companies etc, who would employ individuals, or entire teams of individuals, to work in offices or from home computers. Some of them would be paid to act respectably, and others would be trained in the skills of twisting the truth until it became unrecognisable to the public. Many of them would be paid enormous salaries to do thousands of edits anonymously, or to use Wikipedia ID's and refuse to give their real identity. They would also influence the policies to allow for paid editing, and to defend the idea that the 'ignore all rules' was a most important one.
They could organise their efforts so that they appeared to be independent, but one could be paid to become an independent administrator, the other could be assigned the task of acting like an 'ordinary volunteer', and another could be appointed the role of influencing or changing the policies to suit the teams purposes, and another to use those policies as an excuse in their roles as deletionist, and another to trace the origin of a 'newbie' and ensure that any future contributions from that persons computer was blocked. They could also be paid to transfer any suitable information to other website to gain 'global control of public opinion'.
Regardless of being paid or not, any group of individuals could organise themselves in that way, or come together coincidentally, and then act as a team because they share the same prejudices in the topic.
They would typically chant these words . . .
"We are having trouble with this disruptive newbie - could we have YOUR an independent opinion on this one please" and . . .
"We the honest, experienced and most respected rule-abiding editors are going to use our DIRTY TRICKS common sense and good judgment to ban anothe SUCKER "newbie", and are going to do it by using the 'ignore all rules' policy for the good of UNIDENTIFIED CORPORATION Wikipedia". See also here
The Great Firewall of Wikipedia
Throughout history individuals and social groups in positions of power have always tried to control the information that the general public gets to see but also want them to believe that they are getting the full truth. Members of the public who believe the spin about freedom of speech and don't bother to look for the information independently are called naive or gullible.
In earlier centuries books were written one at a time by pen, and the scribes who wrote them could be easily controlled. Since then printing presses have been invented but it was not long before powerful groups and governments regulated what the print industry could or could not publish, and more recently corporations, advertising and government agencies have found it very easy to control the media of radio and television. However, the advent of the Internet, supposedly providing the world's best opportunity for freedom of speech, has been seen as a threat, and has been infiltrated, taken over, and controlled with astonishing speed by the individuals or agents of powerful groups who disguise themselves with anonymous ID's and hide the fact that they are being paid, and or deny having 'hidden agendas'. They essentially play the role of 'gate-keepers' who let the information that they approve of onto the internet, and keep information that they don't want the readers to see outside, or push it out soon after it gets in, and then close the gate behind. They then stop that information from entering again by using various automated or individually monitored watchlists.
The following words are from the Wikipedia articles about internet censorship. The second quote was about "The Great Firewall of China", and gave examples of how the Chinese government was using agents to control information in China. I have substituted the words "The Great Firewall of Wikipedia" to show now easy it is for that source of information to be controlled by the few.
Quote 1 "Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship&diff=prev&oldid=399758965
Quote 2 "A widely publicised example of internet censorship is the "Great Firewall of China Wikipedia" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[47] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[48][49]"
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech&diff=400893198&oldid=400892680#Internet_censorship
It probably isn't possible to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information but a good start would be for the owners and administrators to ban anonymous editing, and require every contributor to declare their conflicts of interest, and to permanently ban anyone who is paid to edit, and any organisation who offers payment to it's staff or agents for that purpose.
A very good idea for improving the reliabliity of information would be to permanently ban my two critics who told a massive number of blantant and provable lies without bothering to care if they are being paid to lie or not.
The systematic sabotage of fundamental principles
Wikipedia promotes itself as having the basic goal of providing all information from all parts of society, but my main critic is acting like a control freak in trying to sabotage the principles of the founders by being a trumped up deletionist, and by actively trying to encourage "paid editing", and blocking any attempts to stop "paid editing".
The elitist and exclusionist attitude extends to encouraging professional physicians to "supervise" medical articles, and professional psychologists to "oversea" psychology articles, and paid employees of political candidates to "edit" political articles, to make sure that they reflect "medical' and "Psychology" or "political" "opinions" regardless of the merits of anyone else in society.
That editor indiscriminately regards anyone else as 'newbies', 'fringy', 'unreliable', and 'stupid', and recommends confining them to the routine tasks of fixing spelling errors on pages of trivial or non-controversial nature. Such newbies must 'assume good faith' in experienced editors, prove their cooperatively by submissively agreeing to lies and nonsense, and, if they behave as if they are brain dead pathological conformers they will get a pretty barnstar.
The objectives of the founding members have been turned into an internet joke and need to be turned around.
I have no objection to professional doctors controlling information in medical journals, or psychologists controlling information in psychology journals etc. but to have them controlling all information in Wikipedia is ridiculous.
WP:Notability
The Deletion of The Posture Theory from Wikipedia
If an editor wants to delete verifiable information from Wikipedia simply because they personally don't like it they will look for one of the rules to use as their "excuse" for removing it. If they can't find an excuse they will just delete it anyway as if they are some sort of Witch waving a magic wand. A Wikipedia essay describes that behaviour as "A wave of the cruft wand".
When an editor named PaulaisRight added a page about my theory, she was accused of breaching my copyright, and told that the article would be deleted if she could not prove otherwise. I therefore joined the discussion to tell the other editors that I was the author and had given her permission to add it. After about a week of discussions between November 28th and December 5th 2007, one of them said "We just need dates . . . so that it can actually be verified". The following words were part of my reply. . .
"Dates and titles have been added as requested, and online links included where possible . . . If any further verification is required by wikipedia editors in relation to this matter please let me know."
However, an editor named Fang Aili just deleted it anyway, without an explanation as if a " wave of the cruft wand is all that is necessary to pass off one's subjective ennui on a subject into a delete vote on an AfD. See here and here. (AfD is the Wikipedia code for "Articles for deletion".
The quote continues with these words . . ."Other members of the cruft police are drawn to the scent and toss their own nonsensical cruftspeak into the mix". (end of quote)
As you can see Fang Aili gave two editors on a later page the opportunity to tell lies by arguing that my theory had been deleted on the grounds of "Non-Notability". |
According to my main critic on 28-4-2012, a reference is not "self-published" if it "is really "publisher's control": someone unconnected to the author decides whether or not to make it available to the public." WhatamIdoing" 05:10, 28 April 2012. See here.
However, she argued that my research and books were self-published, but essays, summaries, and reports about them have been published interstate and overseas by editors who I have never met.
*****
My name is Max Banfield, but you have probably never heard my name, because I have never sought publicity for myself. However, I have done many things in my life. For example, I have been trying to solve some health problems, and whenever I completed a theory I would write to newspapers and magazines to describe it. When I was involved in research I would approach the newspapers to report the success of each three monthly programme and recruit more volunteers for the next, and when I completed the various editions of my book, which eventually exceeded 1000 pages, I would present a summary of it to newspapers. That is what everyone does if they are involved in such activities. For example every time a new book or a new movie comes out there are massive publicity campaigns. However, I have never put a picture of my face on the cover etc. (I only recently added a photo on my website - in 2012).
Nevertheless my main critic was using the lack of widespread publicity as an excuse for deleting much of what I wrote on the grounds of it not meeting their "Notability guidelines".
When my theory was deleted as a topic in 2007 I didn't try to put it back, and when I mentioned it in the Da Costa's syndrome page i was told it took up undue space so I abbreviated it, and it was deleted again in early 2008, so I didn't put it back, and when I was banned I didn't appeal the decision. However I did decide to deal with my two critics because they were both liars who were defaming my character, and when one of them said 'Do you want to up the ante', I responded by saying "Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry".
After I was banned I began discussing many issues on my own website, and eventually added some information about all of the publications related to my ideas, in relation to easily meeting the "notability requirements", and being far more notable than many other articles in Wikipedia.
However, since then my main critic started contributing to the Notability discussions and guidelines, and it is obvious to me that she is doing it because she is desperate to keep my items from every getting in again. For example, I was banned in January 2009, and probably set up a 'Notability' section on my own website about six months later. Since then, and up until December 2011, my main critic has added 402 comments to the Notability discussion page here , and 44 alterations to the Notability guideline itself here.
I don't wish to offend the respectable editors of Wikipedia, but, although it would be a good idea to have my ideas in it (for myself and their readers), nevertheless, I didn't need Wikipedia before I started, and I don't need to have my theory in it now.
My theory and research has been changing the way people think for thirty years.
**********
There is a biography of an American baseball player named George Wilson Scott who is considered notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia.This is the entire text from that page . . . "George Wilson Scott was a Major League Baseball pitcher. His major league career consisted of two games in 1920 for the St. Louis Cardinals, spaced nearly a month apart". here
|
There are 10,457 Biographies in Wikipedia which have no references to support them.
According to an editor named Penbat the "Number of unreferenced BLPs is 10,457" (BLP's are "Biographies of living persons".
Any article in Wikipedia which does not have references, is violating the "verifiability" policy because there is nothing from independent sources to prove that any of it is true.
If it contains the unsupported opinions of one or more editors it is a violation of the "original research" policy.
Any subject that does not have a reliable independent source for the information violates the "Notability" guideline, because there is nothing to verify that it has received enough notice to deserves notability. The following quote comes from that guideline.
"On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."
Wikipedia has a policy about the biographies of living persons which includes the following advice . . .
"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." (end of quote)
My personal observations indicate that many editors treat the Wikipedia policies with contemptible disregard, in the following manner. If the person or topic doesn't concern them or their vested interests, or their prejudices then they don't give a damn about whether or not it complies with policies, but if they personally wish to delete the information they will find, change, or invent policies as there excuse for deleting everything about individuals who may be 100 times more notable than unreferenced articles.
See information about the number of unreferenced BLP's here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Penbat&diff=prev&oldid=412212077
and about the "Biographies of living persons" policy here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=413098660
and about notability here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=412297849
Elitism and Deletionism
The following quote comes from a page called Wikipedia: Notability (philosophy) which is being considered as a potential guideline . . .
"One faction believes Wikipedia should contain pretty much anything, as long as it’s factual and verifiable…. On the other side of the debate are the ‘deletionist's’, although this somewhat unfairly characterizes their view in a destructive way. Some prefer the word ‘exclusionists’. This camp believes it is important to strictly determine not only whether something is factual, but whether it is notable, whether it is worthy of being included in the pantheon of human knowledge….. At the center of the debate is notability, which is where inclusions and deletionists have their skirmishes.[4]
Persons wanting to delete an article on the grounds of non-notability are called deletionists. Those not wanting to delete the article are called inclusionists . . . Notables and early modern European political revolutions
In the times of European revolution of the peasant class against the elite class, the elites were known as “notables”.
The fact that there are inclusionists and deletionist's involved in the Notability discussions means that the policy does not have a clear consensus on either side. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Notability_(philosophy)&diff=prev&oldid=414709169#Encyclopedia_content
|
|
My two critics are sabotaging the original purpose of Wikipedia
My two critics, and others have been writing and changing policies to undermine the original objectives of Wikipedia which are expressed in the following words of it's founder Jimmy Wales . . .
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet
is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, July 2004
and . . .
"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good,
neutral biography on every single person
on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not,
right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008
See here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org |
Introduction: An account of The Posture Theory was deleted from Wikipedia despite the fact that I provided the evidence that was requested (dates of publications etc). I also saw an invitation to challenge the decision to delete if I wanted to, but I wasn't that interested. Some time later I added some comments about my theory to a page called Da Costa's syndrome, but two editors arrogantly argued that there was nothing about it that they could find in the 'real' medical literature, and deleted it on the grounds of it being a 'pet' theory of mine that took up too much space for something that was non notable. They continued to delete almost everything else I wrote for 12 months until they managed to get me banned.
About six months later I started this section of my website to describe the 'notability' of my theory which is so important to those two editors, and soon after that one of them started a series of 218 comments on the discussion page about that aspect, and actually made 18 changes to the Notability guidelines between 11-12-09 and 12-10-10.
Essentially those changes were made to achieve these objectives - It doesn't matter how many 'notability' criteria a topic meets because, if you can get six or more of your friends, puppets, or meatheads to agree with you, then you can delete the item by 'ignoring' the guidelines on the grounds of consensus. That, of course, means that the existing editors can determine what articles get into Wikipedia on the basis of their own personal opinion regardless of notability. In fact, a person who hits a home run in a baseball match 100 years ago can be deemed to be more important than any major event of today.
The group of editors who initially deleted my theory requested me to make the evidence of it available online, but at that time I wasn't able to do it so I provided them with the names of libraries, and the phone numbers of newspapers where the information could be found. However, this is what my main critic wrote into the Notability guidelines at 20:53 on 18-10-10, eighteen months after I was banned . . . "Sources are "not" required to be available online, and they are ''not'' required to be in English".
This is what the same editor wrote on a discussion page called "What Wikipedia is Not" at 21:39 on 13 October 2010 . . . "Editors at an AFD are permitted to WP:IGNORE notability guidelines whenever they choose to, and closers may choose consensus according to policy and guidelines, or the more limited (but perhaps more appropriate) consensus at AFD." (AFD is an abbreviation of "Article for Deletion"). See here and here |
The
Reliability of references about my own involvement in a research
programme
Several reports about the research programmes
were written by a medical journalist for the Adelaide "News" where the articles were part of the process of
the request for volunteers, and after the third programme was
completed a freelance journalist wrote a summary which was sent
to, and, published by at least three major state newspapers,
which included 'The
West Australian', The 'Sydney Morning Herald' and 'The
Courier Mail' in Brisbane. I also understand that he, like all freelance journalists, routinely sent items like that to major overseas newspapers, but I didn't have any means of finding them. All
of the journalists asked me to provide the phone number of
the research institute because the editors of major newspapers
require them to verify the accuracy of all reports before
they will publish them.
Here is a statement by one of my two critics
. . . "Wikipedia uses secondary sources, but ones that are
reliable as defined by WP:RS: ones with known reputation as sources (e.g. quality newspapers
where there's known editorial oversight and fact-checking)" signed Gordonofcartoon 23:50, 17 February
2010
Here is a statement by my other critic
about notability requirements . . . WP:ORG clearly
requires the existence of one non-local reliable source . . . Wikipedia explicitly defines itself as a
worldwide encyclopedia . . . If no reader outside of a tiny geographic
area is likely to be interested in the subject, then it is probably
not appropriate for a worldwide encyclopedia" signed WhatamIdoing
8:16 17 February 2010
Here is another statement by the same person
about the requirements for meeting the notability guidelines
. . . If something . . . "has received attention outside of it's local area, then that's enough".
signed WhatamIdoing 00:27, 17th February 2010
Here is part of an argument presented by
WhatamIdoing to an editor named MASEM at 1:23 on 15 March 2010
. . . "I can assure you that anyone who has worked his (or
her) way up to national desk editor would be very unhappy to
have their professional skills dismissed as 'trivial distribution'
or not really editor-level work . . . and . . . the action that suggests notability is the action of the person choosing
to distribute the content."
Here are the words in the introduction to the journal where more than ten of my essays were published between 1978 and 1983 . . . "The Australasian Nurses Journal; 11 issues per annum listed in 'Cumulative Index to Nursing Literature and Allied Health Literature' and the 'International Nursing Index, Author's Guide to Journals in Nursing and Related Fields': An outstanding journal in studies, research and professional education in nursing. A journal of futuristic views: Circulating throughout Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and every quarter of the globe." (end of quote).
News magazines are sometimes more reliable than journals according to my main critic
The following words are a quote from my main critic . . . "A feature-length story in the Times might well be a better source than speculation in Medical Hypotheses or a letter to the editor in any academic journal." WhatamIdoing 03:08, 25 October 2010
See here
Here is a selection of my illustrated featured articles which have been published in a broadsheet newspaper that was distributed throughout South Australia . . .
December1994 Posture and illness, Statewide newspaper, 8-12-1994, page 13.
March 1995 - 17th century medical theory: An interpretation, Statewide Newspaper. An illustrated feature article in a broadsheet newspaper occupying 3/4 of the page and distributed throughout South Australia.
April 1995 - Comments on a medical mystery, Statewide newspaper, page 5
What you can't do is use the notability guideline to delete information from an article.
This is a recent comment by my main critic . . . "Notability does not determine content. You are permitted have a list of non-notable (or notable + non-notable) people in an article. Article contents must be WP:Verifiable rather than WP:Notable. If sources have been WP:Published to support this information, then you may choose to include it. On the other hand, you might decide that a list of individuals is so unimportant that it's not worth mentioning. What you can't do is use the notability guideline to delete information from an article. WhatamIdoing 20:34, 29 June 2011 )" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=436918938#Lists_of_non-notable_people
|
Here
are extracts from some of the articles
Letter to
the editor: from The Australasian Nurses Journal, August 1982,
page 15
"Enrolments for this
course are sought from persons who occasionally experience feelings
of weakness within the chest, dizziness and faintness. Such persons
may feel comfortable when walking, but be reluctant to run fast,
or lift heavy objects . . . The course involves specially designed
exercises and medical testing to rule out persons with heart
disease, and to provide valuable scientific information. Sessions
are twice a week for 12 weeks" signed Max Banfield, Programme
Coordinator
"Fitness
helps in therapy": from
the Adelaide News dated August
5, 1982, page 5
"SA could have a world
first with a fitness research programme into a medical complaint
that causes abnormal tiredness and depression . . . Soviet research
assessed the fitness level of people suffering the complaint,
and in Sweden experimental courses were held for sufferers. But
neither assessed the physical effect of exercises comprehensively
. . . Programme coordinator Max Banfield said the condition
was difficult to diagnose"
"Research
Matches Russian Results": from the Adelaide News
dated December 20,
1982, page 18.
"Research into a complaint
which causes abnormal tiredness and depression is matching results
of a similar Russian programme. In both countries, sufferers
of neurasthenia have experienced breathlessness, faintness, dizziness
and heart palpitations, although tests show no heart problems
. . . the non-competitive course would enable individuals to
exercise at their own level. The programme aimed at relieving
the chest pain, fatigue and depression of sufferers while researching
the effects of exercise. "
Study lifts
fitness levels: from
the Adelaide News dated August
11, 1983. page
13.
"The pilot study at
the SA Institute for Fitness Research and Training may be a world
first . . . Mr. Banfield said Soviet and Swedish research into
the complaint matched initial findings in SA. . . . the fitness
course was an extension of initial research . . . The majority
of people who undertook fitness training at the Centre gained
measurable benefits."
If you're
tired join the course: was
the title of another article published the Adelaide News dated November 18,1983, page 11.
Note that the medical
journalist who wrote the articles for the 'News' actually attended
at least one of the committee meetings where the results of previous
trials, and plans for the future were being discussed.
Eight years
earlier: This is
a quote from a 1974 book called The Heart, by J.W.Hurst . . .
"Attempts by Cohen and his associated to alter these abnormalities
by physical training were unsuccessful since the patients could not or would not follow the prescribed training programme".
To solve that problem I designed a training programme, in 1982, that some patients could and did follow. M.B.
I had also previously arranged for a medical student from Flinders University to translate a Russian research paper into English and this was the summary that I added to Wikipedia at 5:58 on 18 December 2007, which was later deleted by my two critics . . . ."In 1980 Soviet researcher V.S.Volkov presented his report on a comparative study of the exertional capacity of 228 patients with three stages of the effort syndrome (which he referred to as neurocirculatory dystony - NCD). For healthy men the average was 1176 kgm/min, and the three stages of NCD were 1161, 940 & 591 respectively, and for healthy women was 834, and the stages of NCD were 854, 621 & 420 kgm/min, indicating that the severity of the condition was related to circulatory efficiency and exertional capacity. 87.2% tolerated levels of 600 kgm/min or more, and 14 of the others had to stop because of overwhelming radiating chest pain, fatigue, and “fear for their hearts”, and another 14 stopped their test prematurely because of changes in their heart rates which reached sub-maximal levels." Reference number (6) Volkov V.S. (1980) Psychosomatic Interrelations and their clinical importance in patients with cardiac type NCD, Soviet Medicine (11) p.9-15 English Abstract (and a translation) here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=178668081
*******
I suggested the possibility that the symptoms
of Da Costa's syndrome may be related to a disorder of aerobic
metabolism, and that aerobic exercise, such as walking or slow
jogging, and gradually increasing the pace over a period of several
months may improve the aerobic capacity, and thereby relieve
symptoms in some cases. I did not include weight lifting in the
exercise programme that I designed because it is the wrong type of exercise. Here is a statement from page 27-28 of J.M.Da
Costa's original research paper of 1871, about a man who had
mostly recovered from the syndrome . . . "He was a printer
before joining the army in 1862, and had minor symptoms that
didn't interfere with his duties until he contracted a fever
in August 1864, and then he was treated with some success and
discharged in good health near the end of the war. When seen
again in civilian practice in 1866 he said that he had been employed
as a conductor on a street car, and suffered no inconvenience excepting if he ran or lifted heavy weights".
These are the words that I used in a recruitment
letter for the fitness programme that I designed in 1982 . .
. 'Letter to the editor, The Australasian
Nurses Journal, August
1982, page 15 .
. . "Enrolments for this course are sought from persons
who occasionally experience feelings of weakness within the chest,
dizziness and faintness. Such persons may feel comfortable when
walking, but be reluctant to run fast, or lift heavy
objects . . . The course involves specially designed exercises
and medical testing to rule out persons with heart disease, and
to provide valuable scientific information. Sessions are twice
a week for 12 weeks." signed Max Banfield, Programme Coordinator.
Here are the words that I wrote as part of that fitness programme
design . . . "no heavy lifting". A copy of the programmed design is here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/CFSresearchIFRT.html#anchor130031
The reason for that specification are as
follows; If people are required, or forced to do the type of
exercise that brings on their symptoms they will not have any
confidence in the advice of the instructors and will most probably
refuse to participate, but if they did, and experienced the symptoms,
they would definitely not go back for the second week. That is
why all forced, non-graduated exercise programmes were failing,
and why nobody else was able to get scientific data on the effects
of exercise programmes.
Furthermore, if you set a programme where
the person is told to achieve a level of improvement each week
they will reach a level where they get the symptoms and drop
out of the course before the three month period was over, and
before meaningful scientific measurements could be made, so it
needs to be designed to suit each individual patient, and they
should determine how fast they walk or run, and when to improve
that rate based on the response. i.e. they should progress at
their own rate, not at a predetermined rate.
Also, Da Costa's syndrome is a chronic
condition, so there is no known cure, and I have never said that
exercise of any sort was a reliable way of 'fixing' it, but there
have been reports that many patients gain improvements in their
general health, and some cases do return to normal health after
participating in properly designed exercise programmes. That
is a well known fact amongst researchers who have a lot more
knowledge of this topic than my critics.
*******
In the programme that I collected data
for three periods of three months, the position of walking or
jogging on the 400 yard oval was directly related to the persons
aerobic capacity i.e. the person with the lowest capacity was
running last, the person with the second lowest capacity was
running second last, etc., and the one with the highest capacity
was in front of the others. The aerobic capacity was measured
by research cardiologists, and the position on the field was
reported by the instructor. i.e.The severity of the condition
was scientifically and accurately measurable in a manner that
was independent of the patients knowledge.
The trial proved many other things such
as (a) the severity of the ailment was measurable and therefore
it was a real condition with a physical basis, and was not
imaginary (b) the previously reported reluctance to exercise
was due to the inappropriateness of previous course designs,
and was not due to a fear of exercise (c) the patients
had not been refusing to participate in previous programmes because
they were fond of illness and did not want to get well. They
were, in fact, willing to exercise for 2 hours per night, twice
per week for more than six months if the programme was designed
properly, because they actually wanted to improve their health.
Reliability of sources about my research and theory
When I left the research programme one of the things I did was to contact a freelance journalist to outline the findings so that he could prepare an article and send it off to various interstate and international newspapers. However, as you can see, when that happens, the editors of each newspaper give exactly the same item a different title, and they alter the text slightly to reflect their own interpretation, or bias, or whatever they thought might attract interest from their readers. The editor of the 'Courier Mail' in Brisbane Queensland gave it the title "Researchers solve mystery", and the editor of the "West Australian" newspaper gave it the title of "Cause of mystery disease found", and the 'Sydney Morning Herald' carried the title of "Illness traced to emotional trauma".
The South Australian "News"who gained the information directly from me gave it the title "Study lifts Fitness levels".
If you only looked at the title 'Illness traced to emotional trauma' you might get the wrong impression that a study of about 100 people showed that they all became chronically fatigued due to emotional factors, but if you looked at all of the facts you could see that 80 people were involved in the study (to that point in time), about 60 were available to be interviewed, and 48 were actually interviewed about their views on cause and lifestyle, and only about one third to one half could be traced to a stressful or emotional event. Another third were due to unknown or doubtful causes, and a another third were due to other factors such as a viral infection, pregnancy, the strain of physical endurance, or the long term lack of rest in their history or lifestyle. A more detailed account of those interviews can be seen here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/CFSresearchIFRT.html#anchor24413
If you looked at my theory closely you would soon appreciate that poor posture may be a cause, but it is more of a predisposing factor that makes the problem more likely to occur in sedentary workers who compress their abdomens repeatedly as they lean towards desks all day, or to any other factor that has a similar effect, such as the enlarging womb of pregnancy, and that poor posture makes the other factors more likely to cause the problem.
It also explains why fatigue is more likely to affect sedentary workers than manual laborers or athletes.
One of the reasons that I preferred to publish my own book was because I could add all of the relevant information and give my interpretation, and also let other people see 'all' of the information and decide for themselves if they wanted to. However, when I was in Wikipedia, I had two critics who would delete important facts to make their own opinions an interpretations look credible. They were hoping that I couldn't notice what they were doing, but it was obvious.
Note also, that I did the research in the early 1980's. All I knew at the time was that the studies in the recent research literature were reporting that the patients with persistent fatigue, 'would not or could not' train, and that I aimed to design a programme that patients 'could and would' follow, and it was successful. Since then there have been many studies of graduated exercise programmes (GET), and 'pacing' and the chronic fatigue syndrome'. Similar studies were also conducted 60 years earlier by Sir Thomas Lewis.
Some Reviews of The Posture Theory
The editor, Nov/Dec 1980 Are you sitting comfortably, Probe p.17 (South Australia)
Banfield M.A. Jan/March 1984 The Posture Theory, Australasian Health and Healing p.13 (published in Queensland and distributed Australia wide)
Banfield M.A. April 1984 The Posture Theory Revisited, Natural Health p.11 (Sydney)
The editor May 9,1993 Posture Theory Sunday Mail, (published in Adelaide South Australia)
The editor, December 8, 1994, Posture and Illness, Statewide Newspaper p.13 (South Australia)
Alison Linn winter 1997 The Posture Theory, Australian Journal of Osteopathy Vol.19,The No.1 p.23 (published in Sydney Australia)
Laurie Eddy November 1998 The Posture Theory, The Investigator Vol.63 (the same review was later published in the Australian Skeptic)
Laurie Eddy, Autumn 2000 Problems with Posture, The Skeptic (the Australian Skeptics magazine) Vol 20 No.1
Banfield M.A. Summer 2001 Response to Posture, (my reply to the criticism) The Skeptic,Vol 21 No.4 p.63-64
See my recent response on YouTube here
More than 500 copies of my book called The Posture Theory were sold to Australian libraries between 1994 and 2000 and some purchased five editions or more, based on the usage of the book by their readers. The 11th edition contained about 1000 pages of information based on 3000 years of history because the modern sources were not sufficient for my requirements, yet my two critics tried to argue that everything in Wikipedia must come from modern sources published in the past 2 years, or it was unreliable and out-of-date.
I have also given public talks about the theory to various public meetings such as self help groups for various illnesses, the Lions club, and on one occasion at the the Adelaide Writers Festival.
Other reports of The Posture Theory
Over the past 30 years I have occasionally come across the uses or comments on my research and theories interstate or overseas by accident.
There have been many websites that linked to mine at some stage during that period, and there have been many that have used the material. A three page article called "Muscle Stress and Strain" by Osteopath Andrew Wilson included "The Posture Theory" diagram and was published in a New Zaland magazine called Healthy Options in the May 1997 edition.
I have also had more than 100 letters and articles about health issues published in newspapers and magazines, mainly between 1980 and 1990. Several them received best letter awards.
Internet
notability
Before I started improving Wikipedia's article about Da Costa's syndrome the version that was edited by my main critic was insignificant and non-notable compared to mine, and if it wasn't for my contributions it would still be non-notable. i.e. nobody would bother reading it. However, she has never admitted to that obvious fact because she doesn't want you to think about what it actually means, namely that I knew a lot more about the subject than she did, and I still do have a better, more accurate, and more reliable knowledge and understanding of it.
In fact, she may have a childish text-book understanding of the problem, but she hasn't got a bloody clue what she is talking about. It is one thing to be able to memorise what you have read in books, and a completely different thing to actually have the pain, and the fatigue, and know exactly what aggravates it, and exactly how to relieve the symptoms.
My website called 'The Posture Theory'
has been on the internet since the early 1990's, and a
hit counter was established many years later, in November 2001, and for much of
that time it has been number 1, or in the top ten
list for several categories. It was on the internet before
Wikipedia started, and, in fact, I didn't even know that Wikipedia
existed until someone else told me, because, as far as I was
aware, it wasn't in the top few million for those categories,
until I joined and started contributing, in which case it went
to number one, and fluctuated with my site as number one. Without
my contributions the Wikipedia articles would still be non-notable.
For much of that time my website was also above all of the internet
and journal articles that my two critics used as 'top quality'
scientific references????? Apparently my two critics, who haven't
got any common sense, think that second, third, fourth, fifth
and ten thousandth position etc, are more widely seen or used
than my website?
Currently, as at 19 April 2010, The posture theory website is the number 1 entry in the Google search engine for 'posture'. The fourth entry contains image results for posture, and includes 'The Posture Theory Diagram' here http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=posture&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=ZabLS7bzNI7o7AOQ8syHAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQsAQwAw
The ninth entry is The Posture Page which has been in the top rankings of that topic, and had a link to The Posture Theory for many years, and the Posture Theory is currently number 2 on their link list here http://posturepage.com/posturelinks/index.html
It is also included in the following website which provides links about The Alexander Technique here http://www.alexandertechnique.com/links/fitness.htm
Over the past fifteen years I have seen many articles and websites which have used the diagram or mentioned the theory.
This is another site that recommends good posture for good voice production here http://www.vocalist.org.uk/posture_exercises.html
The posture theory is link number 16 on the website here http://art.ridne.net/dir/node-100488.html
For more information see here
Note that in the text above I stated that my website was number 1 on the Google search engine for the topic of 'Posture" as at 19 April 2010. I posted the information on the internet on 21 April 2010. When I checked again, the next day, on 21 April 2010, it was on the third page, and the Wikipedia article on posture became number 1 instead. You can draw your own conclusions about that!!!!!!
See also here
Note also that I have never been concerned about my own notability as evident from the fact that my photo has never appeared in my books or articles, however, my two critics were telling me that it was required for inclusion in Wikipedia so I wrote an essay on that aspect some months ago. I didn't post it here because my two critics have a track record of sabotaging everything I do, and I expected, that if I mentioned that my website was number 1 on the Google search engine they would find a way of getting it pushed down the list. Recently, however, I decided to add some information, and within a day my website went from number 1 on the first page, and eventually to somewhere on the fifth page and fluctuating?????? I don't know if it is a coincidence or how they would do that, but it is very typical of their methods.
Comparative Notability
The biographies of virtually every player who hit a home run for an American baseball team in the past 150 years is being systematically added to Wikipedia. If the same standards of notability were applied as there are for medical articles my main critic would write something like this . . . 'We here in Wikipedia are trying to produce a serious encyclopedia so we don't blather on about some guy who flapped his arms about or ran around in circles on some little oval in 1926. If you want to add anything then only the captains and coaches, and the very, very, very best players for the past two years will be accepted. We do not want any of your seriously out-dated, old, obsolete and long forgotten nonsense here." see here
That editor recently wrote these exact words of advice to other editors . . . ""the inclusion of every gas station or mom-and-pop restaurant that can be verified to exist in a small town being pretty much the canonical example of what editors mean when they deplore indiscriminate information? WhatamIdoing 22:04, 23 May 2010 See here
However, there is a biography of an American baseball player named George Wilson Scott who is considered notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia.This is the entire text from that page . . . "George Wilson Scott was a Major League Baseball pitcher. His major league career consisted of two games in 1920 for the St. Louis Cardinals, spaced nearly a month apart". here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Scott_(pitcher)&diff=285827024&oldid=285683979
Obviously there are vast discrepancies between editors about how to interpret notability policy.
Interpreting and Inventing Notability Policy
You may think that the discrepancies are all coincidence, but I started with the ordinary idea that my theory would be of interest to a lot of readers, and if the Wikipedia editors didn't agree, then it wouldn't particularly matter or make any difference to me, but they gave me the opportunity to prove that I actually did the research etc, and then said 'all we need is dates' (of publications etc), but deleted the article about my theory anyway. I also found that contributors were actually invited to provide evidence of notability later if they wanted to, but I wasn't particularly interested, or in any hurry to do that. When I found the page about Da Costa's syndrome it was the result of me looking for other opportunities to add useful information to Wikipedia, and naturally, it was relevant to my knowledge, but I soon found two editors who were trying to convince everyone else that I was looking for it deliberately as a substitute for my theory, and they started accusing me of violating every policy in Wikipedia. They said that comments on my theory took up too much space on the page, and then, that even the abbreviated version wasn't wanted, because it wasn't notable, but they kept on deleting everything until they had an excuse to ban me and delete all of the verifiable information from top quality independent sources. Since then my main critic has been watching my website and my criticism of them and has been making a lot of edits on the policy pages about notability and verifiability. That editor wanted to keep me blocked and if a policy didn't exist for that purpose they were going to find or invent one. As of 26 May 2010 that editor had made 176 comments on the notability policy discussion page Here
and 104 comments on the Verifiability policy discussion page here
That editor has made only 6 changes to the actual policy page for Verifiability, but they are all from 10 October 2008 to 31 March 2010 here
That editor has also made only 13 changes to the actual policy page for Notability, but nine of them have been made the past 2 months to May 2010 (il.e. ssince I started adding information about publications relating to my research on my website). See here
The time period of notability
Another editor named patsw became involved in an argument with my main critic. This was his comment . . .
I have removed "and enduring" from the nutshell. Nothing requires a topic to have durability and this was not in the prior version of the nutshell. We are not deleting articles because what was noticed in 2005 is not noticed in 2011. patsw 03:29, 20 March 2011
This was my main critics reply . . . "We most certainly do. For example: Christina Desforges died at the end of 2005 and was the primary subject of dozens of news articles in 2005 and 2006. The article was deleted in 2009 because the attention did not endure past one news cycle." WhatamIdoing 05:22, 20 March 2011 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=419750839
There would be more than a coincidence in the way my main critic writes or influences policies to ensure that the type of research that i did doesn't meet the notability requirements.
Off the planet editing
It is obvious that my main critic is making suggestions on the "Notability" policy talk page, and actually writing some of the "Notability" policies to be an excuse for deleting someone who they disapprove of rather than for 'honest' or 'genuine' reasons'. For example, if a hillbilly hit a home run in one baseball game 100 years ago in Backwater Village, his 'notability' won't be questioned, because nobody would bother, but if the world's most famous athlete was not a personal friend of that editor then they would argue that he may be 'notable' on this planet, but not on any other planet, so the article has to be deleted because he is not mentioned in the official independent peer reviewed sports journal outside of his LOCAL galaxy.
My main critics contradictory interpretation of Notability and bias
My main critic posted the following words on the arbitration page to get me banned . . . "Statement by WhatamIdoing . . . Posturewriter 'discovered' Da Costa's syndrome in December 2007, a few days after the article he wrote on his novel medical idea and his self-published book was deleted as being non-notable. Initially, I didn't know much about Da Costa's syndrome (DCS) and had some hope that we might have a good editor involved." see here
This is the advice that same individual gave to several other editors eighteen months later . . .
"To the editors who are treading close to "I don't understand what the subject is, so subject is clearly not notable": If you don't know what the subject of the page is, you will not be able to determine notability. You simply cannot evaluate the notability of a subject if you do not know what the subject is . . . Before then, any declarations about its status are likely to reveal more about the speakers' biases than about the page in question." WhatamIdoing 03:55, 17 August 2010.here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability&diff=prev&oldid=379337957
Imitation is the best form of flattery
In the past many people who have referred to my ideas have had the decency to acknowledge the source. However, my two critics are by far the most unscrupulous and prolific copyright violators and plagiarists of my ideas that I have ever come across.
Much of the information that I provided to the Wikipedia page about Da Costa's syndrome was deleted by two editors who described it as rubbish and nonsense. However, during that time, and since I was banned, it seems to have been transferred by anonymous editors to the page about Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome. One of my critics, named WhatamIdoing, who has an edit pattern of deviousness, was regularly editing both pages, but was not accusing the anonymous editors of having a conflict of interest, or deleting very similar (paraphrased) information as rubbish. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=355396430&oldid=355393877
Also, when Gordonofcartoon labeled my contributions and references as rubbish by placing a 'cruft' template at the top of the Da Costa's page here, he didn't mention that one of the references that I added on 9 December 2007 was J.M.Da Costa's original research paper. He also didn't mention that he had been to the biography page about Jacob Mendez Da Costa a few days later on 20 December 2007, and added a link to Da Costa's syndrome.here
Another one of my references was a book by Sir Thomas Lewis, but within a half an hour of Gordonofcartoon referring to my contributions as rubbish another editor started a brand new biography page on him here. Apart from any consideration that it was started because his name was first seen on my text and reference list, there is the obvious fact that Sir Thomas Lewis was a notable, highly respected, and very reliable author of medical articles according to a consensus of the entire Wikipedia community who have not deleted that page since.
Other references that I used were by Sir James MacKenzie, Sir William Osler, and Paul Dudley White, and Wikipedia has separate biography pages on each of them. My two critics are the only editors in the entire Wikipedia community who have described them like this . . . 'Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standard" WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 here
See more information here
(Wikipedia is not the only website that invites members of the public to contribute).
Of course, I want to make it perfectly clear that it just looks that way to me, as I have been regularly watching changes there since I started in Wikipedia, but I am commenting on the circumstances and not accusing them of anything. I also wish to clarify that I have no objection to individuals who have had ideas similar to mine, from long standing concepts such as yoga (and several others), or from the Alexander technique, for example, or, from their own initiative. I have a lot of respect for them, and assume that they don't want or need my support. I only object to individuals who are essentially stealing my ideas and falsely arguing that my contributions are nonsense, and then rewriting them and claiming them to be their own .
How Wikipedia is getting ahead of websites which have previously been number 1
This is an extract from a website called 'Buzzle.com Intelligent Life on the Web' . . .
"Wikipedia & Search Engine Optimisation - #2 Is The New #1
If you have tried searching for a topic using Google lately, you may have noticed that Wikipedia entries are ranking higher and higher, many times ranking in the number one and number two positions . . .
*Wikipedia has thousands of pages that are keyword rich and have high Page Rank
* Wikipedia has excellent internal linking structure, with every page on Wikipedia linking to many other Wikipedia pages
* Most of the internal links in Wikipedia are contextual, meaning that they are located within the content, rather than through menus
* Many other websites link to Wikipedia pages as a reference source, passing PageRank" See more information here http://www.buzzle.com/articles/wikipedia--search-engine-optimisation-2-is-the-new-1.html
My two critics were experienced enough to manipulate those aspects to get their version of any particular topic ahead of anyone else's.
The information that I provided being transferred to other websites
The
ICD-9 Code
Introduction: According to Wikipedia of 15-1-10 the term ICD is a code for the "International Classification
of Diseases and Related Health problems". It provides classifications
for the signs, symptoms and other aspects of diseases etc. and
. . . "The ICD-9 was published by the WHO in 1977.
According to the World Health Organization Department
of Knowledge Management and Sharing, the WHO no longer publishes
or distributes the ICD-9 which is now public domain".
There
is a website is called "icd-9/health information",
and the sub title is "Index 0-9" and the next words
are "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
***
I started adding information to the existing
four lines of text on Wikipedia's page about Da Costa's syndrome
on 9th December
2007.
At 6:20 on 19th December 2007 an editor named Arcadian added an information box to the top
right corner which included the codes ICD-10 F45.3, and ICD-9
306.2 with links to the lists.
During that time two editors named Gordonofcartoon
and WhatamIdoing started criticising almost every word I wrote,
and at 00:54 on 29-12-07 Gordonofcartoon deleted everything about my own
research and theory and left an article of about 1409 words.
There were 225 words in the introduction and overview that had
been significantly altered from the way I wrote them, but the
remaining 1184 words were almost exactly as I wrote them in the
sections of history from 1861 to the end of the page.
Since that time the same two editors criticised
and hounded me relentlessly to ensure that every word I added
which hadn't been deleted by someone else, was deleted by themselves,
and then they told all of the other editors that I was an "uncivil"
and "disruptive" editor with a conflict of interest"
who was filling Wikipedia with "nonsense" and "crap"
from "unreliable sources". They continued in the same
way for a year until they eventually managed to get one of their
friends to ban me on 29-1-2009, and then they deleted everything that I wrote
on the final page except for some of the information in the much
smaller "Treatment" and "history" sections.
In fact they removed the description of 135 years of research
history from 1876 to 2009 and replaced it with the following
ridiculous sentence. . . "Since then a variety of similar
or partly similar conditions have been described" . . .
They also deleted my subpage which contained an improved version
of the essay from a year earlier, and they deleted my UserPage
and my UserTalk page.
However, shortly after Gordonofcartoon
deleted information on 29-12-07, which is two
years ago now, I checked the ICD
records and found that someone had copied the information from
Wikipedia and placed it on the ICD-9 website for Da Costa's syndrome.
That article is slightly modified with at total of 1409 words,
but the history sections from "1861 to 1950", and "After
1950", and the sections called "Related to", and
"Treatment" contain a total of 1184 words that I wrote
for Wikipedia, and they haven't been changed.
The end of the ICD-9 page states this .
. . "This article is based on an article from Wikipedia
the free encyclopedia and is available under the terms of GNU
Free Documentation License. In Wikipedia there is a list with
all authors of this article available".
If you want to find that list you can go
to the Da Costa's syndrome page and click on the history tab
at the top of the page. It will take you to a page called Revision
history of Da Costa's syndrome. About five lines from the top
you will see numbers 20, 50, 100, 250, and 500. If you click
on the 500 link it will open a page that has all the edit history
of the topic, and you can go back to December 9th 2007 where
I began editing it with the ID of Posturewriter.
If you go to 00:54 on 29th December 2007
and click on the (prev) link you can see the page and text that
Gordonofcartoon deleted and left behind. You can also see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=180714637&oldid=180703608
The ICD-9 article can be seen here http://www.lumrix.net/health/Da_Costa's_syndrome.html
wikia education: The Psychology Wiki
After I was banned from Wikipedia I was searching the internet when I found that the article preferred by my two critics in Wikipedia had been copied and placed in a website called "wikia education" on a page called "The Psychology Wiki" which is promoted as a resource for psychologists. It may have been put their by one of my critics who is probably editing multiple open source sites on the internet. At the end of the article there is a comment that it is from Wikipedia and gives a link to the authors of the article. My Wikipedia ID of Posturewriter is on that list and I contributed almost all of the text of the treatment and history section. However, three quarters of that history, which included the most important discoveries, had been deleted by my two critics before it was copied, so that section on the wiki education site is incomplete.
see here http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Da_Costa's_syndrome
WikiDoc
The same text as in Wikia education was posted onto a website called "Wiki Doc". Although the entire text comes from Wikipedia, the acknowledgment at the end of the page includes these words . . . "Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia etc."
The Wiki Doc page was started by my main critic from Wikipedia, named WhatamIdoing, at 23:42 on 16 August 2007, and had four lines of text. It was put there before I started on the Da Costa page in Wikipedia on the 9th December 2007. I subsequently added most of the information to the page, including the "treatment" and the "history" sections by 6:43 on 12 May 2008.
The first significant increase to the Wiki Doc page was made by an editor named Zorkun at 15:13 on 15 October 2008, and was another copy of the abbreviated article item preferred by my two critics - with two thirds of the history missing.
See my main critics original four lines of text here http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=130554
and the text that I had almost completed in Wikipedia by 12th May 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=211817271&oldid=211269450
and the first time the improved Wikipedia text was added to the Wiki Doc site here http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=373959
and the current article virtually unchanged in August 2010 here http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Da_costa's_syndrome
Cardioneuroses.com
The same text as in Wikia education was posted onto a website called "Cardioneuroses" on July 27, 2010 by someone who identified themselves only as "marcus" which may or may not be a pseudonym of one of my two critics in Wikipedia. It was "Proudly powered by WordPress", but there is no attribution to Wikipedia, or a link to the editors who originally produced it.
See here http://cardioneurosis.com
My own website
I had spent 12 months contributing most of the information to an article in Wikipedia, so when my two critics deleted most of it and had me banned, I rewrote the introduction and posted it on my website here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#anchor415583
Wikisage
I also placed a copy on the website called "Wikisage" under the ID of Ubiquitous. It has been there without change for more than 18 months, although now that I have mentioned it on 17-8-10, I would not be surprised if someone? went there anonymously, or with a pseudonym, to suddenly object to it or sabotage it with the same sort of trollish nitpicking that I had to deal with in Wikipedia. The WikIsage article can be seen here http://en.wikisage.org/wiki/Da_Costa%27s_syndrome
The Free Dictionary by Farlex
On 3-11-10 I discovered another copy of the Wikipedia page on Da Costa's syndrome on the Free Dictionary by Farlex. It contained these words at the end . . .
"This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License."
here http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Da+Costa's+syndrome
As you can appreciate the Wikpedia item that I first saw on 9-12-07, which had been edited by my main critic, had only four lines of text and was insignificant, worthless and useless. Nobody would have wasted their time copying it. However since I started many people have copied the information that my two critics described as non-notable nonsense.
The information about treatment, and the history has been kept by Wikipedia, and copied by the Free Dictionary word for word (or given to them by my main critic) but no-one would ever know that I provided it, so the Wikipedia policy for acknowledging the source is not exactly 'genuine' or 'practical'.
If my name was mentioned every time someone copied my ideas or text I would be one of the most notable people on the internet, but while the two 'grubby intellectual thieves' , or the two GITS of Wikipedia steal it they are keeping me 'non - notable' and making Wikipedia more notable than it otherwise would be.
Wapedia
Wapedia had a copy of Wikipedia's article when I looked at it on 22-8-11 here http://wapedia.mobi/en/Da_Costa's_syndrome
Sierra Acai Company
Sierra Acai had a copy of Wikipedia's article as a news item when I looked at it on 22-8-11 here http://www.sierraacai.com/superfoods/Da_Costas_syndrome.html
Bean website
Bean websitei had a copy of Wikipedia's article when I looked at it on 22-8-11 here http://bean.dreab.com/p-Da_costa's_syndrome
Asia Online
Asia Online had a copy of Wikipedia's article translated into a foreign language when I looked at it on 22-8-11 here http://th.asiaonline.com/article?article=Da_Costa's_syndrome
Biosience encyclopedia
Biosience has a copy of Wikipedia's article on Da Costa's syndrome under the title of Effort Syndrome when viewed it on 22-8-11 here http://www.bioscience.ws/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Effort_Syndrome
Academic en.academic.ru
Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedia has a copy of the article as at 22-8-11 here http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2549322
Other websites
I found other websites which copied the Wikipedia artilce (my critics version), which like all of the others contain the information that I provided for the treatment section and the last two paragraphs of the early history sections.
digplanet here http://www.digparty.com/wiki/Da_Costa's_syndrome
Health website had a copy here http://www.health.10advices.com/Da_Costa's_syndrome
Sri Lanka News Web has a copy here http://www.srilankanewsweb.com/wiki-Effort_Syndrome
An analogy
To give an analogy - Supposing someone wrote a song and put it in Wikipedia. If my two critics musically incompetent critics saw it, they would describe it as non-notable nonsense and crap, and sift through their policies to find an excuse for banning them. They would then secretly transfer the words of the song to other pages in Wikipedia, or to other websites on the internet where the owners could make massive profits by selling the lyrics, or by getting advertising revenue from the visits to their website. My two critics would take great pride in the theft, and Wikipedia and the other websites could make all the profits and the person who wrote the lyrics would never be told, and would remain unknown.
The only problem would be that people would stop sending their songs to Wikipedia, so the editors would have to write their own music, and the outside would would be calling it trash.
If the administrators are going to keep the information that I provide they should show a bit of gratitude, and ban plagiarists.
That does not mean deleting the item from Wikipedia to 'hide' this issue. It does mean that they should take responsibility for this problem and fix it.
It is quite clear that my research and conclusions are responsible for the most effective, and now the most widely distributed and accepted methods of treating the problem in the modern world - which makes them the most notable.
My two critics were just the wooden headed horses who delivered it. They tried to portray the ailment as a mental disorder, but the last two paragraphs of the history section, and treatment methods are based on the fact that it a physical condition.
This is the information that I provided for the history section which has been reworded but presents the same facts. . .
History - "Da Costa's syndrome involves a set of symptoms which include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue in response to exertion. Earl de Grey who presented four reports on British soldiers with these symptoms between 1864 and 1868, and attributed them to the heavy weight of military equipment being carried in knapsacks which were tightly strapped to the chest in a manner which constricted the action of the heart. Also in 1864, Henry Harthorme observed soldiers in the American Civil War who had similar symptoms which were attributed to “long-continued overexertion, with deficiency of rest and often nourishment”, and indefinite heart complaints were attributed to lack of sleep and bad food. In 1870 Arthur Bowen Myers of the Coldstream Guards also regarded the accoutrements as the cause of the trouble, which he called neurocirculatory asthenia and cardiovascular neurosis.[17][18]
J. M. Da Costa’s study of 300 soldiers reported similar findings in 1871 and added that the condition often developed and persisted after a bout of fever or diarrhoea. He also noted that the pulse was always greatly and rapidly influenced by position, such as stooping or reclining. A typical case involved a man who was on active duty for several months or more and contracted an annoying bout of diarrhoea or fever, and then, after a short stay in hospital, returned to active service. The soldier soon found that he could not keep up with his comrades in the exertions of a soldier's life as previously, because he would get out of breath, and would get dizzy, and have palpitations and pains in his chest, yet upon examination some time later he appeared generally healthy.[8] In 1876 surgeon Arthur Davy attributed the symptoms to military drill where “over-expanding the chest, caused dilatation of the heart, and so induced irritability".[17]
Since then, a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described.
This is a quote from the treatment section at 22:25 on 2-5-11, more than two years after I was banned . . .
Treatment - "The report of Da Costa shows that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity or sustained lifestyle that caused them.
Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back in some cases, which relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains, and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases." See here
The Posture Theory
I summarised my theory for the Da Costa's page in December 2007 (three years earlier), but it was deleted by the editor named Gordonofcartoon on the grounds of being "non-notable", at 00:54 on 29-12-07 here
The words can be seen below . . .
"According to the theory of research co-ordinator, Max Banfield,[15] the four cardiac like symptoms of DaCosta’s syndrome were caused by the postural compression of the chest which was related to abnormal spinal curvature, chest shape, and leaning forward.
(1) Chest Pains: The postural compression of the ribs placed strain on the structures between them resulting in occasional brief sharp stabbing pains in the lower left side of the chest.
(2) Breathlessness: Pressure on the diaphragm impeded it’s upward movement and impaired it’s function and respiratory efficiency to cause an occasional sense of not being able to get a full breath, which is relieved by a characteristic forced yawn particularly during exercise, where two to four deep breaths in quick succession may be required every twenty yards or so.
(3) Palpitations: Pressure on the heart pushed it toward the anterior chest wall where changes in pulse were more readily perceived as palpitations.
(4) Fatigue: Pressure on the air and blood vessels in the chest impaired blood flow between the feet and the brain resulting in tiredness, and the resistance to blood flow affected the tone of the walls of the abdominal veins which weakened circulation and reduced exertional capacity.
The factors which contributed to the cause, as evident from the observations of DaCosta, Lewis, Wood, Wheeler. and other sources, included:
(a) Postural Compression: a stooped curvature of the upper spine kyphosis, a forward curve in the lower spine lordosis and sideways curvature of the spine scoliosis.
(b) Mechanical Compression: Leaning forward, bending or stooping added to the pressure, particularly bending at the waist instead of the hips.
(c) Chest Dimension: The postural compression would be more pronounced in a chest which was small, long, narrow, flat, or receding, e.g. pectus excavatum.
(d) Tight Waisted Clothing: Tight belts or corsets add resistance to downward compression, and nineteenth century corseted women were renown for becoming readily breathless, faint, and exhausted, and would gain relief by unlacing their corset and laying on their back with their head and shoulders elevated on the arm of a chaise longue in a fainting room.[16]
(e) pregnancy: Especially in the latter stages when the enlarging womb presses up against the diaphragm, heart, and lungs.
(f) visceroptosis: If the postural compression displaced internal anatomy then another contributing feature may be visceroptosis adding to the instability of circulation in response to changes in gravitational and centrifugal forces. e.g. faintness when standing up quickly, or distressing sensations in the chest when being moved about suddenly on a tilt table, or when riding on roller coasters or spin rides at carnivals.
The mechanism for the affect of postural compression of the chest on circulation is comparable with Valsalva Maneuver, and the chronic effect is evident in tilt table tests." (end of quote)
They deleted facts to hide the merit of my theory
After I wrote The Posture Theory in 1980 I found that some people thought it was a good explanation for the cause, and my interest in the subject continued, during which time I found more evidence from history to prove it. I also found that other authors in 'mainstream' research had made similar observations without following them through to a conclusion. However, there were also some individuals who preferred the psychological theories, such as my two critics, and they want people to believe that the my theory is just the fringy idea of a kook. They deleted my theory so that nobody can see how relevant it is, but they kept the information about over-exertion, poor posture, and tight military uniforms. i.e. they have kept the essential elements of my theory, and the treatment methods that I devised, without attributing it to me. |
Winning
Arguments
I
present the facts, and let other people argue against them. It
started as an amusing thing to do and became a useful skill. In Wikipedia I was using plain English and evidence to deal with jargon and spin M.B.
History repeats
itself
One of the first arguments that I participated
in many years ago was when someone claimed to know a friend of
a friend who could predict the future by looking at the pattern
of tea leaves in the bottom of an empty tea cup, so I asked them
to find out the winner of the next Melbourne cup and give me
a thousand dollars to fund my trip to Melbourne where I could
place a bet on the horse and give them half the winnings. They
were very confident in their idea when it was my money, but when
their own money was at stake they came up with all sorts of weird
and wonderful ways of explaining why they couldn't do it. If
you want to test the reliability of someone who claims that they
can determine the location of underground water with a divining
rod, then bury a bottle of water in your own backyard and ask
them to find it, and wait for all of their bizarre explanations
as to why they can't do that. In the meantime consider this:
When I was in Wikipedia I had two critics who would come up with
all sorts or policy reasons for deleting my contributions so
I asked them to apply the same policy requirements to other editors
on similar topic pages, but they couldn't do that because they
knew that they would find themselves being accused of disruptive
editing by every editor on every page they went to, so they came
up with some 'predictable' reasons for not doing that, such as
they didn't have time?????
My sense of
humor is often effective in arguments
One of the ridiculous statements made by
my main critic in several discussions, including the arbitration
page, was this . . . "I see that he "forgot" to
mention that DCS appeared in cavalry (with their non-restrictive
clothing and gear) just as much as infantry (who complained about
their belts), and that the British Army did a massive redesign
of their gear specifically to prevent DCS -- and that it did
not work" signed WhatamIdoing 17:27 6 Oct. 2008 . . . and
this . . . "Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount
of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive
clothing causes DCS; rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not
seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself
for a century now)" signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27-1-09.
Here are the facts to replace WhatamIdoings
lies. The tight uniform debates were an important part of military
history, and I only mentioned it as about 1% of the text that
I provided for Wikipedia, which is not 'inordinate'. Also, J.M.
Da Costa did not reject the idea of the tight waist belt being
implicated, but suggested that it 'undoubtedly' aggravated the
problem, rather than being a cause. Also, many nineteenth century
soldiers were required to wear uniforms that looked 'neat and
trim', so their clothing was typically tight. In fact, the tight
tunics prevented the expansion of the chest, so the soldiers
drew in less air with each breath, which is why the became breathless
and exhausted more easily, and the heavy knapsacks were held
to their bodies with straps that squeezed the abdomen and, or,
the chest, and made breathing even more difficult, and some soldiers
wore 'military corsets' which made the problem even worse. Also,
some people told jokes about soldiers fainting on the way to
battle because of their tight collars, called 'chokers', which
reduced the blood supply to their brains. It was obvious to some
military doctors that the tight clothing was causing chest pains,
breathlessness, dizziness, faintness, and fatigue on long marches
and in man to man combat which required extreme effort. The same
problems effected women who wore corsets where garments with
14 inch diameter waists were available of the rack as a standard
size in London dress shops. They relieved their palpitations,
breathlessness, faintness and fatigue by unlacing their corsets.
Here is a challenge for my two critics
(who read this website), I would like them to phone their local
fitness club tomorrow morning and ask to speak to the person
in charge to organise a race between two groups of 100 men of
equal age, weight, and fitness level, over a five mile cross
county obstacle course. The first group will put on a 14 inch
diameter corset, and then add tight collars, tight tunics, and
have tight straps around their chests attached to 60 pound knapsacks
on their backs, and tight garters on their legs. The second group
will be wearing loose clothing. I will give my two critics seven
days to organise this, and I want them to tell me the results.
I will not tolerate any excuses whatsoever, and will expect nothing
short of an admission that they were wrong (i.e. even over such
a short distance the group wearing tight garments will become
abnormally dizzy, faint, and exhausted, while the other group
is still sprinting off into the distance). I also demand an apology.
Here are my final words of advice - Remember you have seven days
to do this - Ready, set , go.
*****
For another take on the theme, I would
like to organise a race between myself and my two critics: Here
are the rules; each person must have their legs tied tightly
together at the ankles with sturdy ropes, and their arms tied
behind their backs at the wrists. They must then carry an egg
on the end of a spoon while holding the other end in their mouth
and then hop along a course for a distance of 100 yards to the
finish line. They MUST OBEY all of those rules AT ALL TIMES or
THEY WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Meanwhile, I will be using their favorite
rule from Wikipedia, the WP: Ignore all rules policy, so I will
not be tying my legs and arms together, and will carry the egg
in my shirt pocket. Place your bets ladies and gentlemen, we
are about to start; "
Up to date evidence
The article about my humorous approach to arguments was written several months ago, or possibly up to a year ago. However, I just saw this ridiculous comment by one of the most obvious two-faced sore losers I have ever come across . . .
"Missing humor line: I think that Wikipedia needs an essay (or sentence in an existing essay), along the lines of WP:YOULOSE, to encourage sore losers to dispute meta-issues at RFCs, e.g., whether a straw poll should be invalidated because the losers are losing. ("It's absolutely impossible for three-quarters of the community to disagree with a person as reasonable as me, so the fact that I'm 'losing' clearly proves the poll is biased!") But it seems to me that such a thing must surely exist. Does anyone know where it is? WhatamIdoing 18:24, 6 September 2010 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=prev&oldid=383292195
This is my response - Try looking under a rock.
Here is a more serious response - Why would any sensible person want to dispute something in an RFC, when editors like that can arrange for it to be ended in violation of RFC closing policy, and no-one else does anything about it.
You can't fool everyone all the time
"I'm bald and my beard is grey, so as they say, there is nothing new under the sun, and I've seen it all before.
I have seen the advantage of experience many times, and when I started adding information to Wikipedia I came across two editors who had been there for four years, and they started treating me as a 'newbie' to give the more general false impression that they were older, more experienced, and more knowledgeable than me. Of course, they were aware that I began researching a topic thirty years ago when I was already an adult, and I knew that they were 'generation x' - 35-45 years old, because one of them mentioned it on their own Userpage.
However, they wanted to use the fact that first and last impressions are the ones that people remember, especially in long pages of text, so they set up a discussion with my real life personal Sir name at the top in bold print and then tried to give the impression that they had superior knowledge by describing my plain English statements as references to 'garden variety 'orthostatic intolerance' and 'hyperventilation syndrome'. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1
The same editor who started that page, later archived it so that the very last statement gave the impression that they were older, respectable, and helpful, and that I was young, immature, and stupid, and that was achieved by deliberately writing in the manner of a silly old mother goose addressing a young duckling, with words that I paraphrase. . . 'we are very sorry we made you read a children's book about the nasty war, it must have upset you horribly, and we think that it is unfortunate that it is recommended as reading material for school children' here
If you read that full discussion you will then be able to see that they actually lost their argument as indicated by the edit summary at the very top of the page herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152
My general response is a quote from Abraham Lincoln (1869-1865). . . "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time" . . . and this is an example of me lowering myself to the level of my two critics . . . There are five billion people on the planet, and you will never have enough brains to fool 'this little black duck'.
The same editor also boasts about having an 'annoyingly high IQ', and is fond of colloquialisms, so I'll use this one . . . 'Get off your very tall ladder, before this monkey gives it a very tiny shove'.
Why my two
critics can never win a fair argument
I have been involved in arguments for the
sheer entertainment value of it for as long as I can remember,
but I essentially stopped many years ago because it was sometimes
anti-social, so I became more amiable in my general approach
to conversations.
However, when I went into Wikipedia I had
two critics, which is "only"
two, and they started arguments
and thought that they could easily beat me with jargon or policies.
They were soon getting frustrated, losing their tempers, lying.
cheating, and breaking all the rules to beat me, and describing
me as angry, upset, and hostile????, when I was simply responding
to their arguments and being amused by their word play.
They were also trying their hardest to
delete evidence, and misrepresent the facts about the topic,
and in that regard they were the instigators of argument, and
I decided to respond politely. However, they tried to escalate
the discussions into a heated argument at every opportunity,
in the hope that I would respond in an uncivil manner so that
they could ban me for violating WP:CIVIL.
Their problem was that the basis of all
my arguments is knowledge of the topic, so they couldn't say
anything without me noticing the difference between what they
said, and what the facts were. i.e. they could very easily deceive
people who were not familiar with the topic, but they couldn't
deceive me.
There are other methods that I use but
I won't discuss them because my opponents would try to spin everything
in their favor, and what they don't know, they can't spin.
The heated
debates about Da Costa's syndrome are nothing new
Da Costa's syndrome has been the subject
of heated debates for 140 years, ever since it started, about
whether the symptoms were real or imagined, physical or mental,
or due to heart disease or not, or due to 100 other causes. However,
my two critics tried to create the childish impression that the history
of research has always been an objective and harmonious pursuit. In fact the controversies are still evident today, and a good
example is where my two critics have revealed their strong personal views on this topic, which
was only exceeded by their extremely hostile prejudices which motivated them
to start their childish arguments against me, and to lose their patience, use foul
language, and break their own rules.
They tried to justify losing their tempers
by inventing the idea that I was a disruptive contributor who
was using unreliable sources of information and writing nonsense
in Wikipedia. Needless to say, confident editors would not lose
their tempers, or use foul language, or need to break the rules.
Also, they should have been able to write
an article about DaCosta's syndrome by finding all of
their own references instead of cherrypicking from my sixty which
included ten modern ones. One of my references was J.M. Da Costa
(1871). The most frequently used arguments by my two critics
was that all references must be from top quality, independent
peer reviewed medical journals that were published in the past
five years????, and that everything else was old and needed to
be deleted for policy reasons????. They were quite incapable
of wrtiting a version of the Da Costa's article based on their
own personal interpretaton of policy. i.e.they completely failedtto match the standards that they set for me. Their
very small list of 17 cherrypicked references included seven
that were more than fifteen years old.
They
were overheated and out of their depth
My two critics tried to insult me at every
opportunity but denied it. The following quotes give some brief
examples. On 15-5-08 on the DCS talk page WhatamIdoing described one
of my suggestions as stupid and gratuitously linked the word
stupid to the Wikipedia page about levels of intelligence, and
then a few days later, on 18-5-08 set up the
Civil/POV/pushing page and described my contributions as nonsense
and cruft (which means rubbish), and said that the "attitude
readjustment tools" had "left me unscathed". Two
months later, on 15-7-08 WhatamIdoing followed me to my own Usertalk page
to insult me repeatedly and then responded to one of my criticisms
with these words . . . "I am not by nature a sarcastic person,
and I have never written anything on this talk page, or in any
other conversation with you, that I intended to be sarcastic."
(end of quote). However that was typical of the offensive double
talk that I had to deal with all the time, and five months late
on 1-1-2009 WhatamIdoing made the following ridiculous statement
. . . "I have not violated WP:CIVIL: I have not called you
names, I have not taunted you, I have not used profanity, I have
not impugned your race, religion or other personal characteristics,
I have not improperly accused your of impropriety. You may have
confused CIVIL with WP:WikiLove and wiki:friendless". (end
of quote)
WhatamIdoing called me names by referring
to "attitude readjustment tools" which are applied
to "Lusers" to deliberately "taunt", bait,
goad, inflame, and provoke them, and was being sarcastic by playing
dumb and pretending not to understand that it is being sarcastic
to refer to their own snide remarks as wikifriendliness.
The insults continued on the CIVIL/POV/pushing
page on 3-2-09, after I was banned, with Gordonofcartoon describing
my contributions as "continual griping" . . . "procedural
nitpicking, obfuscation, lying by misquotation" and saying
that other editors described it as "crap" . . . "and
so on and on and f***ing on". (end of quote)
I have had thirty years of experience at
dealing with controversies so their ridiculous ill-mannered twaddle
flowed over me as easily as water flows off a ducks back.
The Ceiling of knowledge
My interest in medicine started thirty years ago as an attempt to solve a problem, and within the next five years I had identified it's nature and had a good look at a variety of ideas on the subject. I then searched through the relevant literature until I had reached the total breadth and depth of knowledge, but there were still no satisfactory explanations so I had to continue expanding those boundaries myself. About ten years later I became interested in the history of medicine and started looking for clues there. Another twenty years went by when I joined Wikipedia and started writing about it, and was confronted by two editors. They tried to argue that the only people in the world who could understand all of the mysteries of such a complicated topic were people like themselves who had annoyingly high IQ's and University qualifications, and that the knowledge could only be found in modern mainstream medical journals that had been published in the past two years???? They can only succeed with a silly argument like that against uneducated people who don't know about the ceilings and boundaries of current knowledge.
Their Unreliable
and sub-standard article
The Da Costa's article provided by my two
critics can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214
It is so unreliable and sub-standard that
you will not be able to find the answers to the simplest and
most basic of questions. For example, what is the cause of the
chest pains, and what is the cause of the breathlessness. Also,
what is the cause of the fatigue, and when was it first known,
and can it's severity be measured, and what was the result of
long term follow up studies. Also, when were exercise programmes
first used to treat the condition and what type of programmes
were involved. When you have failed to find the answers to those
obvious questions then see if you can determine if the condition
is a civilian or military ailment, and then if it is more common
in men, or women. When you have come to the conclusion that their
article is a sub-standard, and almost completely useless, and
worthless source of information then you can find the answers
to all of those questions and 100 more in the article that I
prepared here,
but they deleted.
The Argument
that my two critics started in Wikipedia
Here is the basic question: was I being
disruptive by adding verifiable information to the history section
of the Da Costa's page, or were my two critics being disruptive
by selectively deleting some of it to justify their own interpretation.
i.e. why were they removing a complete balanced account of all
of the history, and replacing it with their own narrow,
and biased view.
Their methods
My two critics had a complete and utter
lack of confidence in their ability to win any arguments against
me, so they tried their hardest to get decisions made in my absence,
or before I arrived at the page to discuss my side of the story.
For example, they lost the arguments that they started about
Rosen's research paper, and about the naming of the Da Costa's
page, and they wrote great volumes of criticism in a hurry to
get a decision made before I presented my side of the story on
their 'conflict of interest' number 2 attempt, after their first
attempt failed. They also lost their case on the Wikiquette Alerts
page, and on the Miscellany for Deletion page, and they lost
their argument about the appropriateness of their link to a children's
fiction novel. They were conducting a discussion with Moreschi
on an Administrative noticeboard incidents page, and it ceased
almost immediately when I found out about it and went there to
give a response, and they left comments on a Civil?POV/Pushing
page without inviting me to defend myself, and they left criticisms
on the Reliable sources noticeboard where my final comments were
excluded. They also arranged for a decision to be made on the
RFC page before I completed my subpage, and they started the
Arbitration page and arranged for one of their friends to ban
me before the other 12 editors had a chance to make a decision,
and they did that a few days before I was to present my final
statement. They went to other editors for help and acted as if
I was a disruptive editor who had started the arguments, and
as if they had won most of the time, and that the previous discussions
had failed because they were the wrong forum. In fact, they were
so hopeless that they ultimately had to tell the arbitrators
lies, and knew that I would be able to prove that, so they urgently
arranged for one of their friends to break the rules to get me
banned.
They were
devious deletionists
In 1987 a researcher named Oglesby Paul
reviewed the history of Da Costa's syndrome and concluded that
the cause was unknown, and described about ten unproven ideas
on cause such as tight straps about the chest, thyrotoxicosis,
anxiety, hyperventilation, and abnormal function of the autonomic
nervous system, etc. However, my two critics showed their obvious
bias by deleting everything (about nine of the ideas)
and replacing it with a statement such as . . . 'Oglesby Paul
said the cause was anxiety". They then gave an excuse which
I paraphrase as . . . 'we did this for the purest of pure reasons
to tidy up the page and remove posturewriters rubbish'. (they
were actually violating policy by deliberately misrepresenting
a reliable source).
My two critics were trying to argue that
the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome did not have a physiological
basis so when I added some comments about Sir James MacKenzie from 1919 I predicted that they would invent some devious reason
for deleting it. MacKenzie essentially said that the fatigue was due to a reduced supply of blood and oxygen to the brain caused by the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins. My two critics did not want to make it obvious that
they were deleting that comment specifically so they removed
it with a batch of other information, and then left the following
impression . . . 'we did this for the purest of pure reasons,
to separate the history into big round numbers from 1871 to 1900,
and we then very briefly summarised everything from 1900-2009, to tidy up the page and remove posturewriters rubbish'.
I knew exactly what the were doing,
but they were trying their hardest to hide it form everyone
else. Their removal of verifiable information to prop up their
own version was a violation of several policies including the
neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV, and POV/Pushing, which
they accused me of to divert attention away from their own culpability.
The Policies
of Wikipedia
Wikipedia has some very sensible and flexible
guidelines about how to make it become a reliable source of information,
and their policies are not rock solid rules, but general comments
to be interpreted with common sense. All people are allowed to
add anything they want, but if there is some dispute about a
conflict of interest it is best to accept it. However you are
allowed to provide information about the reliability of information,
or about notablily, and to put it on line to make it easy for
other editors to verify, and you are also invited to supply information
from reliable independent sources. You also have a responsibility
to report on other editors who are violating the spirit of Wikipedia
and removing reliable information and making it narrow and biased,
and less accurate. However, when I added information, or provided
evidence of notability, or gave information that was written
by other authors, my two critics treated it as a crime to be
punished, and when I told them that they were destroying the
spirit and objectives of Wikipedia by deleting verifiable information
they wanted me punished and banned for being disruptive??????
They were interpreting policy to suit their own best interests
instead of Wikipedia's basic principles.
My contributions
to Wikipedia
When I started adding to Wikipedia all
I knew was that anyone was invited to add useful information
to help the online encyclopedia become a bigger and broader source
of knowledge than printed versions, so I scanned through some
pages until I found a topic that I was familiar with and then
stopped to take a look at it. I soon noticed that a page called 'Human position' had a 'See also' section which mentioned the
Alexander Technique that I discussed in some detail in my book,
and that it had an external link to a website called 'The Posture
Page' where the owner had exchanged links to my website many
years earlier, so I added an external link to my website. I later
noticed that the page on 'chest pain' did not have anything
about postural compression disposing to occasional stabbing and
cramping pains in the chest so I added it with a link to my website
for more information. I then found a page about the chronic
fatigue syndrome and gave a one paragraph summary of my theory
on cause. I also found a page about 'kyphosis' (stooped
spine) which did not have anything about nutritional cause so
I mentioned that vitamin D deficiency in childhood could cause
the deformity and linked it to my own website where I have more
information on that aspect. I later noticed that a page about
'varicose veins' did not have anything about tight garters
blocking the veins to cause varicose veins below the garter line,
so I added it. I then started contributing to a page about Da
Costa's syndrome which I have studied, researched, and written
about, so I added information about my own theory etc, and when
I was told that it took up too much space (WP:Undue Weight) I
abbreviated it, and when that was deleted in January 2008 I didn't
put it back, and started adding information about the history
of research on that topic based on independent verifiable sources.
I was simply adding useful information
that had not been provided by anyone else because Wikipedia invited
people from all walks of life to do that, but I later found that
my two critics had gone to all of the pages with my ID and ensured
that every word I wrote was deleted, and then they told all of
the other editors that I was a disruptive editor who was causing
the entire community of Wikipedia to lose their patience and
become disgusted by my never ending self-promoting nonsense??????
They started arguing with me and they provided
a link to an irrelevant children's fiction novel and expected
me to take them seriously????
They were
rule-making, rule-abiding, tag-teaming rule-breakers??????
When I was in Wikipedia for twelve months
there were two editors who would criticise almost every word
that I wrote, often within a few minutes of me adding them, and
I had no hope of ever keeping up with their constantly changing
objections, so I generally settled back to consider their multi-faceted
arguments, and contributed once a week. They claimed that
they didn't own Wikipedia, but acted as if they did, and
did not want to be administrators, but acted as if they were.
They said that they didn't write the rules, but they must have
spent at least 10% of their time editing, modifying, rewording,
or changing the rules to suit their own issues, and they criticised
anyone who didn't agree with them. They repeatedly told me that
I must obey all of the rules of Wikipedia like all of the other
respectable rule-abiding editors such as themselves. In fact,
they must have told me about every rule in Wikipedia except the
"ignore all rules" policy???? which they were using
themselves, and which they were encouraging and rewarding other
editors to use to get me banned. Here is how they teamed up to change the guidelines about
tag teaming, and denied it. Note that whenever I responded to their criticism
of me they referred to it as an example of me "blaming",
or "attacking" them?????, and most of the time their
idea of consensus was two against one?????
At 20:36 on 1-8-08 WhatamIdoing wrote the following words on my UserTalk page
. . . "I'd
feel a lot less attacked if you quit blaming me for policies
that I did not create and do not control. Every
editor is required to comply with all policies and guidelines
at Wikipedia. It
is not a matter of me, or any other editor, changing the requirements
on you".
(Regardless of it being
a matter of creating the actual rules, it was nevertheless,
a matter of WhatamIdoing deliberately and precisely creating and controlling the interpretation
of policies to
change the requirements on me).
At 15:44 on 4-2-09, six months later, and only a
few days after I was banned, Gordonofcartoon added a note to the Wikipedia policy page about
tag-teaming to change it, with the following quote from a section headed "False accusations of tag-teaming" . . ."It
is often difficult to tell the difference between tag-teaming
and consensus-based editing. This makes "tag-team" inherently usable
as an accusation by editors who are failing to alter an article
against a consensus" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268486470&oldid=263995921
At 5:54 on 11-9-09, seven
months later, WhatamIdoing made the following amendment to
the same sentence in the same paragraph of the same policy page
. . . "False accusations of tag-teaming" . . . It
is often difficult to tell the difference between tag-teaming
and consensus-based editing.Consequently, some editors that are failing to
gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every
editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=prev&oldid=313141652
see more about their teaming
practices here
At 21:36 on 29-10-09you can also see how much
influence WhatamIdoing actually tries to exert on some other
policies from the following extract.
These were WhatamIdoing's exact words of advice to another
editor . . . "Since Born2cycle . . . effort to imply that
I don't know what I'm talking about,I'd like to remind him that I was one the participants in the very
long discussions about re-writing this policy, and that I'm accurately reporting what I -- and
he -- was told" [[WhatamIdoing|talk]] 21:36, 29 October
2009 herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions&diff=prev&oldid=322806257
At 2:09 on 31-10-09 WhatamIdoing made this statement in response to the same editor.
. . "I
also want to say, as the person that originally wrote nearly
everything on this page about procedures for new proposals and
substantial changes to existing policies,
that it's kind of odd that I am being accused of never wanting
anyone to change policy and guidelines pages (while minimizing
complaints from other editors). If it were true that I opposed
changes to these pages, I wouldn't have wasted a week here last
year in telling people just how to go about it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]
([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:09, 31 October 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=323031972
At 1:04 on 16-12-09';. WhatamIdoing wrote these wordsin
response to an editor named SatuSuro . . . "It happens that I wrote most of
the relevant sections in the WikiProject Council Guide".
At 02:35 on 16th January 2010 WhatamIdoing wrote these words of advice to
an editor named StormRider about Wikipedia "Naming conventions"
. . ."Much
of what I have written over the past couple of years at WP:External
links, for example is focused on
reducing confusions by more fully explaining what's already on
the page, rather than changing how the 'rules' operate".
At 18:35 on 18th January 2010 WhatamIdoinggave these words of advice to another editor named
Squideshi about "Naming conventions" . . . "Please consider
the advantages (to you) of accepting the defeat of your proposal
with a litte grace, and stop trying to re-write the rules to
gain an advantage in a dispute".
At 7:12 on 20th January 2010 WhatamIdoing gave these words of advice to an editor named
Masem . . . "the
written guidelines should primarily describe and reflect the
communities already existing-view of an issue: they should not
invent new rules for the purpose of changing the communities
practices".
At 2:19 on 13th February 2010 WhatamIdoingwrote these words about another editors attempt
to change the style guidelines . . . "It is a quotation
of a section that appears to have been changed very, very recently
to say essentially the opposite of what it has said for years, which makes one suspiciousthat someone changed it for the
purpose of affecting his discussion".
At 2:38 on 28 March 2010 WhatamIdoing made
some changes to an essay that hadn't
been edited for two
and a half years. It's title was
"Wikipedia: The differences between policies, guidelines
and essays", and it previously had only 46 words of text
spread across six very small lines. The gist of it was "You must follow policies,
except for the "IGNORE ALL RULES" policy which
is THECOMMON EXCEPTION, and you should follow guidelines,
and it is a good
idea to follow essays, and don't
ignore guidelines just because they aren't policies.'
WhatamIdoing slab deleted that entire
essay and completely rewrote it in the same edit with 409 words of text (almost 900% larger in a single edit),
with these typical and 'telling' remarks . . . "There
are remarkable
numbers of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia policies,
and all policies need to be applied with common sense . . . Furthermore
WP:ignore all rules is a major policy<".
In other words the rules and guidelines
were initially written to be followed and complied with,
but since then, editors like my two critics have been rewriting
exceptions into every policy so that they don't have to comply
with anything(because
they can now find exceptions (or excuses) for everything they
do), and if they still fail to
get their own way in disputes, they just 'ignore' every policy,
guideline, or essay written in the past eight years".
According to the Wikipedia
revision history statistics for
the period 3-9-2008 and 11-11-2009, WhatamIdoing was the sixth highest contributor to
the policies and guidelines talk page, and gave 91 opinions about
how they should be rewritten, and wrote 8 changes to the actual
policies page between 22-10-2008 and 17-10-2009.
It looks like an example
of the person who wants to be the power behind the throne,
but doesn't want anyone to notice who is pulling the strings.
Also, WhatamIdoing was intelligent enough to manipulate the rules, but was not intelligent enough
to match the newer standards. The method can be summarised like
this; if
my two critics were not
good enough to win within
the rules,
then they would try to change the rules, and if
someone else wanted to change them they would argue relentlessly to stop
them, and if
that failed,
then they would use WP:IAR . . . the Wikipedia policy called
. . . "Ignore
all rules".
The average
new contributor would not stand a chance against that type of
labyrinth of argument.
How I won
the arguments that they started
1. They lost their argument about Rosen's
research paper because WhatamIdoing said that Da Costa's syndrome
(which is also called the 'effort syndrome') was a text-book
perfect description of the hyperventilation syndrome, and Gordonofcartoon
said that Rosen's paper about HVS was referring to a different
type of effort syndrome. The second paragraph of Rosen's paper
showed that it was the same. Regardless of the other issues my
two critics contradicted each other, and didn't want to admit
it so they changed the subject to avoid embarrassment.
Also, Gordonofcartoon made a mistake by
being impulsive and leaping to conclusions after reading the
first paragraph, and not bothering to read the full article,
or Rosen's reference list which included numbers 9 and 10 by
T.Lewis who coined the word 'effort syndrome' as an alternative
to Da Costa's syndrome in 1919.
2. They lost their argument about changing
the name of the Da Costa's syndrome page to Somatoform
autonomic dysfunction because, for example, I reminded them of the naming guidelines which
recommended that common names should be used and jargon should be avoided.
Of course, they were fully aware that it was inappropriate to
use jargon in an online encyclopedia for the general reader,
as can be seen on the naming guidelines talk page at 3:36 on
3-11-2009, ten months after I was banned, where WhatamIdoing
wrote these words . . . "I know what willfully obscure technical jargon means". see herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions&diff=prev&oldid=323618264
3. I wrote an essay to defend myself from
their tactics but Gordonofcartoon set up a Wikiquette Alerts
page to get it deleted. He failed because the discussion
ended when and independent editor named PeterSymonds summed up
the consensus of several other editors with the following words
. . . 'the result of the debate was keep'.
4. A Miscellany for deletion page (MFD),
was set up to remove the same essay but it closed without it
being deleted, so he failed again. He responded by setting
up an RFC discussion on 20-7-08, where his objective was to get
me banned from the topic of Da Cosa's syndrome on the grounds
of another policy called WP:NOR (no original research), and on
his opinion that I was being disruptive - WP:TE (tendencious
editing), by adding independent and verifialbe information to
the page. Four days later, on the RFC talk page, he argued that
the MFD discussion had failed for "procedural" reasons.
He was supposed to accept such decisions because continuing to
go relentlessly from one forum to another until he got the decision
he wanted is a violation of the guideline which referrs to that
practice as forum shopping.
5. They
lost their argument about their use of a children's fiction novel
as a hatnote on the top line of the
Da Costa's page because an independent editor named El Imp deleted
the hatnote on the grounds that it was foolish, and another editor
named Paul Barlow deleted the link on the grounds that it
was irrelevant, and it has not been put back since. (eleven
months later).
6. They
lost their argument about my references being old or out-of-date, or from before most editors were born because
they used some of my references when they replaced my version
of the article with their own. For example, I included J.M.Da
Costa (1871), Sir James MacKenzie (1916), Paul Dudley White (1951),
and Oglesby Paul (1987), and their version included Da Costa's
because it was essential, and Oglesby Pauls was their own choice
(and I just reviewed it), and they replaced Paul Dudley Whites
1951 book with one of his 1951 research papers. They had to
use the sources that I provided because it would be impossible
to write an intelligent history of the subject without them.
7. They would have lost most of the other
arguments that they started, except that they had the decisions
made before I was able to present my side of the evidence - The
decision on the COI number two page was made before I presented
my defense, the RFC page was closed before I completed my subpage
(i.e. while it was still active), I was banned before I had time
to complete my response to the Reliable Sources noticeboard,
and I was banned on the Arbitration page before I had the opportunity
of presenting my final defense. In fact, when I notified the
arbitration editors that I would be preparing my defense for
the following Sunday, I knew that my two critics would see it,
and try to find a way of getting me banned before then - and
they did - by ignoring the rules.
8. A summation: They lost an argument about Rosen's research paper because Gordonofcartoon didn't read past the first paragraph to see that he was talking about the same effort syndrome (Da Costa's syndrome), and they tried to argue about Oglesby Pauls review by failing to read the first page which described DCS as a disorder of unknown origin, and they tried to argue about their 'children's fiction' novel called 'soldier's heart', without reading past the title of the book to learn that it's hundred pags of text contained no information about the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, but they always managed to ignore my criticisms, or change the subject, or find ridiculous excuses for that type of editing (such as the use of hatnotes).
However these were WhatamIdoing's sanctimonious words recently . . . "I really appreciate people who don't cite sources that they haven't read. I realize that's a pretty basic thing for professionals, but we do sometimes encounter inexperienced people who are citing papers based on just the title or the abstract, and it often leads to problems. WhatamIdoing05:20, 22 May 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Google_Project&diff=prev&oldid=363506365
If my two critics wanted to avoid problems they should have taken their own advice and actually read the full references before starting arguments with me about them!!!!!
An example of the content disputes about Da Costa's syndrome
This was some of the information that I
provided to Wikipedia about the history of Da Costa's syndrome
. . . "In the 1940's there were several studies aimed
at determining the physical basis of these conditions[11][28]
and in 1947 S.Wolf studied the "respiratory distress
characterized by inability to get a full breath" and found
that the thoracic diaphragm function was abnormal, and when the
diaphragms contractile state during inspiration was such that
adequate inspiration was no longer possible, breathlessness occurred
with a feeling of inability to take a full breath. The spasm
of the diaphragm was often accompanied by pains in the chest
and shoulder, occlusion of the lower end of the esophagus, and
difficulty swallowing.[29] Also in 1947 a report by Cohen
and White noted that the complete mechanism of Da Costa syndrome
symptoms was unknown but when respiration was investigated objective
abnormalities were found, "just as when other symptoms
of N.C.A. are investigated with objective methods, which demonstrates
that the abnormalities are not all in the subjective sphere".
The respiratory abnormalities at rest were few but during exercise
the abnormalities became more pronounced and the deviations from
the normal became greater as the rate and amount of exercise
increased.[30]"
My two critics described the references
of Wolf, Cohen, and White (from 1947) as unreliable, and
argued that the information was old and out-of-date, and
they said that I was being disruptive for adding it, and they deleted it and replaced it
with the following words . . . "a physical examination does not reveal any physiological
abnormalities. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wi/index.php?title=Da_Costa'%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750
(the Da Costa's syndrome page of 18:57 on 26-1-09)
My two critics
tried to win arguments but often contradicted themselves
They told a lot of forums, including the
arbitrators, that I supposedly used references, which according
to them were unreliable, because they contained "seriously
outdated materials" . . . including . . . "a 1951
textbook".
They were referring to a 1951 book which
was actually one of the most reliable sources of information
about this topic, and was a reference book for cardiologists
written by Paul Dudley White. Also, when WhatamIdoing deleted
my draft, and my reference to that 1951 textbook??? it was replaced
with their version which included their reference number 6. by
Cohen M.E. and White P.D. (01, Nov. 1951). I don't think
that WhatamIdoing was knowledgeable enough to know that Cohen
and White collaborated on many articles about Da Costa's
syndrome, or that White P.D. was the same person as Paul Dudley White. I also don't think that
WhatamIdoing noticed that the book that I used and the research article that they
used were by the same author,
Paul Dudley White, in the same year -1951. When I used them
they described them as out of date and unreliable sources of
information????, but when they used them they acted as if they
were the impeccable choice of experienced editors who knew what
they were talking about??????
Their Double
talk
When I went into Wikipedia
I was an ordinary person who wanted to make useful contributions
based on the principles of common sense. I was therefore not
interested in learning all of the policies for the purpose of
becoming some sort of power broker. However, as an ordinary person,
this is the advice I was given by a policy expert named WhatamIdoing
. . . "the fact that you have spent so little time attempting
to learn the rules cannot possibly be the fault of any editor
but you" WhatamIdoing 20:36 1-8-08.
It was not
my fault, but here is my response . . .
Whenever my two critics criticised me they argued that I
was violating policies such as WP:AGF (I was supposed to Assume Good Faith in them), and whenever
I criticised them they argued that I was making personal attacks on them by violating
NPA (no personal attacks policy).
However the only real difference was that they knew the names
and codes for the policies, and used them, and I didn't, so I
described their actions in plain English. For example, in my
essay about their methods I gave ten examples such as number
2 - they were using policies as red herrings, and number 8 -
they were using policies as tactics, which is the equivalent
of providing evidence that they were violating WP:Wikilawyering,
and WP:Battleground. When I provided evidence that indicated
the possibility of them deleting the whole page anonymously to
avoid blame, I was providing evidence that they needed to be
investigated for violating WP:SOCK - about Sock puppetry (where
the same person adds information under anonymnous or multiple
different ID's, akin to the actions of a ventriloquist - the
same person is doing all the talking but trying to make it look
as if their voice is coming from someone else). When I provided
evidence and links to their discussions where they were deleting
verifiable evidence to prop up their own opinions, it was the
equivalent of them violating WP:NPOV. Also when I provided evidence
as a plain English description of their editing pattern being
a wild goose chase it was the equivalent of them violating the
Wikipedia guidelines related to 'policy creep' or 'moving the
goalposts", and when I provided evidence that they were
arguing incessantly until they had the final say in everything,
it was the equivalent of them violating the Wikipedia guidelines
about "forum shopping'. The fact that they always set up
discussion pages against me and worked as a team of two to get
me blocked was a violation of WP:Tag-team guidelines.
Every one of the statements that I made
in my essay about their editing methods was based on common sense,
and was written in plain English, and they all had at least one
Wikipedia equivalent in policy code.
However my two critics used their policy
codes to accuse me of violating dozens of policies - and they
twisted the policies around to describe my ten plain English
description of them as a violation of WP:NPA ('no personal attacks'
policy).
Their use of policy in that manner is a
violation of WP:Wikilawyering, WP:Battleground, WP:AGF, WP:NPA,
and WP:Own etc. They violated all of the policies and principles
of Wikipedia to disrupt my contributions which is the equivalent
of them violating WP:DE (disruptive editing), and WP:TE (tendencious
editing), and they used WP:IAR (ignore all rules policy) to get
me banned, which is the only policy that they couldn't accuse
me of.
After I was banned their criticism of me
remained, and the essay that I wrote about them was deleted.
The actual position in a real argument
with me could be an example of them being WP:H (hopeless) and
WP:C (cheats).
All of these matters are discussed individually
in more detail on this webpage.
Their personal
reasons for banning me
At one stage one of my critics tried to
impress other editors by providing a list of five alternative
labels for Da Costa's syndrome, However, I have seen at least
100 that had been in common use throughout the history of the
topic, including CFS, but I referred to a webpage by an independent
medical consumer who had provided a list of 80. My two critics
should have accepted that as a general indication of the complex
nature of the topic, but it also showed that their list of five
was ridiculously small, and an indication of their own ignorance,
so they spun it around by arguing incessantly that the author
was not a medically qualified expert and that the information
was unreliable according to Wikipedia policy. Note that the consumer
only had one website which was about her pet lizards, so, as
you would expect, she added the webpage about CFS to it, rather
than paying for the costs of an unnecessary extra site. This
is how WhatamIdoing referred to the reference in as many places
as possible, including the disruptive editing page on 10-1-09
. . . "I know that you are mad at me because I oppose using
your iguana websiteto prove that Da
Costa's syndrome is a subtype of chronic fatigue syndrome",
and then wrote on the same page on the next day that it was "a
webpage entirely written by a non-expert medical consumer (at
www.anapsid.com, a website that is largely about iguanas)"
- end of quotes. Note that WhatamIdoing deliberately gave the
wrong address as www.anapsid.com instead of www.anapsid.org,
in order to mislead the other editors, and that it was not "my"
website, and I was not "mad" at anyone, and that the
relevant webpage had nothing to do with iguanas, and it was not written "entirely" by the medical consumer, but was written in collaboration with four doctors, and that I was not trying to prove anything,
but provided dozens of other references from medical journals
to show evidence that Da Costa's syndrome was widely regarded
as being the same as CFS.
Also one of my critics added a link to
a novel, and the other one moved it to the top of the page, so
I read it and found it to be an irrelevant childrens fiction
story. I knew that they would be embarrassed and humiliated if
I mentioned that, but I had a responsiblilty to ensure that information
in Wikipedia was reliable so I requested that they delete it.
Of course, instead of admitting that it was inappropriate, or
that they had been negligent for not reading past the title of
the book, or it's introduction, they argued incessantly and then
tried to spin everything around by using words to give the impression
that they were mature and authoritative editors addressing a
young and sensitive new contributor???? WhatamIdoing did it with
these typically condescending words addressed to me on the DCS
talk page of 30-6-08 . . . "I just want to add that I'm
sorry you read that book. Paulsen makes a living from writing
deliberately depressing books to promote his anti-war / anti-military
views. He has a particular talent for sympathetically disgusting
descriptions. I have read about ten of them and only found one
that was worth my time. They are, unfortunately, officially
recommended or required reading in many, many American
schools" (end of quote). Needless to say, school administrators,
principles, teachers, and librarians would have better judgment
about what school children should read than WhatamIdoing, and
my two critics know that I am older then them, so it was quite
ridiculous, and insolent, for them to try and create the impression
that I would get upset reading children' literature, but, of
course, WhatamIdoing has a particular talent for recklessly twisting
the truth.
Finally, when I produced an alternative
text for DCS and an independent editor described it as "a lot better" than the existing one that my two critics used,
then they should have accepted that fact, but they argued that
the neutral editor was incompetent in the topic and spent months
relentlessly criticising every paragraph in the draft, and never
stopped until I was banned.
Competence
and skill in Disputes
For a further example of WhatamIdoing's
extremely arrogant attitude, I have seen that editor link
several times to the 'Dunning-Kruger effect' which refers
to the idea that some incompetent people overestimate their
skills and have the illusion of superiority.
Here is a quote from WhatamIdoing's
advice to an editor named Tenmel at 6:48 on 15-12-09 .
. . "Arbcom-imposed mentorships are essentially useless.
Speaking very generally, without saying a single word either
for or against yourself, when editors get as far as ArbCom in
a dispute, especially one involving patently idiotic choices like persistent edit warring, then the
problem is almost always bigger than WP:Mentorship can handle,
and has a lot more to do with an unrecognized lack of WP:COMPETENCE on the part of at least one of the
editors. Incompetent
people are sincerely unaware of their incompetence; a personal belief in one's own competence
is as unlikely to be a useful measure of one's real skill level
as a drunk's decision to drive a car is likely to indicate whether
he's actually a safe driver."
WhatamIdoing was responding to Tenmel, who, at 22:07 on 14-12-09, added a link to an
essay on mentorship which explained that the most obvious answer
to a question is not always the best, and that the first idea
that inexperienced and impulsive people think of for solving
their own problems can get them into more trouble in the longer
term with people who have had more experience, and have seen
all the tricks before.
Their
incompetence and inferior skills in arguments
I have had much more experience
in controversy than my two critics, and although one of them
claims to have an "annoyingly high IQ" and university
qualifications, and although the two of them combined have added
more than 20,000 edits, they still have very "poor"
"skills" in an argument. For example, at one stage
they linked a "novel" to the DCS page, so I borrowed
it from my local library and found that the main character did
not have any of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, and it was
apparent to me that neither of my critics had read past the
title of the book. When I asked them to remove the link because
it was irrelevant I anticipated their response with "curiosity".
Gordonofcartoon replied five hours later, at 12:07 on 26-6-08,
by "inventing" a "simple" "diversion",
and twisting my words about, and arguing that my "diagnosis"
of the main character was a violation of original research policy
(WP:OR). A day and a half later, at 0:29 on 28-6-08, WhatamIdoing
"invented" another "simple" "diversion"
by arguing that the "children's fiction novel" did
not have to be relevant to the "medical" topic because
of "hatnote policy" (WP:HATNOTE). Soon after that,
at 1:56 on the same day, I made a more direct suggestion to
Gordonofcartoon with these words . . . "If you wish
to question my interpretation, you will need to read it yourself
and give me chapter and page numbers to assess" (end
of quote). It was easy for me to find a copy of that popular
book and it only contained about 100 pages of text, so it would
also be easy for Gordonofcartoon to find it and give me a list
of the page numbers where the symptoms were described, if those
pages existed. Of course, they didn't, so the only honest responses
for Gordonofcartoon to make would be to admit that he had
never read the book, or that he had read it, but was wrong in
thinking that it was relevant. However, predictably, he and
WhatamIdoing just continued to argue with the same type of diversionary
tactics for several weeks. About six months later, at 13:08 on
22-12-08, the hatnote was deleted for several policy reasons by an independent editor named El imp, and then about
a month later, at 20:25 on 27-1-09, WhatamIdoing left the following
words about me on the Arbitration page . . . "The other
problems that we've encountered generally involve a failure to
grasp Wikipedia's conventions. For example, at one time, Soldier's
heart redirected to the DCS article. There's a novel named Soldier's heart, so we provided a link to the article
about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote
instead of in a See also section. Posturewriter complained
at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being "in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewrtier
never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved
only because Soldier's Heart became a regular disambiguation
page" (end of quote). WhatamIdoing was again demonstrating
"poor" "skills" by either not bothering
to read the history of edits and seeing that the hatnote had
been deleted, or by telling the arbitrators deliberate lies.
WhatamIdoing also used hatnote
policy to put the label of Soldier's heart in the lead (at the top of the page) so that it would be a more effective
venue for promoting the false idea that Da Costa's syndrome was
exclusively, or mainly a military ailment, and then created a
diversion by "inventing" the argument that I didn't
get the point???? I did understand the conventions, and the hatnote
policy, and how my two critics were misusing them. They made
sure that I was banned by one of their friends before I had the
time to explain such things to the arbitrators.
I could always predict that they
would use their experience with policy to produce diversions
in the many content disputes that they started and lost.
Their predictable 'trickery', or diversions, which were 'acts
of deception', were tedious, and their method of getting me banned
by using the "ignore all rules policy" may have been
more surprising, if it wasn't so "typically" 'devious'.
More OBVIOUS
examples of their lack of maturity, experience, and skill in
disputes.
During disputes
my two critics tended to respond impulsively by deleting
some of my contributions within minutes of me adding them, and
then they would rush to give an immediately made up policy
reason, without thinking about the fact that they were
breaking the same policies. They frequently showed evidence of losing their patience, and their tempers, and resorting to foul language and they ignored simple
rules on the basis of 'selective' interpretation rather than
on the true meaning of them, and they were so childish that they made, such as 'everyone'
has a 'right' to lose their temper? when they are obviously out-of-their-own-depth in a dispute.
Another obvious
example of the almost totally naive approach to argument
is where they
acknowledged that they had lost their patienceand were on the verge of tearing their hair out, which gives everyone, even their
critics, the advantage of knowing that they
have poorly developed, or under developed coping skills in disputes. They have won many
arguments against new contributors, but those individuals probably
lacked the skills to see the 'obvious' signs of them being
'out-of-their depth', and many new contributors probably left
Wikipedia in disgust at their pathetic opponents and their shameless
and blatant 'cheating'.
****
When I used the
benefit of my experience I was aware that I needed to spend some
time preparing my responses to their criticism so that I could
cover all of their 'devious' angles, so I asked the other neutral
editors how long I had available to produce a proper reply. Gordonofcartoon
would come along like a typical fool and say in paraphrase .
. . 'told ya so, this is another example of Posturewriter's delaying
tactics'.
Gordonofcartoon
obviously doesn't know how important it is to actually think
about something before you write it.
*****
My two critics
were both impatient, impulsive, and temperamental, but 12 months
after I was banned WhatamIdoing wrote these words about another????editor
who was involved in a dispute . . . "the problem must be
'much' bigger than the example, and much more about relationships/emotions/behavior
than about content in the mainspace." signed WhatamIdoing
5:30, 2nd February 2010.
*****
They were a very
amusing tag team who often defeated each others arguments. For
example, one of them would lose their temper and refuse to co-operate
with neutral editors on an RFC page, and soon after that the
other one would accuse me of being angry??? on a page where I
provided clear evidence that they were being disruptive?
The
Obvious Lack of confidence shown by my two critics
My two critics were treating disputes
as a sort of horse race, as if I had won all previous races ,
and they had lost all of theirs, so they needed to make things
difficult for me in order to give themselves a chance of winning.
For example, they always worked as a team of two, and they
told me to obey all the rules while they were ignoring all the
rules, and they kept on moving the finish line each time
I won 9 of the 10 distances (or disputes), from 1000 yards, to
1100, 1200, and 2000 yards, and in the last instance when I asked
the judges where the real finish was (thinking that it was 2100
metres), the two ponies ran past and one of their friends told
the judges to go home and declared them to be the winners at
the 2050 mark.
They were incompetent in arguments
My two critics tried to win arguments against me without bothering to read past the first paragraph of research papers or the title of a book. They also knew that the only way they could beat me was if no-one else had a chance to see my side of the evidence, so typically, if I gave some advance notice that I would be away for awhile, they would rush around in a frenzy and try to get me blocked before I returned.
Their method for getting me banned was also typical. Gordonofcartoon set up the discussion on the arbitration page with a 190 word introduction, and followed it with a 270 word statement, and then a 173 word response to questions from an editor called Wizardman, and a 62 word response to Vassyana, and a 90 word response to Carcharoth, with the total being 792 words.
My other critic named WhatamIdoing gave a continuous and desperate rant of lies amounting to 1074 words, plus a 72 word response to Horologium, making the total of 1146 words.
I wrote 659 words of defence at 08:32 on 27 January 2009, and told the arbitrators that I would let them discuss everything and give my response at the end of the week, and asked them to let me know if they wanted an earlier reply.
WhatamIdoing rushed into the discussion on the same day, and all of Gordonofcartoons responses to other editors comments were made between 27 and 29 January when one of their friends rushed in and banned me, and threatened to argue with anyone who disputed his personal decision.
The combined number of words used against me by those two editors was 1938, and my total defence was 659, and I didn't have the opportunity to respond to WhatamIdoings accusations, or any of the other editors comments.
They were disgusting and offensive cheats.
See here
Their complete lack of competence in the subject
My main critics lack of qualifications to edit the Da Costa's syndrome topic can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=247115577&oldid=247067496
and that editors admission of not knowing much about the subject until I started writing about it for Wikipedia can be seen in the first sentence here
and the virtually worthless four line article that the editor contributed to before I started can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=165216444&oldid=151708868
The article that I wrote and they called crap and deleted can be seen here
The Cambridge online dictionary definition of an ingrate can be seen here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ingrate
It means 'a person who is not grateful'
It generally refers to a person who is ill-mannered and offensively disrespectful to the person to whom they owe gratitude.
Their
No Win Trickery
I spent twelve months in Wikipedia where
I had two critics who were trying to block me by using every
trick in the book. One of their methods was to produce 'no-win'
situations. For example, when I added information about my own
research to the Da Costa page they said it took up too much space,
so I abbreviated it, and when they said that I was violating
the 'conflict of interest' policy, I didn't agree with their
interpretation of policy, but I stopped adding the information
for 'polite' reasons, 'obviously' to 'keep the peace'. However,
they deliberately misrepresented that by telling the other editors
that I had "given up" adding my own research?????
I then started writing the history of the
topic, but they continued to criticise and delete every word
and every independent reference that I added. For example, when
they criticised my references for being written by one person,
I provided the same information from a 'review' paper, and when
they criticised the references for being 'old' I provided 'modern'
ones. However, they described that response as being 'disruptive'
or 'edit warring'.
In other words, if I complied with policy
by not adding information, they said that I was 'giving up',
as if I had 'caved in' to their pretentiously' 'powerful'???
'authority'????, and if I provided information that met the appropriate
requirements, they said that I was being 'disruptive'. i.e. According
to them, everything I did, regardless of whether I did what they
wanted or not, had something wrong with it.
I have had thirty years of experience at
dealing with disputes and there are many ways of dealing with
'simple' 'no-win' 'stunts'. One way is to describe the trick,
so that 'everyone', without that experience, can 'easily' 'recognise'
it.
They were sore losers
My two critics were incompetent at winning content disputes, so they couldn't win by limiting themselves to arguing within the boundaries of the rules, so they lied and cheated, and would generally be referred to as sore losers.
However one of them presented this comment on 6-9-10 . . . Wikipedia needs an essay (or sentence in an existing essay), along the lines of WP:YOULOSE, to encourage sore losers to dispute meta-issues at RFCs, e.g., whether a straw poll should be invalidated because the losers are losing. ("It's absolutely impossible for three-quarters of the community to disagree with a person as reasonable as me, so the fact that I'm 'losing' clearly proves the poll is biased!") But it seems to me that such a thing must surely exist. Does anyone know where it is? WhatamIdoing 18:24, 6 September 2010 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=prev&oldid=383292195
This is a brief summary and proof of the arguments that they lost, but won't admit to . . .
They argued that Da Costa's syndrome was 'garden variety, and 'text book perfect' 'hyperventilation syndrome', but they contradicted each other, and their version of the article does not include that label.
They argued that I was deliberately neglecting the topic of mitral valve prolapse syndrome, yet I did discuss it, and improve upon it (because they didn't), and when I asked Gordonofcartoon to read a relevant small three page article on his own 'to do list', and asked him to review it himself, he said he didn't have time. Also their version only mentions it once, in one small sentence.
I told them that Paul Dudley White had described Da Costa's syndrome as a fatigue syndrome that was chronic, and that many modern authors regarded it as the same, or very similar condition, but they said it couldn't be because CFS was a diagnosis by exclusion.
They argued that the symptoms described by MacKenzie in 1916 were not the same as orthostatic intolerance, but their version of the article states that the orthostatic intolerance described by Da Costa was found in patients diagnosed with CFS.
They argued that my use of references by Wood, and White from the 1940's and 1950' were unreliable and unacceptable for use in Wikipedia because they were more than fifty years old. However they used references by the same two authors for the same period.
They argued that a reference by Sir James MacKenzie was unreliable because he was just an ordinary doctor who walked in off the street, joined a society, and spoke at an ordinary meeting that had nothing to do with the subject, but they used the same reference from 1916.
Their version of the article provides all of the evidence and proof that lost all of those arguments, but are sore losers who got the best information from me but won't admit it.
You can read their version of the article, including their reference list by scrolling up and down here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750#Classification
They were very prolific liars and very sore losers.
Gordonofcartoon's
fateful words
"DO
'WE' WANT TO UP THE ANTE"?
Can some respectable people please assist me to teach my two critics a lesson that they won't forget in a hurry.
At one stage the constant team-mate of my main critic slyly presented a deliberately provocative threat to me by including the words "Do we want to up the ante?", in the temporary edit summary at the top of a page. I replied in an 'equal' for 'equal' manner by saying "Do you want me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry?".
It didn't take them long to get me banned by telling lies, such as telling other editors that my comment was an 'Unspecified threat', to give them the impression that it was unprovoked, e.g. in item number 5 here. Some months later my main critic gave a barnstar to the administrator who banned me. That particular barnstar is called the "Outlaw Halo Award" because it is given to an editor or administrator who does something by "ignoring all the rules."
I therefore request the assistance of seven billion people, either inside or outside of Wikipedia, to teach those two disgusting cheats that anyone who ignore the rules in the process of winning disputes has absolutely nothing to be proud of, and will ultimately end up being publicly criticised and feel completely ashamed of themselves.
See also my other report here, and my report on the "ignore all rules" policy here |
When I joined Wikipedia the only thing
that I knew was that they wanted to get all people from all walks
of life to add useful information to make it better than the
narrow and shallow range of knowledge in printed versions. I
soon found that you can't add your own research, and must be
polite, even if other editors are ignorant and annoying. I did not have any trouble understanding or complying with those
simple common sense requirements.
My own research was deleted very early,
but then I had two critics who were trying to stop me from adding
anything to any page, and continued to say that I was a single
purpose account with a conflict of interest who was always adding
my own research, and that I was hostile, argumentative, and disruptive.
They were actually following me around
and deleting everything on the other six pages if it hadn't already
been deleted by someone else, and then implied that 'everyone'
thought I was stupid. They eventually took their arguments to
my User talk page and started insulting me, and said that I was
harassing them when in fact I was just defending myself from
their ridiculous offensive hounding. At that stage I decided
to write an essay about their repetitive, and therefore predictable
tactics, and put it at the top of my page so that anyone who
came there could see it first and get everything in the proper context before
reading their comments. They then started referring it as an attack essay, and tried their hardest to give the false impression
that they were the heroic neutral administrators who wanted it removed
for the benefit of 'other' editors. It was OBVIOUS to me that
they planned to have my UserTalk page filled with their
criticisms, and none of my responses, so that they could make
themselves look 'good', and me look 'bad'. I had to bring a stop
to that.
I continued to be polite in the face of their insults because I only
knew abut the basics of the civility policy which required contributors to be courteous at all times, and
I wasn't interested in reading all of the other guidelines about
how to deal with antagonistic and disruptive individuals. However,
they knew all of the policies and used them as their excuse for being ill-mannered, disrespectful, and critical as often
as possible.
One of the problems caused by being polite
is that you can be made to look like a weak-willed, mindlessly
obedient lap dog, and my two critics tried to create, magnify,
and exploit that false impression. Also, if they insulted me
1000 times, and I responded with an uncivil tone three times,
they would trace those comments with one of their automatic
web trackers, and later add it onto a list, and then mislead other editors into thinking that it was typical,
in order to create the illusion that I was the ill-mannered editor
who was repeatedly starting trouble.
For example . . . Gordonofcartoon came to my User talk page and left a deliberately threatening
message "Do we want to up the ante". He left it in the notes at the top of a diffs
edit on my User Talk page where I would be the only one who was
likely to see it, and he knew that it would only be there until someone else
left a comment on that page, and then it would disappear into the history
of edits. I knew that he was making a threat, and that he was
hoping that I would never be able to find that threat again,
and that if I responded in a similar manner he would accuse me
of being uncivil and disruptive for no apparent reason.
I therefore had to deal with him, and not
by being uncivil, but by making it clear that he did not have
enough brains to intimidate me, and that he should think twice
about taking the argument to the next level, because I knew that
he had not shown any hope of ever winning any argument against
me. I also knew that he would have tried the same sort of stunts
on previous contributors and been successful for four years,
and would have arrogantly expected that he could do the same
to me.
Therefore, I simply replied
in the manner of equal for equal, and ambiguity for ambiguity, on 13-7-08 with these words
. . . "Would you like
me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in hurry". He knew that I was referring to his previous threat. However,
I also predicted that it did not matter what I said, he would
distort it to make me look like the instigator of trouble, and
then make ridiculous
denials about his plan.
Within a week, by 20-7-08,
he had started "upping the ante" by going to the Administrators
Noticeboard and telling them that I had made an"UNSPECIFIED"
threat, and then quoted my words
to make it look like a physical threat that I had made for the
purpose of intimidating him? He then acted as if he was
being prim and proper by telling them that he didn't
need their help, and would (heroically?) deal with the issue by setting up
an RFC page. He then spent 24 hours adding a dozen edits to present
his accusations, which included his devious claim that I had made an UNSPECIFIED??????
threat. That discussion page was eventually closed by
another editor in violation of RFC closing policy, and then Gordonofcartoon
set up another discussion on the Arbitration page where he again accused me of "harassing"
him and other editors?. After I was banned, my Usertalk page, where some of the discussions
occurred, was deleted on the grounds that it was an example of
me making personal attacks on them?
This is a
history lesson that Gordonofcartoon won't forget in a hurry
The conversations where he started
it all by his secretive and devious threats against me, and made
his ridiculous denials, are presented below, followed by the
lies and misrepresentations of facts that he told
the ANI, RFC, and Arbitration editors . . .
At 8:21 on 16-7-08 I responded to a threat made by Gordonofcartoon when I wrote these words
. . . "Gordonofcartoon: Regarding your comments " False
accusations: personal attacks - DO WE WANT TO UP THE ANTE? on 13-7-08 here [12]" - That choice
of words gives the impression of intimidation, or a threat, and
incitement to escalate a discussion into a heated argument
which is a serious violation of wikipedia discussion policy that
can have you banned. Please apologise. Posturewriter 8:21,
16 July 2008.
Gordonofcartoon replied three hours later at 11:24
with the following words . . . "No; It's a suggestion that
if you are not satisfied with the current situation - and it
certainly isn't resolving things - we can take it up to the next level of dispute resolution:A WP:RFC. Gordonofcartoon
11:24, 16 July 2008
Note that he should have remained civilised and obeyed the rules which require courtesy at all times, even during heated disputes, and politely suggested that we take it to an RFC which was the next level of dispute resolution. However he was being deliberately offensive and provocative to escalate the argument by using the threatening words of an ill-mannered pig.
Note that although Gordonofcartoon pretends his innocence with an excuse, you can see evidence of his use of
goading and baiting to get an uncivil response everywhere, and
when he failed, he misrepresented my words as uncivil anyway.
For example
1. He tried to hide his
threat from everyone except me by putting the words "do
we want to up the ante" in the notes at the top of the diff
page.
2. He made the threat in
the temporary diff notes at the top of my User talk page.
(Since I provided this evidence he appears to have made a second attempt to hide this evidence of his obvious 'guilt' by using some sort of edit tools to delete the relevant items from his 'history of edits').
3. He had a six month history
of insulting me and trying to goad me into making uncivil responses
and failed.
4. A Civil/ POV pushing
page shows that he and WhatamIdoing were using LART tools, or
provocative methods to bait me as part of an edit war. The victim
is called bait, and the person who baits a new contributor
is called a flamer, flame thrower, or inflamer, or variations
on that theme, and the tool of punishment is a 'metaphorical'
2 X 4 block of wood.
5. He did not tell the
editors at ANI, RFC, or Arbitration about his threat which preceded
my comments a week earlier.
i.e. he said "Do we want to up the ante", and I was only replying to
his threat by saying . . . "Do you want me to teach you a lesson that
you won't forget in a hurry".
7. He deliberately, deviously,
and deceitfully referred to it as an "unspecified" threat, when he knew that it was a specific response to his deliberately provocative threat that he made, and had
been discussing with me during the previous week.
8. His use of the word "unspecified" was chosen to create the false
impression that it was an aspect of my usual conduct rather than
a response that he was trying his hardest to get.
9. When I offered him the
opportunity to apologise for his threat in order to de-escalate
the situation - he didn't apologise.
10. Instead of giving a
straight answer to my question about his threat he 'played dumb'
and 'denied the obvious' fact that he had chosen those words
as a threat, and "playing dumb' etc. is a form of provocation
that is specified in Wikipedia discussion policy as a violation.
11. He added more than
a dozen edits over a 24 hour period to set up a case against
me on an RFC page, and he later set up a page to get me banned.
12. My user talk page has
been deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that I was harassing
them, but it contained the evidence that he was baiting and harassing
me.
The
argument that he wanted all of the other editors to see
The following discussions were intended by Gordonofcartoon to be devious and confusing, and may be difficult to follow, so I have concluded it with a summary.
At 18:20 on 20-7-08 Gordonofcartoon
wrote the following words on the Administrators noticeboard,
and then tried to act prim and proper by striking his comments
and advising them that he was taking it to an RFC page. This
is what he told them about an essay that I wrote on my talk pages
to defend myself from their incessant criticism . . . "Could someone uninvolved
have a glance at this situation? Long-term tendentious editing by SPA, situation escalating with his creation of a user page section that appears in breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:UP#NOT. And now the threat "would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry"[5]. Gordonofcartoon 13:18, 20 July 2008. Those comments can be seen in discussion number nine in ANI archive 451 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451
Seven hours later he changed his mind and
wrote . . . "Belay that; I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon 18:20,
20 July 2008
At
18:16 on 20-7-08, on an RFC page, he
presented his reasons for wanting a topic ban imposed on me,
and his words included the following description . . .
Posturewriter did this, but the tendentious and disruptive pattern
continued on the Talk page. He persists in his argument -
despite a clear SPA edit history - that it's other? editors
(ones with a wide variety of topic interests) who have an agenda. This has worsened recently with an
open statement of bad faith - The Motivations, Strategies,
and Tactics of my Critics asserting that multiple
policies have been invoked against him as various "tactics"
rather than for the simple reason of his breach of multiple policies.
Evidence of disputed
behaviour Number
9. Unspecified threat - "By way
of gratitude would you like me to teach you a lesson that you
won't forget in a hurry" [12]
Number 5. Breach of
WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:UP#NOT with
creation of attack essay The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of
my Critics - particularly including false accusations of
anonymous vandalism, and bad-faith assumptions about other editors' reasons for invoking policy.
Number 12. Breach of
WP:AGF - Posturewriter said . .
. "It looks as though your are finding policy reasons for
deleting things to suit your purposes".
Applicable policies
and guidelines violated. Number 7. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
Evidence of trying to
resolve the dispute. Number 4. Advice,
again to assume good faith, to stop treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest [30]
[edit] Users certifying the basis for
this dispute {Users
who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}. Number 1. Gordonofcartoon 18:16, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk)
18:16, 20 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Statement_of_the_dispute
At 17:48 on 26-1-09 Gordonofcartoon took his misrepresentation of
the situation to the Arbitration page and made these statements . . . "Confirmation that other
steps in dispute resolution have been tried. Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop
treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation."
Statement by Gordonofcartoon . . . I'm asking for Arbitration
attention - ideally a topic ban, covering disruption harassment on Talk and dispute
resolution pages - on grounds of
Posturewriter exhausting community patience: this involves a
classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipedia:Tendentious
editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon
17:48, 26 January 2000 here
Summary; if
Gordonofcartoon wanted to take the matter to an RFC or arbitration
page he could have done it at any time, and he has done it many
times to other editors in the past, and his comment "Do
we want to up the ante"was completely unnecessary for that purpose. He deliberately chose those words to escalate
the argument because he had lost on previous Wikiquette Alert,
and MFD attempts etc. for six months, and wanted to get a response
from me that he could use or misrepresent to get me banned on
the grounds of uncivil conduct. Note also that when
he accused me of violating WP:Battleground he was trying
to create the impression that I was violating the policy that
says Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground - in particular,
he was trying to give the ridiculous sanctimonious impression
that I started the escalation, when in fact he wanted to escalate
the discussions into a heated argument, and he goaded me to respond,
and he refused to de-escalate, and deliberately put me into an
apparent no-win situation, and thereby made it impractical for
me to ignore him - he was actually, and deliberately, and furtively
fuelling the flames of the argument.
How
my two critics deceived the neutral editors into thinking that
I was ill-mannered
At 18:32 on 21-7-08 one of the neutral editors who came to sort out
the issues in the RFC dispute read the arguments presented by
my two critics and wrote this about me . . . "As far as
incivility goes there are only a couple of blatant breeches of WP:CIVIL,
most notably with the sockpuppet issue and with the "teach
you a lesson" line quoted above." (end of quote)
Note that the "teach
you a lesson" words were part of the sentence which ended
"that you won't forget in a hurry", and Gordonofcartoon
deceived the neutral editors by deliberately and skillfully hiding his earlier
threat from them. re; he said "Do we want to up the Ante" on 13-7-08 (only a week before Avnjay's comments). His words
were intentionally uncivil and were designed to provoke a response that he could use against me, and I knew that, so
my response was as polite as practical.
His entire purpose was to get that sort of response,
and then deceive the neutral editors into thinking that
it was an unprovoked comment - and he was obviously successful.
Here were Avnjay's initial
comments "Wow, what a headache. As a completely outside
party I have just read through all the relevant pages I can find. (User's talk pages, article talk
page, COI discussions, etc) which has taken several hours?"
(end of quote)
As you can see, despite spending several hours reading the discussions, Avnjay did not find the words that Gordonofcartoon tried his hardest to
hide.
Here is another quote from
Avnjay . . . "Posturewriter is generally polite in his responses
and has mostly remained calm throughout this protracted affair".
Their single purpose account: or SPA arguments
(Note that in January 2009 my version of the article, and my main critics version were virtually complete, and nothing much has changed to either text since. This indicates to you that I was about to start contributing to other articles, which is what my main critic was really afraid of).
Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing were very devious editors who were always hiding
information and changing policies to suit their own agendas.
For example Gordonofcartoon started with an interest in Art,
and was critical of editors who used unreferenced materials,
but after I complied with a lot of policies to meet their ever
more pedantic demands they accused me of violating policies when
I wasn't. They started harping on particular aspects and exaggerating
them out of proportion, and changing their own priorities to
give everyone else the false impression that their current 'prim
and proper twaddle' was written to stop editors writing about
Widgets, but they were changing everything to deal with me and
then telling the other editors 'this is just a minor case'. However,
they were not just changing their own priorities, changing the
policies, and rewriting the policies, and the wording of policies
and the subclauses of policies, and adding new policies, but
they were then telling everyone else such things as 'we the honorable
rule-abiding editors have been telling Posturewriter all of these
things from the very start - look at our webpage where we say
so, and look at the policies where it says so. - Their methods
of cheating were often blatant and ridiculous.
Here is an example
of what Gordonofcartoon wrote about himself on his User page before he started losing arguments against me . . . On 10-8-07 he wrote . . .
1. "User
from way back: after long break, rejoined under fresh name to concentrate on art topics, which are under-represented
in Wikipedia. I've
a particular interest in English artists of the late 19th and early 20th century. I dabble in other topics, such as artist and biographical AFDs. I take a
hawkish attitude to unreferenced material. Gordonofcartoon
18:43, 10 August 2007
Here is the change he made about a year later, at 0:54
on 11-7-0 from that fact by talking about Widgets
. . .
2. "User from way back: after long break, rejoined
under fresh name initially to concentrate on art topics, but
I take a broad interest here. Personally. I think generalism should be mandatory on Wikipedia:
[[Wikipedia:Single-purpose
account|single-purpose accounts]] are so commonly [[Wikipedia:Tendencious editing|tendencious]] that I think such editing patterns ought to
be near-automatic grounds for a topic ban. Someone with a mono-topic ''idée fixe'' about,
say, Acme Widgets is unlikely to have the perspective to write about
Acme Widgets objectively. - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gordonofcartoon&diff=224923866&oldid=201401065
Here is his current
objectives as at 22-10-09 . . .
3. "User from way back: after long break, rejoined
under fresh name initially to concentrate on art topics, but
I take a broad interest here. Personally, I
think generalism should be mandatory on Wikipedia
because single-purpose
accounts are so seldom anything
but tendencious. . . I
also think Wikipedia would be improved by simplifying the conflict of interest system (I suggest that editing in COI areas
should still be allowed, but with a simple and rapid veto mechanism of
a topic ban if a consensus of uninvolved
editors feels it appropriate). . . . I'd like to see far
more awareness at admin and arbcom level of the problem of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, a form of low-level disruptive editing whose highly toxic long-term effects often go unrecognised,
simply because on short-term examination there's nothing overt enough to merit action. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gordonofcartoon
Note that Gordonofcartoon is trying to change the policies to push his own barrow and manufacture his own importance by saying that he is the type of editor 'who takes a broad interest', and in his "personal"
'opinion' anyone with specific
interest should be barred.
What he is saying is that, in his opinion. the policies should be changed to suit his type of editing because he doesn't like losing arguments with people like me who actually know what they are talking about.
Note also that he is recommending a veto decision for a topic ban on Conflict of interest disputes based on the consensus of uninvolved editors. However, when he and WhatamIdoing set up a conflict of interest dispute against me there were only two "uninvolved" editors who entered the discussion. There was one in favor and one against, which means that they did not have consensus, but spent twelve months telling every other editor that they did.
My two critics want the policies to be so RIDDLED
with Ambiguities and INTERPRETATIONS, that they can give their personal opinions about anything because, in their own personal
opinion they have common sense and good judgment???. They also
want the ability to ban anyone else who has factual verifiable
evidence that they don't personally approve of in their personal
biased opinion about the policies that they wrote and twisted
around their grubby little fingers, and that they can get approval
for from the lobbying efforts with a retinue of secret email
friends.
If they had the intellectual capacity
to beat me in any arguments, by using the existing rules, they
would have done so, and then they
could have gone back to their art pages without making any changes
to their User pages or policy.
Note that Gordonofcartoon
was being deliberately evasive and secretive about
his motives when he changed his priorities on his own
User talk page on 11-7-09 only two
days before he wrote a threat to
me on 13-7-08 on my UserTalk page . . . 'do we want to up the ante"
!
He told everyone
that I was making personal attacks (WP:NPA), and harassing him?
Of course, his highly predictable and insolent response to that
would be to 'play dumb' and pretend that it was a sheer co-incidence,
and that he was really referring to dozens of other SPA's, such
as the mythical editor who wrote about Widgets?
One way of ensuring that all people from
the general public can contribute equally is for Wikipedia to
revoke all policies requiring editors to reveal their real life
identity and interests and ban anyone who found out about it
and mentioned it, so that everyone could confine themselves to
discussing only the topic, and the information from independently
verifiable references. The other, less effective way is to establish
openness and accountability by requiring everyone to reveal their
actual identity. However, the idea that some editors can ask,
or demand, others to identify themselves while keeping their
own identity a secret, is likely to be exploited by the worst
type of editors, with the strongest conflicts of interest, which
they can - and will - hide and deny.
It should be a case where - if one person is required to reveal their real identity, then all editors should. i.e. all or none.
My
two critics argued that they were not Disputing content?
When I started adding information to the
Da Costa's Syndrome page in Wikipedia, some of it was from my
own research, so two editors deleted it on the grounds that it
took up too much space on the page. I therefore abbreviated that aspect
and they deleted it again on the grounds of an 'original research'
policy which essentially means that you can't add 'original'
research from 'any' source'. That didn't bother me because it
applied to everyone i.e. nobody could add their own research.
According to Wikipedia policies all information should come from
'reviews' in journals or books where a range of studies have
been assessed and the material has been independently considered
to be reliable - rather than just being one persons opinion which
may, or may not be reliable.
However, when I started adding information
independent sources, the same two editors continued to find an
endless array of policies to use as an excuse for deleting most
of it. In particular, I noticed that whenever I added scientific
results which confirmed the physical or physiological basis for
the symptoms, it would soon be removed - sometimes within five
minutes. On one occasion they deleted my summary of a review
paper that covered about ten different ideas, including physical
and psychological studies, and then they replaced it with one
sentence about anxiety disorders. The same two critics would
always find a policy reason for deleting information like that
despite the fact that it was from reliable and verifiable references,
and they eventually wanted to get me blocked from adding anything to the
page. When numerous other editors told them that they shouldn't
be blocking me because of a content dispute, they would complain
about the advice, and argue that it was not about content. They
were trying to convince them that I was a disruptive editor who
was always violating the policies (or policy interpretations)
that they kept changing. On one occasion they put together a
long list of a dozen policies that they accused of violating,
such as WE:DE, WE:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc, with one violation per line
so that it occupied 12 lines than ran down the page. They went
to a lot of trouble to convince other editors that I was violating
policies, but it was essentially a list of policies that they
applied, one at a time, over a period of months, each time they
wanted an excuse to delete content.
Their editing always was a content dispute,
and they were using policies as their "excuse" to divert
attention away from the fact that they were deleting particular
types of content, and they were going to continue inventing policy
arguments as diversions until they had total dictatorship of
the content on the page. They did not give a dam about what anyone
else in Wikipedia said unless they agreed with them. When they managed to get one or
two editors to agree with them they would then 'put words
into their mouths' and grossly exaggerate and inflame the situation to incite prejudice and contempt
against me. They did that by saying such things as 'we agree with all of the other thoroughly disgusted members of the community who are rapidly losing
patience with this
new contributors disruptive
"behavior". Their theatrics and hyperbole were truly astonishing to watch but I have seen it all before - it is an example of ad
hominem ad infinitum.
This is a quote from
the main policy . . . "Wikipedia
policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe
best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise
further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia;
indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of
breadth and in terms of depth. See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=320348531&oldid=320299615
The information that I provided is what
Wikipedia policy actually required, and what some of the other
editors said, but then my two critics would argue that there
was something wrong with the other editors, or that they chose
the wrong procedure, or that the policies were wrong, or that
the policies needed to be changed, which is why they had to get one of their friends to break
the rules to get me banned.
The following quotes will give a general
view of that aspect of the discussions . . .
At 2:25 on 18-5-08 WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "what sort of support
do we get from the
broader community? We get responses
that add up to "Y'all play nice, now." "It's a content
dispute: you should 'work for
a consensus'" WhatamIdoing 02:25, 18 May 2008
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=302592402&oldid=302555878
Note that WhatamIdoing was supposed to accept the advice of the broader community (the other Wikipedia
editors) and not complain about
it, and accept
consensus opinion from the other editors, and not incessantly argue with me and everyone
else until I was blocked.
At 10:47 on 27-1-09 (seven
months later) my other critic, Gordonofcartoon, set
up an arbitration page to get me blocked, and kept ignoring the advice of other editors and denying that it was a
content dispute with the following
words . . ."Response to Wizardman . . .This is emphatically not about content" Gordonofcartoon 10:47, 27 January 2009
see here
I was banned on 28-1-09 by one of their friends.
At 23:41on 8 May
2009 (three months
later) WhatamIdoing thanked
him for being the
only one who was prepared to break the rules of Wikipedia
to ban me with the following words . . . "Thanks for being the only part
of the community that was willing to step up to the plate . . . when I was about to tear
my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter]] . . . in January". [[User:WhatamIdoing]]23:41, 8
May 2009 here
So
many rules - policies, guidelines, and essays
As the colloquial expression goes . . . 'rules, rules, rules, they tried to stifle me with a million rules.'
See also here and here and here
My main critic is the 6th highest contributor to pages about Wikipedia's rules and she tried to use and sew them with loopholes to win disputes against me while I was there, and since. Her team mate tries to do the same thing but to a much lesser externt. e.g. here)
However, this is what she said to me at 20:36 on 1-8-08 . . . "I'd feel a lot less attacked if you quit blaming me for policies that I did not create and do not control. Every editor is required to comply with all policies and guidelines at Wikipedia. It is not a matter of me, or any other editor, changing the requirements on you".(end of quote)
She also said that I had to play the game with "their" admittedly complex rules, or find another way to spend my time. See my report here
According to Wikipedia's rules telling lies can get an editor blocked, but they are not enforced. See also here and here.
The "selective enforcement" of the rules
Should be banned by a policy called WP:SE
Any value that the rules of Wikipedia are 'supposed' to have were rendered worthless and completely useless by the fact that they were selectively enforced.
For example my two critics were obviously arrogant, and deliberately ill-mannered and disrespectful, and insulting in the words they used in order to make themselves look like wise authorities and topic experts who had been in Wikipedia for four very long years, and to portray me as an ignorant and worthless young "newbie".
A small number of the other editors and administrators would play dumb, and pretend that they didn't notice the rudeness, or they would make passing comments about being more polite, but generally in a disgusting, subservient, even begging manner.
By contrast, I complied with the rules which required me to put up with their insolent attitude politely, in the expectation that an experienced administrator would block them for blatantly breaking the rules of WP:Civil, but none did. It wasn't long before other editors who entered the discussion were joining the bandwagon and treating me as if I was a piece of dirt, so I decided to respond in an equal for equal manner, and was immediately attacked with furious indignation and accused of breaking the rules which require courtesy at all times (WP:Civil), and 'assuming good faith' (WP:AGF), and 'no personal attacks (WP:NPA)', and 'tendentious editing' (WP:TE), and 'disruptive behaviour' (WP:DE), and 'edit warring', etc, etc, etc. Most of that criticism was coming from the same two editors, and the others were 'believing what they had been told without checking the facts properly.
One of the reasons for the success of their stunt was the fact that they were hiding the evidence of their own ill-mannered behaviour, and thrusting my responses in the faces of the newer groups.
Any mature, intelligent and unbiased adult would be able to see that what happened to me was unacceptable.
|
This is a quote from an editor named MastCell "Anyone who edits policy pages to favor their position in a specific dispute has no business editing policy pages. Corollary: these are the only people who edit policy pages." (end of quote) See here
After losing many arguments against me, my main critic would often go to other pages to influence, or actually change the rules, to add 'double meanings' or exceptions etc (loopholes) to enable her to win arguments in the future by using them. As they say, she was putting the devil in the detail.
One of the typical examples is where they tag-teamed on the same paragraph of the tag-teaming guidelines so that they could argue that two people who take turns criticising someone for 12 months are not necessarily breaking the tag-teaming rules. See my report here.
***
My main critic tries to write all the rules, and control all the rules, or all of the discussions about the rules, and at the same time make them as ambiguous as possible, and then interpret the rules, and use the 'ignore all rules' policy as the major policy while keeping it a secret from opponents in disputes, and then accuses other people of "Gaming the system". e.g. See here, and her dominance of interpretation is revealed here, where she is pretending to be making things clearer, but has actually messed up the original hierarchy of policy being most important, guidelines being next, and essays being third.
She is an arrogant megalomaniaclal control freak who should be called the ambiguity and loophole maker of Wikipedia.
At 23:00 on 27 May 2011 my main critic added the following words to a Wikipedia essay called "Avoid instruction creep" . . .
"Editors don't believe that '''nobody reads the directions'''. They believe that putting advice into a guideline or policy results in most of the English Wikipedia's thousands of active editors following the directions.In reality, Wikipedia has more than 50 full policies and more than 500 guidelines, and nobody reads all of them." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep&diff=next&oldid=417381354
When I added my own research it was deleted
for violating COI policy, and when I added independent research
it was deleted for being a violation of OR (original research
policy), and had to be reviews, so I added reviews from top quality journals and they were deleted for being only 'routine' reviews, not expert reviews, and some of them were deleted for being ''
old, and when I added more recent ones they were deleted because they weren't from the most recent five years etc. It became obvious and PREDICTABLE that I had
two critics who were going to find or invent a policy reason
for deleting every word I wrote, so I described their tactics
as a 'wild goose chase', which has it's equivalent in Wikipedia
of 'Moving the goal posts' so that it would NEVER be possible
for me to add anything acceptable because they would just keep inventing policies reasons for deletions indefinitely.
Here are WhatamIdoing's words at 21:35, 10th March 2010 . . . "IMO Wikipedia has so many rules that nobody can really be expected to know them all ".
Also at 2:38 on 28 March 2010 WhatamIdoing
"There are remarkable numbers of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia policies"
This is a comment given to another editor by WhatamIdoing at 4:28 on 20 April 2010 . . . "Wikipedia has hundreds of guidelines and dozens of policies; is there a particular concern that you have?" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=357142534
This is the advice that WhatamIdoing gave to another editor at 20:19 on 11-11-10 . . . "I realize that it's confusing, but the purpose of the Village Pump policy page isn't to get advice on how to apply existing policies to articles: its purpose is to get comments on changing policies . . . But the good news is that people at least won't be yelling at you for posting a honest question . . . (Now if you and I think Wikipedia is complicated, just imagine what a brand-new editor is thinking")" - end of quote. WhatamIdoing 20:19, 11 November 2010 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=396188326
This is another comment by a different editor on the length of pages in some Wikipedia policies . . . "I think repeating material in one policy in another makes both of them prone to becoming nonsense when one policy is edited and the other isn't. Also, both policies become so long that people overlook the provision that applies to the case they are interested in, because it's like looking for a needle in a haystack." Jc3s5h 00:41, 15 May 2010
Note that I was a new contributor, and
my two critics falsely and frequently accused me of deliberately
ignoring hundreds of rules that 'nobody' can be expected to know, and even if they did,
there are a 'remarkable number of exceptions and limitations'.
This is what I did know; my two critics
were deliberately manipulating the rules to block me, because
they couldn't win any content based arguments. This is an example
of how they used the rules, and I paraphrase their arguments
. . . 'Posturewriter, you can't use Harvard professors Paul Dudley
White's internationally distributed 1951 reference book because
it is 'old', and you can't mention that he was a professor from
Harvard, but we can use a 'novel' because of 'hatnote' policy,
and we don't have to tell the readers that it is irrelvant, or
that it is a children's fiction story', or that they will be
wasting their time if they read it. You also can't use an internationally respected text book by Paul Wood O.B.E. from 1956 becaue it does not meet our requirements for references from the most recent five years, but we can use one of his 1941 research papers as a reference because he was the head of the Effort Syndrome Unit of a hospital that specialised in the treatment of the ailment.
***
This is what I told the arbitrators before
I was banned. . . "Please note that you can see the pattern
of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon changing the jargon, and
changing the policy, and changing the forums each time I comply,
which is a type of disruptive editing called 'moving the goalposts'" signed Posturewriter 8:32,
27 January 2009
This is TYPICAL of the excuses
that WhatamIdoing used to justify that OBVIOUSLY DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR
. . .
"The goalposts haven't moved during
this time: I just didn't post complete explanations of all of
the relevant standards in the first message: I also didn't tell
him not to shove beans up his nose, and I doubtless excluded
other important instructions in my first message." signed
WhatamIdoing 20:25,
27 January 2009.
Note that Wikipedia has a page called WP:
Don't stuff beans up your nose. It basically gives advice
not the give other editors ideas. For example don't tell people
how to crash Wikipedia or someone might do it.
It relates to the fact that my two critics
were incapable of winning content arguments against me, and didn't
want to tell me about all of their policies because they knew
that I would then start winning all of the policy arguments.
Their own ability to win arguments was pitiful. re; they couldn't
win a chook raffle if one of them bought the only ticket and
the other one drew the prize.
Their control and dictatorship of policy
These are the words at the top of the page called "Wikipedia:Five pillars" . . . "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates have been summarized by editors in the form of five "pillars" see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&diff=next&oldid=366437244.
Here is a quote from a page called - Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means.
"The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." See here
This was WhatamIdoing's advice to an editor named Erachima . . . "Erachima, are you aware that 5P has no authority whatsoever, and therefore nothing can derive any authority from it? WP:5P is just as 'official' as as WP:SIMPLE, WP:TRIFECTA, etc. NOT is a policy; 5P is just an essay (a useful one, but still just an essay). WhatamIdoing 00:48, 20 July 2010. See here
Another example of that arrogant editors contempt for the main principles can be see with these words . . .
"The five pillars are equally just some editors making up stuff. WP:5P is no more authoritative than WP:TRIFECTA or any of the other several essays that editors like" WhatamIdoing 21:21, 17 August 2010 here
You can see how my main critic could and did use the very flexible guidelines to win disputes like this . . . 'we don't have to comply with the principles and rules of Wikipedia, but everyone else does.
This is a quote from WhatamIdong at 19:03 on 9-9-10
"WP:Five pillars is (just) an essay, and no more important than any similar essay" here
This is another editors comment . . . "any claims that there are principles with which all WMF projects ''must'' comply need to be taken with a large grain of salt" Kotnisk08:58, 14 August 2010
here
As you can see, all new contributors are at a disadvantage in any dispute because they will be politely assuming good faith in everyone else complying with the rules, but many experienced editors completely ignore them , as if they have no more value than a grain of salt.
At 22:42 on 16-9-10 WhatamIdoing edited a page called "User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles" and changed it from the category of "Policies and guidelines", to "Basic information". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&diff=385251483&oldid=374900812
It looks like that editor is trying to water down the original principles and take control of Wikipedia policies without anyone else noticing.
There
are many contradictions in Wikipedia policies
When I started
contributing to Wikipedia it was for the purpose of adding useful
information, and I soon found that there were some policies and guidelines that had instructions about how to do that. One
of them is the Wikipedia 'policy' that advises against making personal attacks
on other editors (WP:NPA) which includes the following words
on the top lines at 21:41 on 31 March 2010 . . . "This page
in a nutshell . . . Comment on content, not on the contributor".
However, an editor
named WhatamIdoing, who admitted to not knowing much about
the subject of Da Costa's syndrome until I started, decided to
argue with me, and consistently lost, and then started
focusing on me, instead of the content, by setting up a discussion
on a 'Talk'
page about that topic, and put my real name in bold print at the
top of the page???. Another example occurred when that same individual started a section
called "Requests for comment/Posturewriter", and moved it to the top of their
own User talk page and left it there to criticise me until I
was banned.
They demanded
that I provide more information about myself, and then argued
that I had a conflict of interest, and that I was not writing
objectively, and that I was being disruptive, and that I was
tendencious etc???
I continued to
spend most of my time trying to focus on content and adding information,
and they spent almost all of their time focusing the discussion
on me, and I had to comply with policy by remaining polite even
while they were being deliberately annoying. At one stage, after politely
disregarding their arrogant and extremely offensive attitude
for many months, I decided to tell them to stop "beating their chests like
a couple of apes swinging through the wiki trees' and they set
up several discussion pages and quoted it, and told dozens of
other editors that it was an example of my 'incivility', and
then relentlessly attacked me with criticism.
Here is a quote
from the Civility policy at 23:50 on 24 January 2008 . . . "Some
editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility,
without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may
constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way
to interact".
The point I am
making is that there is a 'policy' that advised editors to focus on content, and not the person, and yet my two critics
were doing the
exact opposite.
When another
editor named Reisio argued that most policies contradict each other he was stating the obvious.
However at 19:05
2 April 2010 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Conflicting advice
isn't the same as direct contradiction".
Nevertheless,
the fact is that one policy recommended that editors should focus
on content, and not the person, and yet there are dozens of policies
(etc) which directly contradict it by focusing on the person.
For example, the 'conflict of interest' policy (COI) which advises
that the 'person' must tell other editors what their interests
are in real life', and then says that such 'persons' can't contribute
to related topics. There is also a "Civil POV pushing"
'essay', which is used to accuse another 'person' of pushing
their point of view, and a tendencious editing 'essay' (TE),
and there is a disruptive editing 'guideline', which all discuss
the person, and not the topic, and were all used by my two critics
. . . 'as
if' they were all 'rules carved in rock'.
WhatamIdoing, of course, uses all of the policies, the interpretations, the 'remarkable
numbers of exceptions', and the contradictions' to accuse other editors such
as Reisio, of going against consensus, or edit warring etc.,
and then WhatamIdoing uses all of the same 'exceptions' as an excuse for hounding, harassing, insulting, making
personal attacks, arguing, and edit warring with anyone who questions
their interpretation of the 'exceptions'.
WhatamIdoing
style of argument has the characteristics of sophistry which is defined in Wiktionary as . . . "An argument that seems plausible
but is fallacious and misleading, especially one devised
deliberately to do so; The art of using deceptive speech or writing; Cunning
or trickery."
(end of quote)
That editor argued that there were problems with the style of article that I presented, as if there is some standard that must be followed to the finest detail, but then had the cheek to say this later . . . "many of these so-called "style guides" are nothing more than essays, and I oppose any wholesale re-naming efforts that would seem to canonize them". WhatamIdoing 22:50, 24 May 2010
The result of that deceptive type of argument is this . . . 'None of the rules really mean anything, so the only way that anything can be done in Wikipedia, is the way that editor says it should be done, at any particular time, on any particular article, and everything else is wrong..
This is another
contradiction - Civility policy advises editors to focus
on content, not the person, but this is WhatamIdoing's statement
to Reisio at 6:32 on 4 April 2010 . . . "violating behavioral
pages will get you blocked; violating stylistic pages will
not".(end of quote)
However, the
fact is that discussing another persons 'behaviour' is a comment
on that person, not the content.
What do CFS patients think about this type of censorship
My main critic argued relentlessly with many groups of editors that the website of a CFS patient was an unreliable source of information which did not meet Wikipedia's basic standards of reliability.
The authors name was Melissa Kaplan, and she compiled a list of 80 labels that had been used as alternatives to the chronic fatigue syndrome in the past. She complied it from information provided by four doctors, I read it and it is true.
However her main interest was in breeding iguana lizards, so she had a website by that name, and included her list of CFS labels on a separate page on that website.
My main critic tried to make me look ridiculous by telling everyone else that I was using "my" 'iguana website" as a reference, in order to convince the other editors that it was an unreliable source of medical information and delete it. She also implied that all of my other references were unreliable.
Melissa Kaplans webpage can be seen here
My main critics criticism of it, and deletion, and censorship of the information can be seen here
and here and here and the full discussion here and another comment in this diatribe here
etc.
My other 61 references, with Kaplans as number 15 (the only one by a patient), can be seen here
See also my report here
Censorship Contradictions
Wikipedia was set up with the objective of gaining all information from all sources to reflect all points of view and to be superior to the old print versions that were compiled by a small number of editors who would obviously have a bias. That bias would produce a type of censorship which affected what type of content that went in, and what was left out, and would therefore give the readers a less than neutral point of view of various topics, particularly those involving controversy. Censorship was therefore frowned upon in Wikipedia, especially censorship of content. It is equally obvious that any editor who deletes any information for any reason, is favoring the opinion that remains, which means that Wikipedia would soon 'fill' with bias.
In addition to those considerations there are features in Wikipedia such as the 'watchlist' which could easily be used for the purpose of censorship while creating the illusion that it was a neutral procedure being used for other reasons.
Therefore, the fact that Wikipedia frowns on censorship sounds meritworthy, but any large company could pay an individual to use the watchlist for the purpose of controlling content, so that the good things about the company get into Wikipedia, and all negative information about their products is filtered out.
For example, the controlling editor could regularly scan pages, and if he found anything that wasn't wanted, he could put the provider of that content on a watchlist, and check their contributions on a regular basis to ensure that any more was deleted within a few minutes, and the provider would be blocked if necessary. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Watching_pages&diff=363108779&oldid=363107351
Also, when I went into Wikipedia I had the understanding that everything was open for all readers to see, but some of the filtering practices can be determined or planned on hidden pages, or in private emails, or amongst colleagues outside of Wikipedia.
An extract for the policy about censorship is as follows . . "The issue of censorship on Wikipedia continues to be debated, although for the most part, the concept that Wikipedia is not censored holds strong dominance. . . "Note that the term "censorship" varies by usage and is debated by differing factions. In fact "censorship," as it is typically used, is a pejorative, carrying with it a connotation of suppression, totalitarianism, and the imposition of point-of-view on others. Suppression represents the denial of freedom of speech for the messenger, and the denial of the "right to know" for the audience" (end of quote) here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Censorship&diff=269650954&oldid=269206992.
Examples of how one of my critics managed to block me can be seen with these words . . . "I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect that it's on several other editors' lists for the same reason. I think you can rely on me promptly noticing future attempts to use this article to promote your theory. (I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article.) WhatamIdoing 01:49, 14 January 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#I.27m_going_
to_go_read_WP:CIVIL_now
(note that that particular editor has a habit of telling lies and exaggerating. Only two editors (always the same two),were likely to have me on their watchlist; o-one else was interested.
The same editor went to six different topic pages to make sure that everything I wrote was deleted. In the example above they used the excuse that it was about my own theory, but throughout the year they invented countless excuses for deleting content and sixty five independent sources of factual and verifiable information. See here)
Notablity policy nonsense
The following contradictory advice was given by my main critic to other editors . . . "Now add one more, absolutely critical fact: Complying with GNG is not a guarantee that your subject is notable. It's a rebuttable presumption, which means that you can show up with your sources, and editors can and do reject the notability claim, for any reason or no reason" WhatamIdoing 22:51, 24 May 2010
Policy Blindness-and-double standards
Here is one of my main critics responses to a question from another editor . . . "I'm still waiting for evidence to support your claim that "90% of Wikipedia" violates the policies. I have not seen the slightest evidence that even 10% violates these pages" WhatamIdoing 05:20, 17 May 2010 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=362564707
However, the page that editor used to replace the version that I presented has violations of 'original research' policy that involved the cherrypicking of 'old' references (their words) here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#References
and the same editor was making comments and changes to the page about Varicose veins, but refused to remove all 'old' references or 'original research' from that page when I requested them to here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=253841433&oldid=253612090#References
and the same editor has been making amendments to pages about Chagas Disease which has original research here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chagas_disease&diff=361928078&oldid=361924298#References
and, the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome which have references that would be interpreted as 'primary', or original research, and or 'old' , and or, extensive 'anonymous' editing here
It is very easy to find pages that violate the policies, but it all depends if you want to impose the rules with the iron fist of a power drunk megalomaniac, or look at them as if you are as blind as a bat.
Devious Dictatorship by ambiguity
Here are some more words of advice from the same editor which can be interpreted this way . . . The rules aren't perfect so they can be overridden by any group of editors - and those groups are controlled and persuaded or told what to do by the most dominant editor who wants to control, or who is paid to control topics in Wikipedia. The actual words are . . .
"I believe every notability page to be, at best, an imperfect description of the community's real views — but editors must use their best judgment in applying it to specific articles. The community retains the right to delete (or merge) even well-sourced articles at its discretion; nothing we put on this page can delete an article the community chooses to keep, or keep an article the community chooses to delete".WhatamIdoing 01:43, 24 May 2010 see here
i.e. In reality, the policies that have been written by hundreds of editors to ensure that Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia, and which are used to advise all new and existing editors what to do mean 'nothing'.
If the same rules applied to normal society there would be chaos on the streets and chaos on the roads.
An example of the contradictory ways that policy can be 'twisted'
After being criticised by two nitpicking editors for 12 months I became familiar with most of the Wikipedia policies, so when I wrote a subpage essay I took them all into consideration. For example, policy prefers that you don't mention your own theories or research, and that every statement can be verified from references to top quality authors who have had their articles published in independent peer reviewed journals. I also found that when writing the history of topics it is perfectly acceptable to use older references for 'obvious' reasons. One of the references was used by my critics so, you would think that they would only use reliable sources????, and I was familiar with it. The article was a ten page review of the history of Da Costa's syndrome written by Harvard professor Oglesby Paul, and was published in the 1987 edition of one of the world's most respected medical journals called 'The British Heart Journal'. When I used it as a source of information I sat back and thought to myself . . . 'I wonder what my two critics will find (or invent) to nitpick about this?'. You can see the result below. The first comment is by Gordonofcartoon and was made more than a year after I was banned. He was giving advice to another editor that Wikipedia prefers 'reviews', and then you can see the nitpicking nonsense and drivel that my other critic wrote about the essay that I provided."
These are Gordonofcartoons words . . . "WP:MEDRS guidelines are that medical articles should be sourced as far as possible from secondary sources such as review papers." Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2010 here
This is a small part of WhatamIdoing's ridiculous nitpicking criticism of my essay . . . "The style is horrible. Medicine-related articles do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors when discussing research work. That's what your citation is for. He doesn't even have complete names for some of these people. We don't blather on about "In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa’s syndrome in the British Heart Journal..." This is an effort to tell the reader "You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He's important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal." Paul's paper was a routine review paper." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2008 here
You can appreciate that I wrote the essay, so I am the only one who knows why I did things a particular way, and that what my critic said was a deliberately offensive misrepresentation of the facts. For example . . .
I was writing the history in date order, so that I, or anyone else, could fill in any gaps later if they wished, and to make the sequence of discoveries clear to readers. Also, most histories are written in chronological order. However, my critic spun that around and implied that I was 'obsessively' naming the year??????? As another example, I described Oglesby Paul as a Harvard professor to stop my two critics from telling other editors that he was just and an ordinary and insignificant guy, and my critic said 'we don't blather on' about the fact that the author was 'a Harvard professor'. For a third example, I was writing about Oglesby Pauls ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome to show some of the relevant information from it, such as, the many theories, and differenct opinions about cause, and a lot of contradictory findings, but my critic spun that around and said that I mentioned his qualifications in order to make people think that he was important, and that they should believe everything he said???? In actual fact, his history article was very accurate, and most of what he wrote can be easily checked from many other sources.
The version of the article that my two critics provided is an unreliable source of information because it is a classic example of 'deceit by omission'.
The ridiculous attempts to deny that policy contradictions exist
by the editor who tries to control policy by writing exceptions and loopholes
"There aren't actually very many direct conflicts in the main policy/guideline pages (e.g., excluding essays and unapproved advice pages). The more common issue is that page X recommends X in X situation, and page Y recommends Y in Y situation, and the article is about X+Y, but you can't do both X and Y (and so which do you follow?)::Did you have a particular problem in mind?" :WhatamIdoing 21:27, 31 July 2010 here
Policy extremes and Policy Freaks
I went into Wikipedia for genuine purposes to add useful information but found myself in arguments with two editors who fit the description of 'policy freaks' or 'control freaks''. Every time I added something they would find a policy reason for deleting it, and, although I knew that they were telling lies and being deliberately ill-mannered, biased, and disruptive, I was not familiar with the policies, or of how to set up pages to get them blocked, and I didn't go into Wikipedia for that purpose, so they eventually managed to get their way, and satisfy the hollow sense of pride they get from that rather petty accomplishment.
However, an example of a hostile dispute in which each of the opposing editors knew the policies can be seen when one editor accuses another of using unreliable sources of information which violates WP:MEDRS policy, and the other one accuses the first of going against consensus which is violating WP:Consensus policy here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=360649070#POV_edits_from_SPA_COI_editors
This is a small extract from that discussion . . . "Ward20 and ME mafia editors control this article, it is not acceptable. When you are a patient activist or you get money from CFS patients, causes pls declare your interest and STOP messing w Wiki. CBT is the only treatment w evidence in controlled trials, XMRV is total BS and nonMEDRS, pls stop and go write your blogs people, WP is a serious encyclopedia". RetroS1mone talk 05:15, 5 May 2010. . .
and this was one of the replies . . .
"Please refrain from repeating baseless accusations that have already been addressed, and editing against consensus. - Tekaphor 10:24, 5 May 2010 (end of extracts)
To get some background information on those two editors and the controversy - See also here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tekaphor&diff=360653902&oldid=348660520
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RetroS1mone&diff=360656124&oldid=325922875
Anyone who goes into Wikipedia to comment on anything controversial will need to understand that there are established editors who know what they want to add, and who know how to use the policies to their advantage - However there are also POLICY FREAKS WHO KNOW HOW TO WIN even if they are the ones at fault.
For example, this is what one of my two critics said about my contributions in May 2008 . . . "Yes, of course all of this violates a variety of policies, guidelines, and cultural conventions -- notably WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and WP:COPYVIO, in this case. But my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed" signed WhatamIdoing 2:25, 18 May 2008 here
If you have a good look at that text your will see that they are violating virtually all of the policies that they were falsely accusing me of. For example they were failing to assume good faith in me, they are using the tag-teaming practices and the jargon of edit wars with their 'attitude readjustment tools', and making personal attacks on me but failing to 'scathe' me, and are being rude, and going against the consensus of the 'broader community' of editors who describe me as polite, and they are not inviting me to that page to put my side of the story, and they are telling lies, and they are not providing links for their accusations to verify that what they say is true, and they are playing games, wikilawyering, and filling the page full of arguments and turning it into a battleground when I am not even there.
The other editor said that I was violating the following policies in July 2008 . . . "WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:COI:, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:UP#NOT, WP:CIVIL, WP:GAME, WP:OWN, WP:SOAP, WP:TALK,WP:SOUP, Wikipedia:Wikilawyereing." signed Gordonofcartoon 18:16, 20 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines
They actually managed to convince one editor that I was violating virtually every policy in Wikipedia, and to recommend 'a much harsher solution' for dealing with me, for a policy where the circumstancial evidence was against them. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Outside_View_by_user:Arbiteroftruth
and here
The editor named Gorodonofcartoon, who created that misunderstanding, then pretended to be helpful by endorsing my request for an apology in endorsement No. "2" here.
Would you like to argue with my two critics??? or just not bother, and let them fill Wikipedia with their own version of everything
There are also Unwritten rules???
My main critic has been writing and filling policies with loopholes for many years and yet, on 4-11-2011, wrote these words to be used as an additional excuse for evading compliance with the principles . . .
"Nobody should be punished for accidentally breaking unwritten rules". See here
There are other policies which require everything to be "written" in plain English so the information is easily understood by the majority of readers. Unwritten rules are deliberately the opposite.
You can see how easily my main critic manipulates the rules, and why she needs to be banned. She can and does use and talk about, and impose "unwritten" rules, the "ignore all rules" policy, and the invisible "lines" between courtesy and rudeness which editors are not supposed to cross, and she "moves the goalposts" to get her own way. She is an idiot who is too big for her own high heeled boots.
My main critics qualifications
My main critic is an anonymous middle aged woman who spent six months arguing with me before she made it known to other editors that she was a woman, but I didn't find that out until more than a year after I was banned. She has been asked to tell her real identity so that others can check for any "conflicts of interest" but she refuses to. She has been to university but won't tell anyone what she studied. She is not a doctor and has no intention of becoming one, and she is not an administrator and has rejected offers to become one.
She is a person full of opinions about her own superiority and the incompetence of other editors, administrators, arbitrators, and professionals, but her manners are disgusting, she tells lies, and ignores the rules, and does not have the strength of character to take any responsibility for anything.
e.g. see here and here and here.
Content control Freak for 2000 articles
This quote shows how my main critic is trying to control the content of Wikipedia . . .
"Sure, but with more than 2000 pages on my watchlist at the moment, the mere fact that the page is listed there does not mean that I notice it." WhatamIdoing 19:33, 24 August 2011 See here
Her User page also contained this quote. e.g. on 28th April 2112 . . . "I'm approaching watchlist bankruptsy again." here
Note, of course, that Wikipedia has 90,000 active contributors in the English speaking version and is supposed to represent "neutral point of view" not the opinion of one content control freak.
Statistics of Wikipedia editors . . .
"The number of named accounts is currently 16,742,338 . . . "
"The Wikimedia Foundation tracks the number of editors. The highest number of unique users making at least one edit during any given month was in March 2007. Since then, the number of active users declined and has now largely plateaued. For example, in December 2010, 34,055 users made more than five edits during the month and 3,478 made more than 100 edits during the month; in December 2011, exactly 34,000 users made more than five edits during the month and 3,490 made more than 100 edits during the month.
There is a definite seasonal pattern to editor activity, with more editors active during the North American school year than during its summer break." (end of quote) here
Statistics of my main critic
Note that I have tracked my main critic who regularly does more than 100 edits per day, and on one occasion she did more than 300 edits in one day. When I wrote particular criticisms in response to her activities there would be sly responses in her edits, or her edit rate would drop for a few days.
Typically, if I wrote an item on my website about the "Notability" of my publications she would make changes to the "Notability" policy so that I didn't meet the new requirements. When I added information about her breaking the rules of "Civility" with her disgusting manners she edited the page called "Rudeness" and added that sometimes "strategic rudeness" was a sign of "intelligence".
She acts as if she owns Wikipedia and is trying to control everything by stealth, as can be seen with her edits where she describes her own version of the articles, or her personal interpretation of the rules as the Wikipedia Communities version. For example she did a major rewrite of the essay called "Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays" here (and afterwards, if anyone changed it in ways that she didn't like she would delete it, or tell them that they can't make changes to the 'communities' version).
As of 12-9-2012 she had made the major change and a total 18 of edits to that page to control the interpretation of all of Wikipedia's "rules". The next highest contributors were Sceptre, and Reisio who had made only 4 each.
She is essentially acting like a silly chook trying to feather Wikipedia to make it her own nest in ways that the other 16 million don't notice.
The founders of Wikipedia probably like and favor editors who do 100 edits a day, and may even be turning a blind eye to their misbehaviour, or ever protecting those individuals, but it is not consistent with their original objectives.
Is she doing this all on her own??
Another matter to be considered is whether or not one anonymous person is watching 2000 pages, and doing up to 100 edits per day, and reading 10 books and 61 research papers to check their reliability on one or dozens of those topics where she claims to be an "instant expert", or whether she has help form dozens of other highly paid assistants in the same house, building, or organisation??? What is their motive, and what is their agenda.
Watchlists, revenge lists, or Orwellian Content control sheets
While I was involved with Wikipedia it became obvious to me that my main critic was using rather amateurish and childish propaganda techniques to discredit me, as if she had just read a text book which should have been called "The idiots guide to bullshit". She was far too crude for me take her seriously.
The following quote comes from the Wikipedia page called "Orwellian" . . .
"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" - a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four." (end of quote) here
See my main critics attempts to control policy here
See my index to her lies and misrepresentation of facts here
See her methods for denying or deleting the truth here
See her manipulation of the past here
See her obvious and strenuous attempts to make me the "unperson" here
Whether or not she is successful in her rather foolish ways will be determined by the ethics and skills of the Wikipedia administrators and the tolerance of the public for her type of behaviour.
Do anonymous, unaccountable "individuals" or "organisations" have too much control of knowledge in Wikipedia
The following quote comes from the Wikipedia page called "Help: Watching pages" . . .
"As of January 27, 2006, some highly unscientific testing has shown that watchlists bigger than ~9800 pages on the English Wikipedia will usually cause problems." here
What my two critics don't understand
What my two critics don't understand "YET" is that most people develop severe, agonising, unrelenting pain or disease at some stage in their lives, particularly as they get older. Those who interfere with the process of providing methods of relieving that pain deserve to suffer. Many of those methods are not in Wikipedia now, and nobody will bother putting them there, or even wasting their time writing about their ideas. My two critics can fill the encyclopedia with VICTIM BLAMING nonsense, but they are useless, and they deserve to become their own helpless victims. Neither of them have got enough brains to cure anything.
Incidentally, one of them is a woman. Should she be permanently banned from editing pages about "pre-menstrual tension, and "breast cancer". See her attitudes to patients here and here
and here
The pages related to the false allegations that I was an unco-operative contributor
While I was in Wikipedia two editors did
95% of the arguing and disruption of my contributions, and went
to about ten different discussion pages to ask groups of six
or more other editors to help them get me blocked or banned on
the basis of their false allegations that I was disruptive and
not willing to accept Wikipedia policy. Most of the editors disagreed
with them, but they just kept looking for ways of being disruptive.
At one stage during an RFC discussion two editors suggested that
myself and my two critics should do separate subpage texts, so
that they (the neutral editors) could later merge them into one
article, to ensure that it complied with all of the relevant
policies and represented a neutral point of view. see here
The two independent editors who suggested
writing subpages were Avnjay and SmokeyJoe. In the following extract you can see that Avnjay's
suggestion was endorsed by SmokeyJoe, and I also endorsed it
with a clarifying comment. (I have highlighted the quote from
Avnjay's suggestion in red).
"Users who endorse
this summary: . .
1. AvnjayTalk 18:32, 21 July 2008
2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 1
August 2008
3. Avnjay; I endorse your solution with
the regard to your comments as quoted here" As
far as the article is concerned here is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing
it directly they can put their idea of the perfect article on
a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki policy but not
the article's subject (I am happy to take the time to do this
if you want) can then read the articles and check the references
and combine the articles. After a bit of discussion on the talk
page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but
why not!!." in your 3rd last paragraph here [85]. I am willing to prepare a sub-page on the range of research related
to a balanced view of Da Costa's syndrome and have you ensure
that it is presented as an article page which is consistent with
all relevant wiki policies, as fairly and equitably determined
by you". Posturewriter 08:42, 8 August 2008.
One of my critics, named Gordonofcartoon, rudely and bluntly refused the offer, but as
you can see, I accepted it. I then prepared an article outside
of Wikpedia, and when it was complete I added the text to a subpage.
Avnjay's original response was that it
was a lot better than the existing Da Costa's page, and, more
importantly, that it complied with all policies, and in particular
that it was properly sourced, and free of bias.
However, unknown to me at the time, my
other critic, named WhatamIdoing, had not had the time or ability to produce a
separate text, but did have the time and ability to cut and paste
mine and subject it to more than 80 items of insulting and disruptive
criticism. At the same time the same critic started a conversation
on their own UserTalk page and began criticisng and ridiculing
me and telling Avnjay that he was incompetent at understanding
the subject matter. See the first few comments here
While I was initially unaware of those
pages I continued to co-operate with Avnjay who was, in hindsight,
reading them, and asking me to provide information in response
to the many criticisms, in particular that I provide more modern
references, so I added at least 10 more that were published between
2000 and 2009.
When Avnjay advised me
that he would be too busy to continue for awhile I was put in
the awkward position of having to finish the article and move
the text to the Da Costa's topic page myself.
My two critics took turns
at deleting it , and each time I put it back, so they arranged
to get me banned on the grounds of going against consensus and
being disruptive. Their idea of consensus was always two to one
against, where they were always saying "we" think this
or "we" think that, to create an inflated impression
of their situation, and when there was mostly only two of them,
most of the time. If necessary, they recruited some of their
friends who believed their spin or shared their obvious bias.
They always referred to the editors who supported me as incompetent
in their interpretation of policy, or incompetent in their understanding
of the topic, and when they lost disputes on discussion pages,
instead of accepting the consensus of others, they said that
it failed on procedural grounds etc. and set up more discussion
pages to get me blocked.
Ultimately Gordonofcartoon set up an arbitration
page and the blocking proposal was being discussed by 12 independent
and uninvolved editors when one of my critics apparent friends
came into the discussion from nowhere and essentially told the
arbitrators that they were not needed anymore because he was
going to ban me himself.
Some months later, my main critic, WhatamIdoing,
rewarded that editor with an "Outlaw Halo" award for
being the only one prepared to break the Wikipedia rules to get
me banned, which indicates that WhatamIdoing had asked several
editors to break the rules but all of them, except one, refused.
Also, soon after I was banned the subpage
Talk page where I was co-operating very amiably and productively
with Avnjay was deleted.
My UserTalk page where I was defending
myself from criticism was deleted.
The Sandbox where WhatamIdoing cut and
pasted my text and began being disrespectful and argumentative,
and doing everything possible to be as disruptive as possible
was archived and hidden from general view by WhatamIdoing.
The section on WhatamIdoings own UserTalk
page where I was being subjected to constant criticism, and where
Avnjay was being told he was incompetent, was archived by WhatamIdoing.
Now all the evidence of my co-operative
nature and attempts to provide a neutral policy compliant page
for Wikipedia are gone, and all of the pages of evidence of WhatamIdoing's
hostile, unco-operative, argumentative, and disruptive conduct
is gone.
With all the relevant facts and evidence
deleted WhatamIdoing continued to argue that I was the one who
wasn't co-operative, and that I didn't understand Wikipedia policy
and was not willing to comply with it, and that I was being argumentative
and disruptive and pushing my own point of view.
In order to present the truth of the matter
with the facts and evidence for all to see and judge for themselves,
I have cut and pasted the subpage discussions between myself
and Avnjay, and they can be seen below.
The Sandbox where WhatamIdoing was doing
everything possible to interfere with that co-operative process
is here
The section of WhatamIdoing's own UserTalk
page where WhatamIdoing was being insulting and argumentative,
and doing everything to disrupt the process is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
My co-operation
with Avnjay to produce a neutral, good quality, reliably sourced,
policy compliant article
User talk:Posturewriter/DaCostaDraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:Posturewriter
Contents
1 Response to Avnjays Solution to the Da Costa's Syndrome Rfc
discussions
2 Your Article
2.1 History section
2.2 Introduction
3 CFS
My response
to Avnjays Solution to the Da Costa's Syndrome "Requests
for Comments" page (RFC).
Avnjay; Thankyou
for setting up this subpage on 30-8-08 here [[1]] and for providing the reference window on 26-9-08
here [[2]]. I have just added the text for a Da Costa's syndrome
article as I advised three weeks ago. It is consistent with the
layouts that I have seen on similar medical pages. The history
section is provided in chronological order to present the outcome
of heated debates and conflicts of opinions, and advances in
medical research findings from 1864 through to 2000 when, despite
criticism from some authors, the diagnostic term fell into disuse
in the general literature. I have therefore commented on the
links with modern terminologies in the summary. The painting
of a typical Da Costa's patient in Paul Wood's book would be
ideal for the page, so if you can't access it I could provide
a copy for you to check in relation to copyright etc and load
it onto the page. The painting is probably over 100 years old.
I hope you find the article acceptable, and if you have any comments
on how to improve it in relation to content or policy I will
respond next Sunday" Posturewriter 07:58, 28 September 2008
Your article . . . Hi Posturewriter. Firstly:
Well done, this appears to be an excellent article, well sourced,
and a lot better than the one that is already up there in format
and detail A few
little things I picked up on my first read through:
In the 1950-1999 section, third paragraph the second quotation
needs closing quotation marks at the end, not sure where this
is otherwise I would have added it myself. Is this paragraph
all sourced from the book by White?
In the 200-2008 section I got slightly confused by the immediate
references to 1916 and 1956 and generally a little lost in that
paragraph. Do you think you could restructure it a little? You
also link to a number of Wikipedia diffs rather than to pages
- this also happens in the Symptoms page. Wasn't sure what it
was you wanted to link to so haven't changed anything!
Will ask for some other opinions but I think this is a neutral
article with no evidence of COI or synthesis or anything! Well
done, again. Avnjay 19:42, 2 October 2008
Just wondering if you had any more recent sources as well as
the most recent one I can find listed is 1997. I appreciate much
of the references are to do with your history section and so
are bound to be from quite a while ago. However, it would be
good to have one or two sources from recent years, especially
as there is a section on 2000-2008. Although you do point out
that the term has fallen into disuse and so finding a source
might be difficult. Avnjay 20:05, 2 October 2008
Avnjay; Thank you for your edits and suggestions. In the past week I have added a small paragraph on prevention,
and have linked the statements about symptoms and causes etc.
to the references. I have also included the edits of yourself and the anonymous
editor.
Regarding your question about the 1951 paragraphs in the history
section, all of the comments are derived from chapter 22 of Paul
Dudley White's book [1]. Regarding your suggestion about the 2000-2008 section I have
amended the title and description in response to your request
for clarification.
Also, in response to your request for a more recent reference
I have added a definition of neurocirculatory asthenia from the
Merriam Webster Online Medical Dictionary which is consistent
with the descriptions from the history of Da Costa's syndrome
research [3].
Thank you again for your comments. If you have any further suggestions
or questions I will respond to them next Sunday00:44, 5 October 2008 posturewriter
Hello Posturewriter. I am sure you will see that I've made a
fair few changes, mainly to the style of the article. I have
collated all the references that were cited multiple times and
changed a couple of formats to come in line with the Wikipedia
manual of style. I have also added a few references that were
in the current article that fitted neatly into yours, mainly
because they were a lot more recent. I asked WhatamIdoing to
have a glance over the article and two things she picked up on
were: not enough up-to-date sources (WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence)
and that some of the quotes were very short and so can have their
context questioned. I would definitely recommend finding some
more sources from the last few years - have a look at the current
article as I think there are some there.
Also in the second half of the history section there are a few
orphaned quotation marks that need some attention - I'm not sure
where they are meant to be. It might be worth reviewing your
use if quotations to check that they are accurate and referenced
so that people can look them up. I think this is mostly the case
already though.
This article may well come under more scrutiny than many other
articles written on Wikipedia so do be prepared for lots of suggestions. However, at the end of
it all I really believe we can produce a brilliant article. Keep up the
good work! AvnjayTalk 15:34, 6 October 2008
History
section
I've done quite a bit of work of the first of these sections
to try and provide a chronological history of the syndrome with
as many sources as possible. The whole section needs to be slimmed
down somewhat as it is a little long and over-detailed. Also
some of the stuff could be moved to the symptoms or predisposition
section. AvnjayTalk 09:20, 9 October 2008
I'm not going to have a huge amount of time over the next few
weeks to tackle the remaining sections so it would be brilliant
if you could. They need generally to be slimmed down and to tell
the historical story of the syndrome. See if some stuff can be
moved to the other sections if you find yourself in a lengthy
discussion about a symptom for example. A couple of other things
that need attention which have been pointed out to me is the
current diagnosis of MVP being something different from DCS though
in the 1950s it was thought to be part of DCS. Some of the symptoms,
pre-dispositions are therefore related to MVP and not DCS. Secondly,
beware of your Streeten reference (no. 29) which is in an editorial
rather than a peer reviewed article and so may not be accepted
as a reliable source. Thanks for you continued hard work. AvnjayTalk
00:28, 12 October
2008
Introduction
Just to explain what I did to the introduction. The first line
was "Da Costa's syndrome is a disorder of unknown origin"
which then had three sources. The trouble is that two of the
sources were from a long time ago and the other was relating
to CFS, with a tiny mention of Da Costa but was still 12 years
old. Seeing as the WHO does list a cause for it I felt the intro
should be re-worded. Also when talking about people it's best
not to hype them up at all, especially if they have a Wiki link,
but let the user check for themselves if they want to - that's
what the ref is for. This ensures that the reader is not led
to give one source undue weighting. I'm sorry if I seem to be
chopping up and changing your article but I hope you see it as
positive and helpful contributions. If we are ever to get other
editors to accept it these are changes that have to be made.
Have a good day.AvnjayTalk 00:28, 12 October 2008
Avnjay: thankyou for the improvements to the reference section
and the wording of the introduction and 1863-1899 history section.
My comments are that there were many nineteenth century studies
on the relation between tight clothing and health with the evidence
eventually demonstrating that they were a cause of such problems
e.g. here [[4]]. Also please note that the WHO category of 'Somatoform
Autonomic Dysfunction' is not included in the latest 2007 editions
of the Dorland's, and Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionaries,
whereas many of the synonyms directly related to the Da Costa
study have prevailed for almost a century, and are still listed
in Dorland's.
Also, prior to starting the draft for this page a few weeks ago
I had a look at some of the policies on sourcing and layout etc,
and how they were applied to other medical pages, to make this
a similar of better standard. Other pages are sometimes shorter
but many other pages are much longer than this one e.g. the asthma
page which is constructed with a very large number of primary
sourced information with a total of 94 references, and other
pages have a varied choice of primary, secondary, and tertiary
references e.g. the varicose veins page, and there are some pages
where the majority of contributors are unaccountable anonymous
contributors, with non-existent, or very few, or poor quality
references, most of which are not linked to the text, and where
there are a large number of non-typical sections included without
being edited, changed or deleted, such as the Postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome page.
I note in particular that policy specifically provides for history
sections to be verified from reliable sources of the period,
and I have highlighted the dates of research reviews or findings
to provide a chronological, and therefore convenient way for
readers to review and check the progress and context of ideas.
I have also already made considerable abbreviations of texts
to shorten the page to encyclopedic length, such as comments
on Oglesby's study being reduced by 90% from here [[5]] to paragraph
two here [[6]], and similarly with MacKenzie and Caughey. I aimed
at minimising duplication of synonyms and research observations,
while at the same time keeping the information which distinguishes
this syndrome from many others which overlap to cause confusion.
I therefore don't wish to abbreviate it any further, but you
can have a go at it if you wish, and I will comment later.
Regarding the latter half of the page, I have used general section
titles, based on the recommended ones, with additional sections
useful to this topic to show important aspects of the condition
in a practical modern context, with the information derived from,
and linked to the history references for verification.
I have also amended, or added new reference links to some which
you deleted as problematic, for you to check if necessary.
I appreciate the many hours that you must have spent verifying
the information and improving the page. If you have any more
suggestions please let me know and I will respond next Sunday. Posturewriter 01:23, 12
October 2008
Avnjya; P.S. Just a quick note on your comments today; the cause
of Da Costa's syndrome has still not been discovered, proven
or accepted convincingly, hence it is generally stated that it
is "considered to be" caused by such and such, depending
on the writers opinion, and I have mentioned that Paul Dudley
White etc were from Harvard, because the reviews could otherwise
be portrayed as out of date and insignificant, which isn't true.
His credentials are impeccable. Your current editing of this
article is excellent. Posturewriter 01:23, 12 October 2008
Avnjay; I have added some more links between the text and the
references today.
In response to your request for more information about MVP I
have amended the Charles Wooley article which introduces that
topic which is also covered more fully on another wiki article
page by that title, so it isn't necessary for me to discuss it
further here. I have also added some references on the incidence
of DaCosta syndrome in relation to pregnancy.
In response to your other request for some more modern references
I have added one from 2008 which describes the history as including
Da Costa's syndrome, Neurocirculatory asthenia, Mitral Valve
Prolapse syndrome, Orthostatic intolerance, and the Chronic fatigue
syndrome. I have added another one on orthostatic intolerance
and CFS to support the first.
Thankyou for your suggestions for improving the page. If you
have any more questions I will respond next Sunday. Posturewriter 02:22, 19
October 2008
CFS
Hi Posturewriter. We need to tackle the subject of CFS in this
article. It's stated in a number of places in the article that
Da Costa's Syndrome is a form of CFS. However, we need to take
a more careful look at the sources:
? The ORTHOSTATIC INTOLERANCE source says "It is
similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome" but
falls some way short of actually saying they are the same.
? The conclusion of the Is chronic fatigue syndrome synonymous
with effort syndrome? paper is that patients exhibiting "effort
syndrome caused by chronic habitual hyperventilation" should
be diagnosed as such and NOT with CFS, ME, or PVS. It doesn't
deal with any other kind of effort syndrome and doesn't mention
NCA/irritable heart/Da Costa.
? The The Nature of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome editorial
starts with "It has been speculated that the severe fatigue
associated with neurocirculatory asthenia, termed irritable heart
syndrome by Da Costa and soldier's heart by Lewis during World
War I, were early descriptions of the symptoms of orthostatic
hypotension" and then doesn't mention Da Costa's again.
Needless to say this cannot be considered a definitive source.
The only other source quoted is the Heart Disease book
by White, which is not available online and so I cannot check.
I'm going to re-work the article a fair bit to allow it to reflect
this. If you can find some modern sources which categorically
state that Da Costa's can be considered a part of CFS then we
can re-consider it. I appreciate this is a large change so I
hope you are happy with it. It's things like this that will stop
other editors agreeing with it. Avnjay16:39, 20 October 2008
Avnjay; Thankyou for your questions about CFS links with Da Costa's
syndrome. Please consider the following matters if you reword
the article.
Da Costa studied more than 300 soldiers with a set of symptoms
(a syndrome) that included (fatigue) which started with a viral
infection etc. and persisted for many years (chronic) after the
infection subsided (post-viral).
Paul Dudley White studied this subject for more than fifty years
before, during, and after two world wars, and is the most prominent
and credible authority in the history of this research. In his
1951 book, on page 578, he wrote "it constitutes a kind
of fatigue syndrome" . . . and . . . "it is more or
less a chronic condition."
The fact that this condition is a "chronic" . . . "fatigue"
. . "syndrome " is clear enough, however the modern
label of "chronic fatigue syndrome " has been defined
by many different groups but there has been confusion because,
as has often been reported, several similar conditions are being
considered together.
I have therefore refrained from saying that they are the same,
but that Da Costa's syndrome is a condition that has been "absorbed
into" the complex CFS group, and is in effect a subtype.
Regarding Streeton's article: I used it because his paper was
published in JAMA which is recommended in Wikipedia guidelines
as a reliable source for medical articles here [[7]]. His paper
is supported by 10 references, including Da costa's and Lewis's
who coined the term "effort syndrome" which related
directly to the effort and orthostatic intolerance of the chronic
fatigue syndrome studies.
Regarding Rosen's article; please note that he used the words
CFS, ME, or PVS (post-viral fatigue syndrome) as synonyms for
the "effort syndrome" in his first two paragraphs,
but recommended that they "be withheld until 'chronic habitual
hyperventilation' . . . has been definitively excluded",
but his ideas have not been universally accepted. He has also
used the papers of Lewis from 1916 and 1933 in the reference
section as numbers 9 and 10, and one has the term "irritable
heart" in the title, which was the label originally used
by Da Costa in the title of his 1871 report. To relate these
to the intervening history you can view Charles Wooley's paper
where DCS , the "effort syndrome" and NCA have all
been used synonymously in the title here[[8]]
As another aspect to consider please view this general comment
that the actual words "Chronic fatigue syndrome" have
"the distinct advantage of not ascribing this disease to
an incorrect cause", here [[9]] and that the same comment
of neutrality (re; NPOV) has previously been said about the word
Da Costa's syndrome.
Please also note that the Da Costa page was started 18 months
before I saw it as four lines of text with a general invitation
for members of the public to improve it, and the terms "hyperventilation
syndrome" and "chronic fatigue syndrome" were
used in the "Related" section here [[10]]
Also please check the current Da Costa page which has the following
description provided by another contributor . . . "The orthostatic
intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in
patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and mitral valve
prolapse syndrome. [11] in the 21st century". here [[11]],
and it uses the same reference[2]
I hope these explanations assist you in rewriting the relevant
sections, and if you have any more questions I will answer them
in due course Posturewriter (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2008
Just a quick note explaining my edits as I've got a lot to do
today. The JAMA editorial might be a good source but it still
only speculates that Da Costa's is an early form of CFS. It also
only provides one explanation as to the cause of chronic fatigue
where there are many, see Pathophysiology_of_chronic_fatigue_syndrome.
It doesn't really fit in the history section therefore as a moment
of understanding of the cause of chronic fatigue, especially
as it's not a research paper. I've left it in a couple of places
where it acts more as a reference than a presentation of research.
I've removed the discussion about hyperventilation as it didn't
really fit. The Rosen article only really mentions Da Costa's
in passing and seeks to distinguish effort syndrome caused by
hyperventilation from CFS, which didn't strike me as saying effort
syndrome was the same as CFS. It also is only dealing with "effort
syndrome caused by hyperventilation" which your next source
then said wasn't the same as Da Costa's. While those sources
may be linked to Da Costa's they are not important enough to
have a paragraph on. I've kept the fact that Da Costa's causes
chronic fatigue and hence is linked to CFS in the article but
have re-worded where I felt that it was being suggested that
Da Costa's should be diagnosed as CFS, which seems to be against
the sources. Hope this makes some sense. The edits are probably
still a little rough and could do with some smoothing. Will keep
working on it as and when I have time. Have a good day. Avnjay 13:39, 25 October
2008
Avnjay; Regarding your recent comments about the chronic fatigue
syndrome, and further to my reply last Tuesday, please note that
CFS has been listed in the "Related" section or mentioned
in the body of the text ever since the page was initially placed
in wikipedia in May 2006. I first saw it in December 2007 when
it was still there, and it has remained until now without any
editor questioning it's relevance.
However, in response to your request for more recent reliable
sources: The current edition of Harrison's Principle's of Internal
Medicine (Published in February 2008) links it to "effort
syndrome" which was the term Lewis coined in 1916 to describe
Da Costa's syndrome. Lewis used a graded exercise regime for
treating the condition and Harrison's reports that such a regime
has "proven" beneficial.
I have also added some more links between text and references
P.S. Thankyou for the improvements that you made to the page
yesterday. I have made some changes with this edit, and will
give an explanation for those later today if possible re; hyperventilation,
"delayed" orthostatic hypotension" etc. Posturewriter
03:40, 26
October 2008
Avnjay; Regarding your question about the Streeton article; it
refers to "delayed" orthostatic hypotension where a
DaCosta's patient may feel faint after standing for ten minutes.
A healthy person has normal circulation and will occasionally
feel faint if they stand up suddenly, but a Da Costa's patient
has weak circulation (neurocirculatory asthenia) so when they
stand up suddenly the blood gravitates toward the lower limbs
and the weak circulation takes a few seconds longer to drive
the blood up to the brain, so they feel faint more often and
for longer than normal. They sometimes stand up slowly to prevent
the problem. The article also provides a modern link to the abnormal
pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins described
by MacKenzie in 1916. I have therefore replaced Streeten's article
for you to consider again in relation to that "delayed"
feature which also influences the response to exertion.
Regarding the Rosen article; Please read the second paragraph
where it states "the symptoms are similar to those found
in chronic habitual hyperventilation "or" effort syndrome,
followed by a link to reference number nine by Lewis who coined
the word "effort syndrome" for Da Costa's syndrome.
I reviewed three items to show that some researchers find evidence
of hyperventilation and some don't. Some say it is "the
same as", or "similar to", or "a type of"
or "different to". I agree that the actual summaries
are not necessary in an encyclopedia but the references can be
used as citations to show the differences of opinion.
Regarding the link between CFS and Da Costa's syndrome. If you
look at any of the CFS definitions provided by many groups you
will find lists of up to twenty or more symptoms [12] and if
you scroll down you can often find the same, or close similarities
to the Da Costa's syndrome classic symptoms and you can see that
it has been "absorbed into", or is "similar to".
or is "a type of" CFS, which is why it has been on
the existing wikipedia Da Costa page for two years without any
editor questioning it. It is obviously there.
If you have any more questions I will reply next Sunday. However
I think the text is complete and only details need considering. Posturewriter 09:29, 26
October 2008
Avnjay; Further to your questions last week about the thread
of history between Da Costa's syndrome and the modern term of
"Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", the links to the past involve
a consideration of the fact that the 1871 research paper by Da
Costa is unchangeable. By contrast there are currently many groups
who have provided several different definitions for the chronic
fatigue syndrome which are the subject of constant controversy
and review and hence vary considerably. Only those modern definitions
which are consistent with the symptoms described by Da Costa's
are directly relevant to the history.
For example, Da Costa described a condition occurring after excessive
marching, or after a viral infection where the fever ceased but
the symptoms, including the abnormal fatigue, were chronic. The
fatigue is related to abnormal pooling of blood in the peripheral
veins, and hence reduced blood flow and oxygenation of the brain
etc. Some of the modern definitions of CFS are consistent with
those features, such as those which include orthostatic intolerance,
which is one of several links from history.
Regarding your request for some links from old to modern references
I have added two from the 1940's to match an article by Rowe
in 2002 which refers to Da Costa's term "irritable heart",
and later "neurocirulatory asthenia" as "the synonyms
for what we now call CFS." The article is from one of the
top three paediatric journals in the world and therefore meets
wiki MEDRS standards, and is an editorial which summarises three
papers in that journal, and, refers to the history of the topic,
and is therefore a Secondary source, and is modern. It discusses
various subtypes of hypotension. Another OI article by Rowe,
published in 2007, is available if you wish. I have also wikified
the subtypes for readers to go to other pages for more information.
I have also added some more info and refs on the typical left-sided
chest pain.
If you have any more suggestions or questions I could answer
them later today or next Sunday. Posturewriter (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2008
Avnjay: Some time ago you provided this subpage for me to contribute
an article for the Da Costa page. I suggested that I would need
a few weeks to prepare the page, and could give you four weeks
of opportunity to comment with me responding each sunday [[13]].
That time has passed and I have answered all questions, and in
that regard have added some more information and references today.
Regarding MVP the topic branches off to another wikipedia page
where it can be discussed further. Regarding Orthostatic Intolerance;
it is common to Da Costa's Syndrome and CFS. Regarding Hyperventilation
Syndrome; it involves panic followed by rapid breathing and tingling
of the fingers and lips, which is not the same as Da Costa's
Syndrome which involves chest pains, sighing, palpitations, faintness
and fatigue occurring in response to exertion, where it is a
physiological feature.
There are now more than a dozen references from reliable medical
sources linking Da Costa's syndrome to some of the Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome definitions, and there are symptoms that are common
to old and new definitions, and there are some references which
use the old and new labels as exact synonyms[3]
If you have any more questions I will be happy to answer them
if you need more time, otherwise the article is ready to be merged
with any other subpage, or to replace the existing text, as it
complies with every aspect of policy.
However you may note that the controversy relating to this topic
continues nowadays in the area of The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
so there will always be differences of opinion, but I would like
you to consider that information from history is irrefutable.
In completing this page I would appreciate your assistance in
fixing the links to the reference section where the same reference
has been used to verify multiple statements in the text. I would
also like you to view the portrait of a typical patient on page
941 in Paul Wood's book of 1956 , and assess it's copyright etc
in relation to usability on the page [[14]].
Thankyou for you suggestions aimed at improving the article and
making it compliant with the necessary policies. As you haven't
commented for two weeks your feedback will be appreciated
P.S. I will add some more references later today. Posturewriter
(talk) 23:31, 8
November 2008
Hi Posturewrtier, sorry I've been incredibly
busy over the last few weeks and so have had very little time
to look over your article. I will attempt to sometime this week. AvnjayTalk 20:58, 9
November 2008
End of Subpage Talk
The
actual discussions that led up to the writing of the subpage
The suggestion to write
separate subpages was not mine, but was made by two neutral editors
as a method of establishing the basis for preparing one unbiased
article that considered all of the verifiable information from
both sides. Here are extracts from the relevant discussions .
. .
The two neutral editors who suggested writing
subpages were Avnjay and SmokeyJoe.
1. This was one of Avnjay's suggestions
on the Requests For Comment Talk page on 3-8-08 . . . "As far as the article is concerned
here is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly
they can put their idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page.
Someone with knowledge of Wiki policy but not the article's subject
(I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then
read the articles and check the references and combine the articles.
After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect
article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!." [[User_talk:Avnjay|Talk]]</sup>
20:36, 3 August 2008 see the 8th paragraph here
2. This was one of SmokeyJoe's suggestions on the same page five days later on 8-8-08 . . . "Posturewriter . . . If you want to create a userspace version of an
article (such as Da Costa's syndrome), get it perfected, and
then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it." , , , SmokeyJoe 11:18, 8 August 2008 here
Avnjay made some recommendations on the
Requests for Comment Project page on 8-8-08 so I endorsed his suggestion in relation to the previous comment
of 3-8-08 and made these comments . . ."I am willing to prepare a sub-page
on the range of research related to a balanced view of Da Costa's
syndrome and have you ensure that it is presented as an article
page which is consistent with all relevant wiki policies, as
fairly and equitably determined by you" --Posturewriter (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay
A week later, at 07:51 on 15-8-08 I made these comments to SmokeyJoe on the RFC Talk page . . . "SmokeyJoe;
Thank your for your comments . . . I think that your recent suggestion
of the 8th August was a good idea re; "If you want to create
a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome),
get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article,
then go for it" hereIt relates to my
endorsement of Avnjays suggestion first, and yours second. You
could edit the page with Avnjay if you wish although you have
not previously offered to, and ensure it was complete, NPOV,
and in compliance with policy" Posturewriter 07:51, 15 August 2008 here
Seven hours later at 15:30 on 15-8-09 Gordonofcartoon gave this typically uncompromising and disruptive
response . . . "Discussion over: no-one's interested
in seeing further essays from you here". Gordonofcartoon
15:30, 15 August 2008. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=232096020
Two weeks later at 03:52 on 7-9-08 I wrote this message to Avnjay . . . "Avnjay; Thankyou for providing
the Da Costa subpage. I will add information to it in due course,
perhaps in the next few weeks"Posturewriter (talk) 03:52,
7 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff
=next&oldid=236781537
Another two weeks passed when
at 20:25 on 21-9-08 I wrote thes comments on Avnjay's
talk page . . . Avnjay, Thankyou for setting up
the Da Costa's syndrome subpage here [[2]]. I am in the process
of providing the text and will be checking it during the week
ready to post it on wikipedia next Sunday. Could you please set
up a reference section at the end of the page so that the citations
will be added to the list automatically. Could you also set up
an associated talk page so that you and SmokeyJoe can make any
comments related to improving it to encyclopedic style and compliance
with sourcing and other policy. You could make your comments
at any time, but I would like to consider them and respond once
a week, on Sundays, and would hope to complete the task to a
satisfactory format in about a month. When we have reached a
consensus about it's suitability you and SmokeyJoe could start
the process of merging it with the existing Da Costa page, or
any other Da Costa subpage via a different discussion process
where the discussion would involve all interested parties. I
hope this plan is acceptable, and if you wish to make any suggestions
or alterations to the timeframe or process I will respond next
Sunday. Thankyou again for your interest and assistance and for
reviewing the discussion pages related to this topic here [[3]] Posturewriter 02:33, 21 September
2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avnjay#Regarding_the_Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_subpage
Avnjay replied a few days later at 20:05 on 26-9-09 with these words . . .Hello
Posturewriter, sorry for slow reply I have been away. I have
added a references section to the sub-page (for more info on
this see Help:footnotes). The talk page can be started by clicking
on the discussion tab at the top of the page or by clicking here.
I will look in on the page from time to time and look forward
to reading your work! No trouble about the help - I am glad to
see you haven't been blocked. Avnjay 20:05, 26 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avnjay#Regarding_the_Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_subpage
I then replied two days later at 08:27
on 28-9-08 with these words; Avnjay; Thankyou for providing the subpage and
adding the reference window code to it. I have provided the text
for an article on Da Costa's Syndrome today here [[4]] and would
appreciate your comments. Posturewriter
08:07, 28 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avnjay&diff=241491078&oldid=241196101
I then started corresponding with Avnjay
on the Subpage Talk page above. (I have posted it above because
it was deleted from Wikipedia)
For more information about the subpage
that I prepared and the relentless ways that my two critics tried
to disrupt the process, and for direct quotes from those discussions
see here
Rewriting
the Da Costa's article on a subpage.
Soon after I started adding
information to the Da Costa's page the same two critics kept
inventing policy reasons to delete everything I wrote, so I thought
that it was a refreshing change to see two sensible and unbiased
editors making an intelligent suggestion that we all do separate
subpages to be merged by neutral editors when they were finished.
I later added the text, and a neural editor named Avnjay described
it as brilliant and unbiased, and then I started co-operating
with him to make it even better. However, unfortunately it did
not make much difference because my two main critics simply undermined
the process. Here is the SIMPLE method that was used.
Instead of telling me that
every word I wrote was a violation of policy, WhatamIdoing cut and
pasted my essay onto a sandbox page - and found fault with every
word on it - and then told Avnjay - and then Avnjay asked me to change every word
I wrote. It was as if Avnjay
was being used as some sort of remotely controlled clone doing
WhatamIdoing's deeds.
WhatamIdoing was supposed
to do a separate page, with all statements verified from independent
sources so that neutral editors could compare both versions and check the verifiable
information of each and draw independent conclusions on neutrality, but all WhatamIdoing did was
interfere, disrupt, argue, and mess around, and force an unyielding
personal opinion on everyone else.
It became impractical for
me to continue when WhatamIdoing argued that there was something
wrong with me presenting the history article in logical chronological
order, and telling Avnjay, and then Avnjay asking me to rewrite
the history section as a story.
It was impractical because
WhatamIoing's tactics were so obvious, that if I spent three
months rewriting the essay as a story, WhatamIdoing would cut
an paste it onto a new sandbox and then start finding fault with every new
word.
The only way
that it was ever going to be free of criticism was if a neutral editor rewrote
it and decided that it was, in their neutral opinion, free of
bias, and then WhatamIdoing would have to criticise them instead
of me, and then the
neutral editor would KNOW that WhatamIdoing was
the biased and disruptive editor, not me.
Consequently when I was
asked to rewrite the essay, I advised Avnjay that I would be
happy if he rewrote it instead, and we could discuss it later.
He would then have to deal with the fact that he would become
the victim of WhatamIdoing's relentless nitpicking. He later
said that he didn't have time to trundle through all of the extra
references that I was asked to provide to verify every word in
my text.
I can understand that Avnjay
would not want to write it while being relentlessly hounded with
questions by WhatamIdoing, but that was the whole purpose of
the process - For me to write a neutral article, and for neutral
editors to rewrite it so that it was free of bias, and for neutral
editors to make all of the decisions. When Avnjay stopped editing
the subpage, with an explanation that he had other obligations
in his private life, I had no choice but to transfer the text
onto the topic page myself, and the only editors to revert it
were the same two critics who had refused to co-operate with
the process of producing an article without bias.
WhatamIdoing acts as a
content controlling dictator, and had absolutely no intentions
of accepting the basic principle of Wikipedia policy which is
essentially this - If WhatamIdoing wants to put a different version
in Wikipedia then write one - and keep away from the decision
making process, and let neutral editors merge them with others
to establish freedom from bias.
When Avnjay eventually
left some final comments it was after many weeks of absence and
it essentially said that he was leaving the decision on content
for WhatamIdoing to make - which is what WhatamIdoing wanted,
and was trying to achieve, and what WhatamIdoing got - TOTAL
CONTROL - which equates to POV dictatorship - which TOTALLY SNUBS,
UNDERMINES, SUBVERTS, AND DESTROYS WP:NPOV.
****
Note that Avnjay was a
co-operative, and constructive editor who probably wanted to
continue in Wikipedia, and if he did not defer, then WhatamIdoing
would have come out with all editing 'guns ablazing', and I don't
think that Avnjay would have wanted to be on the wrong end of
that. Of course, that situation doesn't bother me because I have
been involved in controversies for thirty years and I have seen
it all before. It is like watching a TV comedy with all of the
bickering taking place on the screen in front of you - the usual
re-runs - my two critics, WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, acting
like - DUMB and DUMBER.
Archiving
methods and Sheer Co-incidence?
When an editor discusses topics on their
own talk page they set up a section with a heading, and then
start discussing it with other editors. After a year or two they
may have a hundred or more topics where the discussions have
been completed, and take up too much space, and don't need to
be there anymore, so they can move the old discussions to an
archive page, and just leave the few that are still active. They
can also choose where they stop, and so, for example, if they
want to get a lot of feedback on their main topic of interest
they can delete everything prior to that one, so that it is moved
from halfway down the old page, to the very top of the new one.
WhatamIdoing archived the topics so that the discussion about
me was left at the top, and then argued that it was sheer co-incidence.
The first topic heading was "1. Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter "
The first comments started on 18-9-08 with
WhatamIdoing giving Wizardman a barnstar for putting a topic ban
on me on the RFC page, and WhatamIdoing thanking him for it (with
no mention of the fact that RFC's are not supposed to be concluded
while still active etc)
The second comment was from a neutral editor
named Avnjay telling WhatamIdoing that the article that I wrote about Da Costa's syndrome was "a lot better" than the existing one (that was controlled by
WhatamIdoing).
Avnjay also added that he couldn't see
any evidence of conflict of interest (COI), or bias
That comment was followed by months of
never ending criticism by WhatamIdoing. From the very start Avnjay
revealed some insight into the tactics being used by saying "Ouch",
which reflects an earlier request to the same editor "please
don't come out with all guns ablazing". which indicated
that WhatamIdoing has a reputation for being a hostile individual.
WhatamIdoing's insults would follow like
this - Posturewriter is wrong, disruptive, and argumentative
etc etc, and using references that are out of date and obsolete.
Avnjay would come to my subpage and say
politely such things as - if you wish your article to be accepted
by the other editors you may need to find some more modern references
please.
I would spend a week or two looking for
the necessary references and return with a comment such as -
Avnjay; thankyou for your request, I have included some modern
references for you to consider. Please check them for verification
etc.
WhatamIdoing would then rudely imply to
Avnjay that my suggestions were stupid, disruptive, mistaken
etc, for saying that Da Costa's is a type of CFS
Avnjay would then come to my subpage and
say politely - The link to CFS is not quite clear in your existing
references so could you please provide some more.
I would spend a week or two looking for
the refs and then add them to the list which grew from 24 references
(when it was already 'a lot better' than my critics version)
and it increased to 65 references.
The criticism went on for months with WhatamIdoing
deliberately and relentlessly insulting me in the section at
the top of the page so that a lot of personal friends would be
more likely to see it and come and help get me blocked.
Ultimately, WhatamIdoing sent emails to
a lot of other editors and one of them did come and ban me, but
another email went to Avnjay who replied, by saying that he had
been away for several months and that he had spent many hours
working on the subpage with me and that he didn't have time to
"trundle" through all of the references, and was conceding
to WhatamIdoing's decision on anything related to the page.
I will not make any critical comments about
Avnjay who did make attempts to resolve the issues involved,
but WhatamIdoing was doing everything to incite hostility against
me, and to put as much pressure as possible on any editor who
supported me until the support ceased.
The archive where the discussions can be
seen is WhatamIdoing's Archive number 2 which had 98 different
topics. Discussion number one was full of relentless insults
about me, aimed at getting help to block me. Item number 97 (the
second last) was also about me and how to get me banned, and
there were comments by my two critics WhatamIdoing, and Gordonofcartoon,
and another editor named David Ruben (who had previously been
influenced by their incessant criticism), and Avnjay deferring
to WhatamIdoing.
The Archive number two had 98 topics and
covered the period of four and a half months from 18-9-08 to
8-2-09, and I was the subject of the first topic at the top of
the page, and the subject of the second last topic close to the
end of the page. That archive can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2
I was banned on 28-1-09, and the page was
archived a week later. The relevant dates are summarised below.
On 18 -9- 2008 a discussion about me
was started on WhatamIdoing's talk page somewhere along the large
list of topics with the following heading "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter".
On 5-10-08 Avnjay left a note on the talk page saying that the Da Costa essay that I produced was a lot better than the existing one, and unbiased, and
within six hours WhatamIdoing replied and said that Avnjay was
not competent in the subject matter, and then 18-10-08, two weeks later, the previous page was archived with the topic about me put at
the top of the new page where
the heading was . . . number 1.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter ".
On 31-12-09 I found
out about the discussions and went to the page for
the first time to defend myself from the incessant nitpicking and
insults.
On 26-1-09, three and a half months after the topic was moved
to the top of the page,the second last
heading was started on that page with the heading . . .number "97. Requests for arbitration / User:Posturewriter"
On 28-1-09 I was banned.
On 8-2-09, only eleven days after I was banned, the last comments were made on that page, and
it was then archived, and the topics related to me ceased to
exist on WhatamIdoing current page.
The whole purpose of putting my name at
the top of the page and adding relentless months of hostile insults
and criticism was OBVIOUSLY to get me blocked or banned, and
after that had been accomplished it wasn't needed any more. However,
WhatamIdoing told the following ridiculous lies . . .
At 1:23 on 11-1-09 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "the reason this section is
at the top of my talk page is because I archive in date
order. Like all normal talk pages, new items go on the bottom.
If you would quit adding to this section (as I've suggested several
times now), then I'd be able to archive it during the next
regular round. If you don't like having it at the top of
my user talk page -- then stop posting here!" WhatamIdoing
(talk) 01:23, 11 January 2009 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
Needless to say, if it took another two
months to get me banned, WhatamIdoing would have kept it at the
top of the page for another two months, or for however long it
took, and that practice violates many principles, guidelines,
and policies, including incivility, bias and non neutral point
of view, point of view pushing, tendentious editing, disruptive
editing, naming guidelines, no personal attacks, battleground,
organising an edit war, tag-teaming, refusal to move on, moving
the goalposts, rule-breaking and trolling etc etc. - In plain
English that is called - not good enough to win without cheating.
Jaysweet accused me of being unco-operative
In another dispute my two critics were arguing on a page called Wikiquettes Alert that my essay about their disruptive rule-breaking behaviour should be deleted.
They obviously wanted all of that information hidden from the other editors and administrators.
I said to one of the uninvolved editors named Jaysweet, that he, or she, had my permission to delete anything she wanted, but that I didn't think it was appropriated for my two critics deleing anything.
In fact, I wanted "uninvolved" and "unbiased" editors to do something, so I gave her permission twice, once on the Wikiquettes Alert page, and once on my UserTalk page where she was leaving messages.
However, she did not remove anything, and later accused me of being uncooperative? The following quote comes from that discussion on 17th July 2008 . . .
My comment . . . "I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can’t say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another. I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don’t wish to change it I will leave it there." Posturewriter 08:34, 17 July 2008.
Jaysweets reply . . . "I probably should have been more clear when I said "make a decision on how to close this." I had assumed that either you would graciously choose to remove the section in question from your Talk page, or else you would unambiguously tell us to piss off". Jaysweet 13:23, 17 July 2008. See here.
Jaysweet later accused me of being unco-operative on another page called MFD with these words. . . "The user was asked to remove or revise this section, but refused. I personally do not feel this belongs on the page, as it does not in any way facilitate the goal of creating a quality encyclopedia. I'd like to get community consensus on that" Jaysweet 17:59, 24 July 2008
Jaysweet withdrew her comments later after I explained the situation. She wrote these words . . . "Sorry, that "nom withdrawn" thing was a bit WP:POINTy, wasn't it? Anyway, let's see how this plays out. I really do want to get community consensus on whether this section is acceptable or not." Jaysweet 16:01, 29 July 2008
As youp[ can see, despite me giving her permission to delete whatever aspects she wanted she agued that I should delete the whole section.
i.e. I was actually being very cooperative, whereas she was being very uncooperative.
Essentially what she was arguing is that my two critics can spend six months accusing me of breaking dozens of rules, and that it perfectly OK, and everything can be used to block and ban me, but when I write an essay describing (and providing evidence) of all of their policy violations, the entire section is improper and has to be deleted in one mass. That essay has since been deleted from Wikipedia but I have cut an pasted a copy onto my website in a report here.
Note also that the page is called Wikiquettes Alert, where I was being falsely accused of being ill-mannered, but as you can see my comment was courteous, and Jaysweet's is offensive and rude, and contains the foul language of "piss off".
She was ignoring the rules of Wikipedia Etiquette in discussion where she was accusing me of violating etiquette policy (WP:Civil).
As a final matter, the advice that I should tell them to piss of is called "trolling" where they goad or "bait" someone into doing something ill-mannered so that they get their excuse to ban the person for violating Wiki etiquette.
It is also a form of manipulative behaviour called "setting up to fail."
See also here.
All ai can say is "I've seen it all before".
THE DISRUPTIVE EDITING ACCUSATION
(Verifiable evidence that my two critics have been telling blatant
lies and refusing to co-operate with uninvolved editors to produce an article free from bias)
After failing to get me blocked on the Wikiquette alerts and MFD pages Gordonofcartoon
started an RFC (request for comments
page) on 20-7-08, to get a topic
ban preventing me from contributing
to the Da Costa's page on the grounds of a dozen or so policies here
"At 20:36 on 3-8-08 on
my talk page, and a few minutes later at 20:43 on the RFC talk
page an editor name
Avnjay wrote these words . . . As far as the article is concerned here
is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly they can put their
idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki
policy but not the article's subject
(I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then
read the articles and check
the references and combine the articles.
After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!!" .
. . here
Gordonofcartoon's response the following day at 11:31 on 4-8-08 was "Short
answer: no" here
At 13:02 the same day 4-8-08 Avnjay made the following suggestions . . .
"Posturewriter agrees not to edit
related articles for a while (which he has already agreed to)
Posturewriter writes
a version of Da Costa's on a sub-pagedemonstrating his understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:CO
I'll combine Posturewriter's
article with the current one according to WP:MEDRS
Any substantive changes
to the combined article (by any editor) are discussed first although hopefully
there won't need to be any!"
At 8:42 on 8-8-08 I replied
with these words . . . "Avnjay; I endorse your solution. . . . and . . . I am willing to prepare a sub-page on the range of research related to a balanced
view of Da Costa's syndrome and have you ensure that it is presented
as an article page which is consistent with all relevant wiki
policies, as fairly and equitably determined by you -- Posturewriter 08:42, 8 August 2008 here
At 11:18 on 8-8-08 SmokeyJoe wrote these words " Posturewriter - If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome), get
it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it.
At 16:30 on the same day 8-8-08 Gordonfocartoon's response was "No.
I'm fed up with this. We deal with it now" here
At 1:43 on 23-8-08 I wrote the
following words on the RFC talk page . . . "Avnjay; In response
to your suggested solution to this dispute, I would like you
to set up a sub-page for the placement of the full range of reliably
sourced NPOV information about Da Costa syndrome, and would be happy for you to edit
it to ensure that the page complies with wikipedia policy and
guidelines. I would be agreeable for Smokeyjoe providing
"Posturewriter 01:43, 23 August 2008 . . . here
Also in August 2008 I wrote
the following words on the RFC talk page . . . "SmokeyJoe;
You suggested setting up a userspace page for Da Costa syndrome
here [95]. I have
courteously accepted yours and Avnjays offer [96] to edit it for
NPOV purposes. Please compare my
willingness to co-operate with the characteristic snubbing, no-compromise,
attitude of my critics" here
At 7:57 on 30-8-08 I made the
following request on the RFC page. . . "Avnjay; Please set up the user sub-page and I will start adding information to it next
Sunday. If you wish
to have WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon contributing to the
discussion I would have no objection.
However, in order to ensure NPOV I think it is essential that you and SmokeyJoe, or any other NPOV editors make all the decisions about what is or is not compliant with policy" here
On 21-9-08 I wrote these words on Avnjay's talk page. . .
"Thankyou for
setting up the Da Costa's syndrome subpage here [[2]]. I am in the process of providing the text and will
be checking it during the week ready to post it on wikipedia
next Sunday. Could you please set up a reference section at the
end of the page so that the citations will be added to the list
automatically. Could you also set up an associated talk page
so that you and SmokeyJoe can make any comments related to improving
it to encyclopedic style and compliance with sourcing and other
policy. You could make your comments at any time, but I would
like to consider them and respond once a week, on Sundays, and
would hope to complete the task to a satisfactory format in about
a month. When we have reached a consensus about it's suitability
you and SmokeyJoe could start the process of merging it with
the existing Da Costa page, or any other Da Costa subpage via
a different discussion process where the discussion would involve
all interested parties. I hope this plan is acceptable, and if
you wish to make any suggestions or alterations to the timeframe
or process I will respond next Sunday. Thankyou again for your
interest and assistance and for reviewing the discussion pages
related to this topic here [[3]]Posturewriter 02:33, 21
September 2008 "
On 26-9-08 Avnjay replied . . . "Hello Posturewriter, sorry
for slow reply I have been away. I have added a references section
to the sub-page (for more info on this see Help:footnotes). The
talk page can be started by clicking on the discussion tab at
the top of the page or by clicking here. I will look in on the
page from time to time and look forward to reading your work!
No trouble about the help - I
am glad to see you haven't been blocked. Avnjay 20:05, 26 September 2008 "
On 28-9-08 I responded with these words "Avnjay; "Thankyou for providing the subpage
and adding the reference window code to it.
I have provided the text for an article on Da Costa's Syndrome
today here [[4]] and would appreciate your comments." Posturewriter
08:07, 28 September 2008
On 2-10-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote these words about
me on Wizardman's talk page . . .
"he's
being encouraged to write a fresh draft of it destined to be
incorporated into the main article"
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wizardman/Archive19#Re_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
I subsequently continued to get some useful
and constructive co-operation from Avnjay until I was told that he would be busy on other tasks
for a while, so I eventually completed the page on my own and
later used it to replace the existing one at 7:46 on 25-1-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266273949&oldid=262846727
.
Gordonofcartoon then reverted
it eight hours later at 15:50 on 25-1-09 with these
words of explanation added to the Da Costa's talk page . . .
"There
was no general invitation to write separate drafts: Posturewriter
chose to do so unilaterally, without guidance from medical editors,
and making it abundantly clear that some existing editors were
unwelcome"???
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266328147&oldid=266274724
Note how Gordonofcartoon has deliberately misrepresented the facts in many
ways, in particular,
by saying that there was no guidance from medical editors when
he knew that the objective of the previous discussions was never
aimed at getting anything from "MEDICAL" editors specifically,
but from NPOV editors (with a neutral point of view), and that
it was ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that their role was to ensure policy
compliance. Note also how he says that "SOME" existing
editors were unwelcome, to avoid mentioning that there were only
two causing problems and it was himself and WhatamIdoing. Also
nobody said anything about being unwelcome, but that those two
could contribute if they wanted to. However, because of their
extreme topic BIAS, and strong POV about policy, all decisions
about whether or not my essay was policy compliant were to be
made by NPOV editors who I have never met, and who were chosen
for their NPOV, and not because of their SUPPOSEDLY - FRIENDLY
attitude????? The word "friendly" was Gordonofcartoon's
entirely trumped up spin to deliberately mislead people about
the actual nature of those editors - They were actually neutral
- not friendly!!!
At 7:21 on 26-1-09 I criticised Gordonofcartoon with these words . . .
"Please
stop telling lies. You were fully aware of the subpage suggestion
. . .
by Avnjay . . . and . . . SmokeyJoe". here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266479771&oldid=266440743
At 18:34 on 26-1-09 Gordonofcartoon replied
with these words . . .
"Please
[[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. I had no recollection of any general
invitation,
. . . and certainly wouldn't have supported
the idea unless it were a generally open draft (not a private
sandbox only open
to you and friendly editors). I don't read everything - especially with disputes spread over multiple pages - and by that time it looks as if my attention
was drifting with the
deluge of obfuscation: Gordonofcartoon 18:34, 26
January 2009" . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266572159&oldid=266529986
At 15:36 on 28-1-09 an editor named Moreschi interrupted
the arbitration process and banned me here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397
A few days later, at 21:47
on 1-2-09 Gordonofcartoon thanked him on his UserTalk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_
talk:Moreschi&diff=267979022&oldid=267906089
***
Here is the extent
of my other critic, WhatamIdoing's knowledge and ability to comment on, and criticise every
detail of the subpage and related discussions, and to criticise every
attempt that Avnjay made to co-operate with me . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880
. . . and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
****
Note that I was doing everything I could to co-operate with the neutral editors to get a combined
neutral point of view article that complied with
policy, and my critics
refused to do a sub-page and did
everything they could to stop the process and continued to criticise almost every
word I wrote on the subpage, and
continued to comment and set up more pages until they got me
banned. All that remains is content which suits their bias. I was the contributor, and they
were the disruptive editors. see also here
***
Follow
WhatamIdoing's example??? . . . "Don't do what I do, just
do what I tell you to do"
Two neutral editors named
Avnjay and SmokeyJoe came up with the suggestion independently
that all three of the editors involved in the dispute should
do their own version of the article to be merged by them later
to ensure neutral point of view. I agreed to do that but Gordonofcartoon
said . . . 'no, I'm fed up with this' , . . . and WhatamIdoing
did nothing except cut and paste my essay and nitpick it.
Here is some advice given
by WhatamIdoing to another editor named TerryE . . . "As
always, my first response to anyone proposing that other volunteers
be pushed into doing something unpleasant is: Lead by example . . . and do what you've proposed that others be told to do"
signed WhatamIdoing 19:47 22 February 2010.
Classically, WhatamIdoing
uses the 'ignore all rules' policy while advising other editors
to comply with them.
Notes
on the Disruptive Editing Accusation against me???
1. Gordonofcartoon set up several different
pages in the attempt to block me.
2. He said that he didn't read everything on the discussion pages that he set up.
3. He said that he could not remember the invitations to set up
a subpage which
were discussed by
several editors, including himself, on several pages. He also forgot his blatant refusal to accept the
same invitation to do a subpage of his own, which I would not be involved in.
4. He implied that I was deliberately trying
to confuse him by responding to "disputes spread over multiple
pages". .
. which were disputes that he started on the many pages that
he set up.
5. He seems to have very a precise 'selective
memory' of the discussions, where he says that he had no recollection of the invitation
to set up a sub-page, but he can
remember that it was "abundantly clear that some existing editors were unwelcome"???
6. He misrepresented
neutral and unbiased editors friendly" editors.
Disruptive editing - three days to go???
After being in Wikipedia for a few months
it became obvious that I had two critics who were following me
around like a couple of bloodhounds and finding fault with every
word I wrote, and using every policy trick in the book to interfere
with the information that I was adding.
I did several things to deal with their
disruptive behavior, such as writing an essay to describe their
tactics so that other editors could easily identify them, but
of course they objected to that essay and eventually managed
to get it deleted by breaking almost every rule in Wikipedia
themselves.
One of the problems that I had was that
they appeared to be full time Wikipedians who were sitting at
their computer for eight hours every day and doing more than
100 edits per day on some occasions, whereas I was initially
only interested in doing one edit a week. Therefore when they
criticised any one of my edits at the rate of ten times an hour
I decided to just sit back and watch and prepare some notes and
comment on the following Sunday.
There were at least three examples where
they tried to take advantage of that. The first was on the Wikiquette
Alerts page where they first tried to get my essay about their
tactics deleted. I told the other editors that I would be happy
to respond to any questions they had, but politely asked for a time frame of a day or a week or a fortnight so that I could
prepare my replies in an orderly manner. Gordonofcartoon deliberately put a negative
spin on that by telling the other
editors that my question was a 'delaying
tactic', and none of the editors gave me advice on how long such discussions usually lasted before decisions were made, so I still didn't know what they required.
A second example is when Gordonofcartoon
set up an RFC page and two independent editors suggested that
all three interested parties, namely WhatamIdoing, Gordonofcartoon,
and myself should write their own subpage about Da Costa's syndrome
so that the two neutral editors could later combine them to produce
one good "neutral point of view" article that complied
with all policies and was free of bias.
I knew that I could do a much better article,
and that my two critics would try to disrupt that process, and,
predictably, Gordonofcartoon stubbornly, and rudely refused,
and WhatamIdoing did nothing. However I decided that it was a
very good idea, but, of course I knew that if I told the other
editors that I would be away for a few weeks preparing the essay
my two critics would find a way of blocking me before I returned.
I did not know what to do about that, but while reading the page
about RFC policy I
saw that the discussion could not be closed while it was still
active. As some of the editors
were still presenting possible solutions to the problem it hadn't been closed. I therefore
placed some comments on the RFC page to inform all of them about my intentions, and an editor named Avnjay set up the blank
sub-page for me to start writing the article. While I was doing
that WhatamIdoing had apparently sent an editor named Wizardman
a private email and requested him to close the page and put a
virtual topic ban on me without telling him that it was still
active. The page
was therefore closed in violation of RFC closing policy, and the day after WhatamIdoing gave Wizardman
a barnstar.the same individual cut and pasted my subpage text
and subjected it to more than 80 points of criticism.
The third occasion was when Gordonofcartoon
set up a Requests for Arbitration page to get me blocked. I decided
that I had better give a quick and brief response to offset any
nonsense that my two critics wrote about me, and advised the
other editors that I would prepare a full response later with
these words . . .
"My solution is for you to put a topic
ban on them, and to stop them from commenting on anything I add
to Wikipedia in future, and if they are truly neutral they can
simply go and edit several million other Wikipedia articles,
and let other NPOV editors discuss what should and should not
be on the Da Costa's syndrome page. Also note that this has been going on for 12 months and I prefer to contribute on Sundays
only so if that is a problem please let me know, but I don't think any thing I say will change
the way they do things."Posturewriter" 08:32, 27 January 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_posturewriter
WhatamIdoing responded 12 hours later with a massive essay of lies and criticism, and another editor named Moreschi interrupted the conversation
between the arbitrators and banned me the next day, which meant
that I was banned by the decision of only one individual.
It eventually became obvious that WhatamIdoing had arranged that by sending private emails to several
friends, and one of them, named Moreschi, responded, and was later given an Outlaw Halo award for being the only one prepared
to break the rules to ban me, WhatamIdoing had made sure that I was banned before the other arbitrators has the opportunity
to see my response. I was banned on Wednesday the 28th of January,
and my defence was due on Sunday the 1st of February.
***
Here is a later example of WhatamIdoing trying to give the impression of being a polite and rule abiding
editor who was giving contributors
a friendly reminder of the fact that they should get their comments
in soon because there were only three days to go.
"Three
more days to go: There's still plenty of time for any other interested
editors to share their opinions at [[Wikipedia:Articles
for deletion/List of diseases and conditions with unusual features]].
For those that haven't noticed it before, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject
Deletion sorting/Medicine]] is a manually created list of AfDs
that might interest members of this project. It's watched by
many editors, including some from related projects. If you start
or see an AfD that is at all related to medicine, please feel free to add
it to the list. [[WP:PROD]]s and [[WP:MFD]]s and the like can
also be listed at the bottom of the page." WhatamIdoing19:26,
24 August 200 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=309833932
Here is some advice that the same person gave to an editor named Diabtot at 5:22 on 17 August 2010. . . "We have the bot pull the RFC tags after 30 days because most people forget to turn off the RFC after the dispute has been resolved, not because 30 days is a magic amount of time that leads to best resolutions. If the RFC process is tending to resolve the dispute and more time is wanted, then it can be extended. Editors at a given page are also perfectly free to continue discussions even when the RFC is no longer listed at the centralized advertising points. WhatamIdoing 05:22, 17 August 2010 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment&diff=prev&oldid=379346669
The double standards in WhatamIdoing's editing practices are an obvious violation
of the requirement to treat all contributors with courtesy
and respect.>
My
contribution to the Da Costa's page, and my two critics attempt
to disrupt it
(The following
information supports a previous essay here
While
I contributing to the Da Costa page content, my two critics were
using a never ending series of arguments and policies to disrupt
the process. However, they were accusing me of being disruptive,
and they set up a Requests for Comments page to discuss putting
a topic ban on me. During that process two neutral editors suggested that it was in part, or fully, a content dispute that could be
settled by each party writing their own version on subpages so
that neutral editors could later merge them and ensure that the
Wikipedia article was unbiased
I
agreed to do that, but my two critics tried to disrupt that sensible
method. Extracts from those discussions are shown below/ . . .
A comment on the suggested solution for providing an unbiased article, and the result
On 4-8-08Avnjay made the following suggestion about what
I should do . . . "instead
of an essay on COI (which sounds a little patronising to me) he writes a version
of Da Costa's demonstrating his understanding of WP:COI, WP:MEDRS,
WP:NOR" . . . Avnjay 13:06, 4
August 2008 here
Note that NPOV refers to 'Neutral
point of view', COI refers to 'Conflict of interest', MEDRS refers to 'Medically reliable sources' - and 'sources'
means 'references', and NOR means 'No original research'
and I was not having any difficulty understanding those basic
and perfectly reasonable concepts.
I started writing the essay soon after
that and when it was finished I posted it onto a Wikipedia subpage,
and then Avnjay (a neutral editor) read it and wrote these words
on 5-10-08 . . .
(two months later)
"To be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a
lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently
up and I
can't find anything which is COI, unsourced (97 different sources
quoted!!), or biased" . . . Avnjay 10:51, 5 October 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter ..
Evidence
of Gordonofcartoon's uncooperative attitude
and disruptive conduct
"At 20:36 on 3-8-08 on
my talk page, and a few minutes later at 20:43 on the RFC talk
page the editor name Avnjay wrote these words . . . As far as the article is concerned here
is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly they can put their
idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki
policy but not the article's subject
(I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then
read the articles and check
the references and combine the articles.
After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!" .
herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Comment_re_Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay
Gordonofcartoon's response the following day at 11:31 on 4-8-08 was "Short
answer: no" here
At 11:18 on 8-8-08 SmokeyJoe wrote these words " Posturewriter - If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome), get
it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it.
At 16:30 on the same day 8-8-08 Gordonofcartoon's response was "No. I'm fed up with this. We deal with it
now" here
At 07:15 on 15-8-09 I wrote these
words on the RFC page . . . "I think that your recent suggestion
of the 8th August was a good idea re; "If you want to create
a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome),
get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article,
then go for it" here [56]. It relates to my endorsement
of Avnjays suggestion first, and yours second. You could edit the page with Avnjay
if you wish although you have not previously offered to, and
ensure it was complete, NPOV, and in compliance with policy." . . . Posturewriter (talk) 07:51, 15 August
2008 posturewriter
A few hours later, at 15:30 on 15-8-09 Gordonofcartoon gave this typically deceitful, uncompromising,
and disruptive response to my offer to write a subpage essay
. . . "Discussion
over: no-one's interested in seeing further essays from you here". Gordonofcartoon 15:30,
15 August 2008. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=232096020
The situation
was that there were uninvolved
and independent editors who were
interested in providing a solution to the dispute about bias, but Gordonofcartoon
was refusing to co-operate and spending all of his time trying
to be as disruptive as possible by trying to talk them out of
it.
Just
like Gordonofcartoon, his tag-team mate WhatamIdoing was doing everything possible to be
uncooperative in finding an independent solution to the dispute
about bias.
The section of WhatamIdoing's own
UserTalk page where WhatamIdoing was being insulting and argumentative,
provocative, and annoying, and doing everything to disrupt the
These are
some extracts to exemplify it
At 10:51 on 5-10-08 Avnjay had read my essay and wrote . . . "Hello WhatamIdoing! . . . To be honest, in
my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far more detailed
than the one that is currently up and I can't find anything which
is COI, unsourced (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased. . . . could I ask you to have a look at it and gently, gently,
comment on it? Thanks! Hope you're
well", Avnjay 10:51, 5 October
2008
WhatamIdoing replied; "Avnjay, I realize that you're not competent in
the subject matter, but an editor
of your experience should have noticed that he doesn't use 97 different sources. For example, he lists the same thoroughly outdated
(1951!) textbook eighteen separate times. There are in
fact only 24 references, assuming you count the two "references"
to Wikipedia articles (one to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and another
to Posturewriter's own work at Da Costa syndrome. You might also
have noticed that he selectively quotes very short phrases
from some of them. The most recent source is eleven years old
(see WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence -- and it is about Chronic
fatigue syndrome, not Da Costa's.
Would you like a detailed response?" WhatamIdoing (talk)
16:15, 5 October 2008
Note that I was not familiar with all of
the Wikipedia codes on how to add references to an automated
reference list so Avnjay made some constructive amendments to those codes
to remove duplication and reduce the list of 97 links down to 24 references that had been cited multiple times.
By contrast WhatamIdoing was (a) not being useful or constructive,
and (b) trying to imply that I was ONLY using 24 references,
and not 97 - without telling Avnjay that there were NONE when
I first saw the article.
Avnjay then wrote
these words to WhatamIdoing . .
. "Ouch! I went back and added the 97 bit some time after
I had written my post (but not saved it) which just goes to show
you should never add in anything at the last minute! So, quickly
sweeping my foolishness under the carpet, I've been through and collated all the sources
now and changed a fair bit to better reflect the manual of style. A large part of his article is on the history of the syndrome hence
all the old sources (an exception in WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence). There is one current source in the Merriam Webster
Medical Dictionary and I have added two recent (2004) ones from
the current article and the Dorland's dictionary. I will let
Posturewriter know he needs to add some more. As far as short quotes go, they
do seem to be referenced and do make for easier reading than
lots of long quotes. I shall, however,
suggest he lengthen them. Do you know of any which are quoted
out of context? By all means, if you have the time and inclination,
give me as much detail as you can muster, but I can fully understand
if you are sick of this by now! I am really keen though to keep working with Posturewriter
as I do believe a better article can be produced here. Plus I think Wikipedia should be a place of unending
optimism! :) Have a good day!!" Avnjay
15:26, 6 October 2008
WhatamIdoing replied; "I tried marking things that need
repaired, but it's basically a disaster. The history
section is much, much,
much too detailed. It
inappropriately blends in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment"
. . . etc. etc.
Note that WhatamIdoing did absolutely nothing useful,
but just
kept finding fault with everything I wrote, or added, and the criticism went on relentlessly for
months. Those discussions can be seen here
WhatamIdoing also set up another page called a sandbox and cut and
pasted the entire subpage text that I produced, for the sole
purpose of criticising as many comments or references as possible
(more than 80) see here
Summary
If you read the full discussions
you can see that I was doing everything possible to find a way
of providing an unbiased article, but my two critics were doing
everything possible to disrupt the process and ensure that they
had complete control of content.
Trolling by my two critics
In Wikipedia
a troll is an annoying person who tries to provoke others into
being uncivil.
The actual process of trolling involves insulting someone relentlessly until that person insults them back.
The objective is to inflame a mild dispute so that it escalates into a major argument.
It is a curious observation that the person who starts the 'flame war' for the sole purpose of getting a hostile response, will then try to get the respondent banned for edit warring???
An example - After losing several arguments against
me my two critics moved the label of "soldier's heart"
from the "See also" section near the end of the Da
Costa page up to the top line to give it prominence. There obvious motive was to mislead readers to into believing that the common civilian ailment was a condition that only affected soldiers.
In order to further provoke me they said
that they put it on the top line because of hatnote policy, and
then they compounded their offensiveness by saying that they could use that policy to put a flowering plant at the top of the page if they wanted to.
When I rang my local library to ask if
they had a copy the librarian told
me that it was a children's fiction novel, so I became immediately
suspicious that reading it would be a complete and utter waste
of my time, and was skeptical of its relevance to the medical condition.
When I read it I found that none of the
symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were mentioned anywhere in any
of it's chapters so I reported that fact and asked
my critics to provide me with page numbers to check.
To further annoy me they said that I could
not read, or comment on the book because it was a violation of
"Original Research" policy WP:OR.
Their use of a children's story was ridiculous, and their arguments to justify it were petty, nitpicking, and absurd.
They ultimately tried to provoke me by
leaving me with the clear impression that they could put any
nonsense they wanted on the page and there was nothing I could
do to stop them.
Throughout the discussion they made many other attempts to provoke me. For example, they
also tried to annoy me by apologising for making me read the
book, but they didn't apologise for their negligence, or for
making me read something irrelevant, but rather for
the purpose of creating the offensive
impression that I would get upset reading a children's story. They also tried to be more annoying about their use of
that policy by adding poems, plays, and telemovies to the
hatnote page. They later described it as a "regular" disambiguation page in order to
create the false impression that it had been compiled by
someone else.
Since then another two editors have independently
deleted the hatnote, and the link to the children's fiction novel,
and my critics have NOT complained about it, or replaced the
links, because I am banned, and their real motive is not there
anymore. The real purpose of their arguments was to be annoying,
provocative, tendentious, and disruptive trolls to provoke me
into making an uncivil response which they could use as an excuse
to get me banned. Despite their best efforts they failed so they had to continue their edit warring behaviour by using even more unscrupulous methods, and ultimately get one of their friends to break the rules of Wikipedia
to achieve their objective.
The following words were written by my main critic
"'exciting' reactions are exactly what some immature users are after." WhatamIdoing 01:22, 1 August 2010
See here and here and here and here and here
and here
Relentless hostile trolling by my two critics
In Wikipedia trolling also means following someone around and being an annoying pest
Sometime after I started adding to Wikipedia
it became obvious to me that my two critics actually resented
me for writing a medical theory. It was a sort of academic envy
or jealousy, or spite, but of course, they would never admit
to that, but just made it perfectly clear to me that thought
that they had the brains or the tricks to stop me from adding
anything to Wikipedia, and that there would not be anything that
I could do about it. If they were not so OBVIOUS they probably
could have annoyed me, but they were simply amusing. (My psychology
professor, Dr. Irene Holloway told me that I was the most creative
person she had ever met, and a medical professor once told me
that he envied my creativity and intellectual initiative)
When I started adding to the Da Costa page
several editors were being very co-operative and constructive
in the way they were assisting with layout etc, and the article
was beginning to look excellent.
However, as soon as I mentioned my own
theory, the trouble started and NEVER STOPPED, because my two
critics followed my activities in Wikipedia like blood hounds,
and deleted everything I wrote like vultures devouring a carcass.
(I suspected, and have since found that established editors have
softwear tools that enable them to track other editors for administrative
purposes - but they can just as easily be used for any purpose
the editor wants).
Also, all co-operation and all of the principles
of neutral point of view ceased, and WhatamIdoing started to
act as the personal owner of the page and dictated everything
about policy interpretation, layout, and content, and deleted
everything that I wrote, and was involved in massive abbreviations
and slab deletions which are a violation of Wikipedia policy,
and was probably responsible for a series of vandalistic deletions
of the entire text of the page, either directly, or via instructions
to personal friends to do it (but WhatamIdoing would obviously
make sure that I could not prove that) see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=211267417&oldid=210262939
Note that the series of whole page deletions
began on 9-5-08, while I was being criticised by my two critics,
just before the series started, and just after it finished. Note
also that the whole page text was replaced with such words as
. . . "I LOVE CHEESBURGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Regardless of who was responsible for that
vandalism, the person was obviously frustrated and hostile about
the content, which is a direct reflection of the general attitude,
motive, and methodology of my two critics.
Their pattern of edits
First they said that my theory was being
given too much weight and taking up too much space for something
supposedly non-notable so I added a copy of a newspaper article
to my website for them to inspect regarding notability. (According
to Wikipedia policy, a person is allowed to show evidence to
assess, or later show notability, if it wasn't established in
previous discussions). I also abbreviated the text, and gave
an explanation for those actions on the talk page to accompany
the changes to the topic page. They obviously didn't read that
explanation, or pretended not to have read it, in order to create
the false impression that I was being discourteous and ignoring
their previous comments.They also said that I was using the link
to the newspaper article to promote my website. It was then obvious
that they WOULD NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, accept anything
about the theory or my research, so I haven't mentioned it in
the 12 months since, but they kept harping on about it at every
opportunity, on every new discussion page, to create the false
impression that I had mentioned it dozens of times in the past.
I started adding comments and references
to the history section of the topic page, because I had been
interested in Da Costa's syndrome for thirty years, and was familiar
with that aspect, but they deleted the information on the alleged
grounds that it was synthesis of my theory. They then said that
I must add independent sources of information that were reviews
of the general literature. (the references that I added were
top quality and were not written by me so that criticism was
ridiculous)
I then added references from independent
peer-reviewed secondary sources but they argued that they were
from the 1950's, so they deleted them on the grounds that they
were "out-of-date". They then said that I must use
only modern references. (they also ignored the fact that I had
other references from the 1930' and the 1980' s etc., and that
I was obviously proceeding to fill in all the gaps of history
from 1863 to 2009 without their interference or criticism being
necessary)
I added about fifteen references from the
period 2000 to 2009 and they banned me for being unco-operative
and disruptive.
Another example of their trolling is where
they said that I could not add to the Da Costa article, but I
could influence the content by contributing to the discussions
on the Da Costa talk page, so I did. However they ignored 99%
of what I suggested and accused me of being tendentious.
They then said that I must not contribute
to any of the Da Costa topic page, or the Da Costa talk page,
but was free to add content to other pages in Wikipedia.
In that respect they had already followed
me around Wikipedia like bloodhounds to make sure that anything
that other editors had not deleted was deleted by themselves
until there was nothing left.
Here were WhatamIdoings words on the arbitration
page to get me blocked from a progressively increasing number
of topics. . .
"I
think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome,
Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness,
or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome" WhatamIdoing 20:25,
27 January 2009"
here
I was banned shortly after
by an editor named Moreschi who came into the arbitration page
from nowhere and told the other 12 arbitrators that they weren't
needed because he was banning me on his own. Some months later
WhatamIdoing awarded him an Outlaw Halo award for being the only
one (of several administrators who WhatamIdoing secretly contacted???),
who was prepared to break the rules of Wikipedia to ban me.
They were Trolling to incite a response
In Wikipedia trolling is the process of deliberately annoying someone until they respond in an ill-mannered way so that they can be banned for violating WP:CIVIL
moving the goal posts
My two critics in Wikipedia give
classic examples of a method of trolling called "moving
the goal posts", so that a task becomes progressively more
impossible and is NEVER achievable. In general terms that is
referred to as a 'wild goose chase'. For example when I said
that I had written a thousand page book on the subject they argued
that I could not contribute because of "conflict of interest"
policy. When I said that I had access to research papers from my own filing cabinet (which were by other authors from research
journals), they said that I couldn't use them because it was
ta violation of "original reserach" policy, and when
I discussed research into the symptom of breathlessness from
the 1940's, they argued that I couldn't use it because it was
"synthesis" of my theory. (that symptom affects more than 90% of patient). When they were repeatedly probing for
more details about me, it was obvious that they were looking for more 'excuses' to block me.
Note that my main critic is a disgusting braggart who is often 'bragging' about her "favorite" scientist or researchers, and how many children's books she read by one author, and she acts like a silly prima donna whose own choice of references belong on centre stage.
I made some comments about one of them
However, when I was looking for
information about them I found that that WhatamIdoing had previously
admitted to "not knowing much about Da Costa's syndrome",
and to being "useless at cardiology", and to being
an "instant expert", and when I stated the obvious
fact that instant experts had shallow knowledge, they SWIFTLY responded with SPITE and HOSTILITY. I mentioned that at 10:08 on 27-1-09, and at
10:25 (in
less than half an hour) Gordonofcartoon responded with arrogant indignation,
and at 18:27 (eight
hours later) WhatamIdoing wrote these words "Posturewriter
has been blocked for COI violations and edit warring" here
This was their
almost instant reaction to me criticising them
You can determine for yourself
that one or both of them then started desperately sending emails to their friends in
a great rues to
get me banned the next
day (before I had time to give my final defence). The evidence
for that can be seen where an editor named Moreschi DISRUPTED the regular arbitration process that
involved twelve editors, and banned me on his own on 28-1-09, and a few days later, on 3-2-09, Gordonofcartoon expressed his great
relief with these words . . . "Finally I raised it at Requests
for Arbitration. They were cautiously moving toward accepting
before the cavalry arrived in the form of admins who were prepared to bring blocks, ultimately an indefinite one for disruptive conduct"
here
*******
Note that Gordonofcartoon was
using the plural word "admins" to create the false impression that
there was a large group of editors banning me, when in fact there
was only one in the formal arbitration process, and his name
was Moreschi, and he was referring to him as the cavalry which gives an indication that his arrival was
part of a predetermined edit war that was being conducted against
me, and that WhatamIdoing had the cheek to say that I had been
blocked for edit warring when I was just defending myself from incessant personal attacks.
There is more evidence of their
desperation a
few months later on 8-5-2009
when Whatamidoing awarded Moreschi with an OUTLAW HALO award
for being the only editor prepared to break all the rules to
get me banned. These were WhatamIdoing's exact words to Moreschi
. . . "Thanks
for being the only part of the community that was willing to step
up to the plate . . . when I was about to
tear my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter]] . . . in January". [[User:WhatamIdoing]]
23:41, 8 May 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
Their provocative spin about invasion of privacy
When another editor had almost completed a summary of my theory for Wikipedia, six editors rushed in within a few hours and threatened to delete it unless she could provide proof that she was not violating the copyright of the author. I therefore went to that page and courteously, and in a matter of fact manner, answered their questions. I told them my name in real life and the name of my book etc, and they continued to ask for more details. The article was deleted without the closer having the courtesy of giving me an explanation.
Shortly after that I found a small article on Da Costa's syndrome that requested help improving it so I started, and shortly after that my two critics began a year long chant of 'we have here a 'self-identified' SPA editor with a conflict of interest who is unco-operative, uncivil (discourteous), disruptive, argumentative, and edit warring over every single issue'.
They incited several other editors into recommending the harshest punishment possible, for the worst troll in Wikipedia history.
They were a couple of grubby gossips who had been invading my privacy in a manner that was unethical, and immoral, and disrespectful, and probably criminal.
However they always put a spin on everyone of their disgusting practices by making themselves look squeaky clean, and me look like the person at fault.
For example at 21:28 on 19 February 2011, my main critic redirected a page called "Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia" which puts the responsibility or 'blame' on the casual and courteous editor. (the word "outed" refers to revealing someone's real life identity, as distinct from the Wikipedia identity).
Here are some quotes from that page . . .
"For some editors of Wikipedia, having their "real life" identity discovered can be a major problem, threatening their well-being, careers, or even personal safety. There are a variety of steps you can take to help protect yourself from this happening" . . .
The 13 ways to not get outed include . . .
"Don't use your real name.
If all your usernames previously used are variants on something like "SeismicGuy", name yourself "Fluffy Nose" here[1], if you've never gone by Fluffy Nose before--it should be totally unrelated to you, and new.
Give out nothing about yourself on a personal level; keep the job "on-wiki". If you are [[User:Fluffy Nose]] here, that is the extent of the existence you present to the world. You live only within these pages of Wikipedia.
Don't out other people, yourself.
Do not edit Wikipedia from the same computer you tend to use to send e-mails. All internet traffic is being logged, and if edits are made to Wikipedia at the same time that e-mails are being sent, it's easy to correlate the two by their IP address.
The one foolproof, never fail, can't miss, sure thing way not to get outed: Use your real name. If you're already "out", you can't "get outed." (end of quotes)
The page was started at 00:33 on 1st May 2008 by an editor named LA2 with these words "Created page with 'An alternative and perhaps funnier way to write this essay could be to reverse it, i.e. "how to out people", a guidebook for spies." See here and here
I have seen other pages which suggest that the guidelines are 'funny' or 'humorous', and yet appear to be sent into Wikipedia like a Trojan Horse with actual 'sinister' intention and use. e.g. see "The Last Word" here
Also, in the first inconclusive COI discussion I gave this explanation . . . "I couldn’t confirm that I had given permission confidentially by phone, so I registered with wiki and confirmed it with my wiki ID, but had to mention my real name and answer editors requests for proof of identity etc. It was “policy required identification”, not “self-identification by choice”. Does wiki policy allow for that distinction, and if not, why not?
An administrator named Edjohnston gave this reply . . . "There is also the small matter of the user name that you have voluntarily chosen. For practical purposes, it may be too late to unring that bell." signed EdJohnston 02:56, 1 April 2008.
See the full discussion about real and Wikipedia ID's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
My comment: if my two critics, the two toffy nosed and snotty gossips of Wikipedia, do not have the courage and integrity to reveal their own personal identity they should mind their own business, and focus on content. They should also stop using the real names of other editors as part of their grubby tactics in their attempt to drive them out of Wikipedia.
Trichotillomania - the official word
My two critics were very fond of filling the Da Costa's syndrome page with as many psychiatric labels and classifications as possible. It is a very easy thing to do to any person or any topic. This is some information from Wikipedia about patients who pull their own hair out in response to frustration . . . "Trichtillomania, is classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as an impulse control disorder, but there are questions about how it should be classified. It may seem, at times, to resemble a habit, an addiction, a tic disorder or an obsessive–compulsive disorder . . . "in the broadest sense ... is self-induced [recurrent] loss of hair".[2] It is classified in DSM-IV as an impulse control disorder with pyromania, pathological gambling and kleptomania, and includes the criterion of an increasing sense of tension before pulling the hair and gratification or relief when pulling the hair.[3] However, some people with trich do not endorse the inclusion of "rising tension and subsequent pleasure, gratification, or relief" as part of the criteria;[3] because many individuals with trich may not realize they are pulling their hair, patients presenting for diagnosis may deny "the criteria for tension prior to hair pulling or a sense of gratification after hair is pulled".[2]
An obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder—encompassing obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), trichotillomania, nail biting and skin picking, tic disorders and eating disorders—has been proposed as it is hypothesized that these conditions may share "clinical features, genetic contributions, and possibly treatment response".[3] In the sense that it is "associated with irresistible urges to perform unwanted repetitive behavior", trich is akin to some of these conditions, and rates of trich among relatives of OCD patients is higher than expected by chance.[3] However, differences between trich and OCD have been noted including differing peak ages at onset, rates of comorbidity, gender differences, and neural dysfunction and cognitive profile.[3] When it occurs in early childhood, it "can be regarded as a distinct clinical entity".[3]
Further reading includes "Hennerberg, Gary (2009) Urges: Hope and Inspiration for People with Trichotillomania; Doses of Comfort Publishing, ISBN 978-144-8690-831
See here
*******
Note also that at 8:32 on Tuesday 27-1-09 I advised the other twelve arbitrators that I would be presenting my final defence the following Sunday with these words . . . "Arbitrators; Please note that you
can see the pattern of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon changing
the jargon, and changing the policy, and changing the forums
each time I comply, which is a form of disruptive editing called
"moving the goalposts . . . Also
note that this has been going on for 12 months and I prefer to
contribute on Sundays only so if that is a problem please let
me know, but I don't think any thing I say will change the way they do things" Posture 08:32, 27 January 2009
here
Note also that I was aware that my two
critics would see that comment as well, and that they would probably do something to disrupt and
undermine the arbitration process.
I was therefore not in the slightest bit surprised that they
would get one of their friends to come along and ban me before
that Sunday. Moreschi banned me at 15:36 on Wednesday 28-1-09 here
*******
If you want to know how I could
predict that process it is simply because it is consistent with
the way they always did things, and as a clear example I can refer to the previous RFC closure.
When editors wish to discuss
some aspect of another persons contributions they can set up
a page called the Requests For Comments page (RFC), and Gordonofcartoon
set up one to get a topic ban imposed on me. When the independent
editors suggested that each of the parties prepare their own
version of Da Costa's syndrome on a subpage I thought it was
a good idea so I decided to write one. However, I knew that it
would take me a few weeks, and that while I was away my two critics
would take the opportunity to present large volumes of undefended
criticism and get me banned. I therefore checked the closing
policy for RFC's and found that they could not be finalised while
they were still active. To ensure that everyone knew that it
was still active I notified them that I would be writing a subpage,
and invited independent editors to comment on it. I then started
writing the page in co-operation with an editor named Avnjay,
and when I later checked the RFC page I saw that an editor named
Wizardman had closed it with a warning that I would be banned
if I added any more information to the Da Costa's page, and soon
after that WhatamIdoing awarded him with a barnstar. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
The Ridiculous Spin used by my two critics about who was trying to confuse who???
They even had the cheek to use the less commonly known words "deluge of obfuscation" instead of " a great deal of confusion".
I went into wikipedia with the intention of adding a paragraph of content about once per fortnight, to any page where I had information that wasn't already there. However, two editors started arguing indiscriminately about everything I wrote, and I found it necessary to respond to them. One of the problems was that they always worked as a team of two and would set up page after page of discussions and criticise me up to six times a day.
After arguing with me relentlessly for twelve months, Gordonofcartoon was trying to imply that I was using excessive verbage to confuse other editors ??? He wrote these words. . . "I don't read everything - especially with disputes spread over multiple pages - and by that time it looks as if my attention was drifting with the deluge of obfuscation. Gordonofcartoon 18:34, 26 January 2009
(note that Gordonofcartoon set up most of the pages and I was only told about some of them, and I only went there to respond to criticism)
For example, in May 2008, Grdonofcartoon set up his second attempt to get me blocked for 'conflict of interest', and was soon followed by WhatamIdoing, who together added several thousands of words of criticism when the observing editor eventually asked them politely to take a break. However, they just completely ignored him and kept on arguing relentlessly until the got the outcome they wanted. This is what the observing editor wrote . . ."Break
User:WhatamIdoing, if you think admin action is needed, it is good to provide diffs showing that the COI-affected editor is actively obstructing progress toward a better article. In fact, User:Posturewriter has only edited the article twice during the month of May, and he does participate on Talk at least occasionally. EdJohnston 19:06, 17 May 2008
This is what I said to the arbitrators in January 2010. . . "Also note that this has been going on for 12 months and I prefer to contribute on Sundays only so if that is a problem please let me know, but I don't think any thing I say will change the way they do things" Posturewriter" 08:32, 27 January 2009 posturewriter
This is what Gordonofcartoons' tag-team mate, named WhatamIdoing wrote about my editing . . . "Posturewriter has been blocked for COI violations and editwarring. He's also not usually active on weekdays, so we'll presumably be able to take this up next weekend. WhatamIdoing 18:27, 27 January 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Da_Costa_Article_page_text_replaced_with_the
_text_from_the_Posturewriter.2FDaCostaDraft
***
When I first saw an example of
my critics accusing me of writing large volumes of text in order
to create confusion I thought that they were being ridiculous
because that is exactly what they were doing to confuse all of
the other editors.
It was my intention to add a
couple of sentences to Wikipedia about once per fortnight, and
I had planned to add useful information to dozens of topics.
However it soon became obvious
that I had two critics who would follow me to every page and
delete every word I wrote on every topic, and they eventually
had me cornered in a section of the Da Costa's syndrome page
about the history of the subject.
I had a lot of knowledge of that
aspect so I decided to continue adding to it, and deal with whatever
criticism they dished out.
It then became routine for me
to see them lose arguments against me, and then set up multiple new arguments
as a diversion.
For example, on the 'Conflict
of Interest' NUMBER TWO page Gordonofcartoon wrote several paragraphs
of criticism, so I decided to reply, but before I had time to
do that some more paragraphs appeared, and then WhatamIdoing
joined in, so I decided to sit back and take notes, and tell
the other editors that I would reply the following Sunday. (and
try to keep my contributions down to once a week or once a fortnight.)
Unfortunately I could see that they were telling so many lies that other editors would start
believing them if I didn't provide immediate and frequent replies,
and that is exactly what they wanted.
About 5000 words of discussion continued relentlessly for more than 10 days, involving more
than 20 separate discussions between five individuals (one supporting
my comments, one minor critic, my two main critics, and one administrator),
and, when I eventually gave my 2500 word reply Gordonfcartoon
had the bald faced cheek to write . . . "Please cut this
readable length" here. They later accused me of not understanding
their paragraph for paragraph discussion conventions (as if everyone
is supposed to watch the computer all day every day and respond
to every comment within five minutes????)
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_
1#Response_to_5000_words_of_criticism_in_the_twelve_days_between_12-5-08_and_22-5-08
On another occasion they set
up one discussion page after another in quick succession so that
I had to respond to at least seven different groups of editors
at the same time, such as the Da Costa's talk page, my UserTalk
page, Wikiquettes Alerts page, Miscellany for Deletion page,
Requests for comments page, the RFC talk page, and the Arbitration
page. I only left comments about a small number of the main criticisms
and generally advised the other editors that I would prepare
a full response to their main questions within the next week
or so, but then Gordonfocartoon argued that I was using that method
as a delaying tactic.
Ultimately, they set up an arbitration
page to get me banned so I advised the arbitration editors that
I would prepare a full defense for the following Sunday unless
the matter was urgent, in which case I would reply sooner. During
that time my critics obviously sent another administrator a private
email and arranged for me to be banned on the Thursday before,
and at a time when I was asleep in the middle of the night so
that everything would be finalised before I had time to respond.
I knew that they were using every
trick in the book to get me banned, so I decided to take notes,
and respond afterwards.
When they accused me of trying
to confuse other editors it is relevant to consider that their
5000 words of conversation against me were designed to divert
attention away from content issues, and that my 2500 word reply
was written in an attempt to undo the confusion that they were
deliberately creating. In that example they were trying to divert
attention away from the fact that I had added some information
about the MacKenzie research that they didn't like, and that
they deleted within two days. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=212440419&oldid=211817271
When Gordonofcartoon set up six discussions
on six separate discussion pages he accused me of trying to create confusion by leaving my responses
on several pages at the same time?????, and said that he didn't
have time to read everything that I said on those pages??? e.g. here (and in many
other places where Gordonofcartoon has got plenty of time to
set up arguments, and set up pages of criticism, and edit, and
delete information, but hasn't got time to read everythinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266717167&oldid=266714766
Statistics on who created the confusing morass of arguments
At 21:19 on 6th February 2009 (about a week after I was banned), Gordonofcartoon edited a paragraph in which was essentially arguing that editors should be "aware" of new contributors who try to nitpick and create confusion in order to win disputes. this is a quote from that text "the aim of WP:SOUP is to win not by rational argument, but by making the discussion so labyrinthine that other participants are exhausted/bored to the point of giving up. (end of quote)
That editor is a liar trying to give others the impression that I was nitpickikng about policy, and he was the victim????. That is ridiculous because I was relatively new to Wikipedia and my prime concern was to improve articles, and although it was clear that my two critics were unethical in their conduct, I didn't actually know what policies they were violating, or how to set up discussions to get them stopped.
By contrast my two critics had been in Wikipedia for four years, and one was the sixth highest contributor to policy pages, and set up about a dozen discussions, and accused me of violating about 20 policies to get me blocked.
An example of their editing can be seen in the fact that I did 90% of the contributing to the Da Costa's topic, and all they did with criticise. In the talk page WhatamIdoing made sixty comments, mainly criticisms, and Gordonofcartoon 51, or a total of 129 criticisms, whereas I only defended myself from their nitpicking 49 times.
The only other editor to make significant contributions was Guido den Broeder, who has been banned, and has since changed his ID to Roadcreature. He made 51 edits but they were all done in one week, and were mainly supporting me, and criticising them.
Gordonofcartoons edit can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:You_spat_in_my_soup!&diff=268995406&oldid=228997367
and the DCS talk page statistics can be seen here
The tendentious editing and obfuscation issue
For
any one comment I made on Wikipedia, my two critics generally
See here and here and here.
While I was involved with Wikipedia my
two critics accused me of tendencious editing, which means that
they were saying that I was excessively argumentative. However,
I will give some VERY BRIEF EXAMPLES of their astonishing, and
ridiculous argumentative behavior.
I was repeatedly telling them that I only
intended to add about one item per week, and they would often
respond to, or delete my comments within five minutes or an hour,
and if I added one paragraph of content, one of them would come
along with three paragraphs of criticism and accuse me of violating
two or three new policies. They always worked as a team or
two against me, so, predictably, the other one would come
along within a day and add another three or four paragraphs of
criticism, and accuse me of violating two or three policies.
Sometimes they would be critical of the same contribution for
different reasons, and would contradict and discredit each other
by accusing me of violating different policies, so it was OBVIOUS
that they were independently selecting policies as a means of
deleting content, and that they didn't care if their arguments
were valid, or what the policy was, as long as it gave them a
plausible excuse for deleting the content.
They were arguing about everything I added
to every page in Wikipedia until I decided to write an essay
on their tactics and put it on the top of my UserTalk page so
that it would be the first thing that readers would see. The
new readers or editors would then be able to judge their comments
in that context. It was a way of defending myself against their
relentless personal insults and criticism. They became extremely
hostile about that and set up a series of discussion pages in
order to find other editors who would delete it and get me blocked
or banned.
After failing to get that essay removed
on a Wikiquette Alerts discussion, and when an MFD page was closed
by consensus with the words . . . "THE RESULT OF THE DEBATE
WAS KEEP" . . . they told at least two other editors that
the discussions failed because they were incompetent at interpreting
the relevant policies, and then Gordonofcartoon set up an RFC page to
get me banned from contributing to the Da Costa's page, and accused me of violating not one, but twelve policies. I
have taken extracts from that RFC page and put the quotes in
purple, but only experienced editors
would know what they mean, so I have added some comments in plain
black text to explain what they mean to the general reader.
The policies
that they accused me of violating were . . .
"1. WP:DE ( the term WP refers to Wikipedia, and DE refers to them accusing me of Disruptive Editing, however, I was generally
adding content and my two critics were doing everyting to disrupt
the process)
2. WP:AGF ( the
term AGF refers to the idea that I was supposed to Assume Good
Faith in my two critics, and while they were incessantly criticising
me, I was not permitted to question their motives or actions,
or criticise them)
3. WP:COI ( the
term COI refers to them accusing me of having a Conflict of Interest
which was influencing content, but during the RFC discussions
that followed, two neutral editors suggested that each interested
contributor should write an essay, and then the independent editors
could merge them to remove bias and ensure neutrality. My critics
said that they didn't have a COI, and I was supposed to assume
good faith in their honesty?????, but they wanted to control
the content on the Da Costa page, and they were hostile about
neutral editors making decisions on content.)
4. WP:NOR ( the
term NOR refers to the policy which requires a person to avoid
using references about their own Original Research, or any one
else's Original Research, and requires them to only use references
that are secondary sources. i.e. journal articles that review
other peoples work - and when I was told about that policy I
stopped adding my own research and started adding independent
reviews)
5. WP:NPA ( the
term NPA refers to No Personal Attacks, so they were saying that
I was not allowed to describe their tactics because it was a
personal attack on them - Of course they had been insulting me
and making personal attacks against me at every opportunity,
which is why I wrote that essay, but they never accused themselves
of violating WP:NPA policy)
6. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (
the term NOTBATTLEGROUND refers to them accusing me of using
my UserTalk page as a BATTLEGROUND but what they were not telling
the other editors is that they were organising an edit war against
me, and brought it to my Usertalk page, when I didn't even know
that such things as edit wars existed, and was simply defending
myself from their relentless attacks)
7. WP:UP#NOT (
the term UP refers to User Pages, and NOT refers to what you
cannot put in it, and UPNOT is the combined term. They were accusing
me of using my UserTalk page as a place for criticising them,
and that my comments should be deleted, but they are not telling
the other editors that they were also violating WP:UPNOT, because
there were many things that they were not supposed to bring to
my talk page, such as insulting, disparaging, derisive, and deliberately
pretentious patronising remarks. They were also bringing content
disputes to my User talk page which belonged on the Da Costa
talk page.
8. WP:CIVIL ( the
term CIVIL refers to them accusing me of not being civil. i.e.
they were accusing me of being ill-mannered in my discussions
with them, when in fact, they were often goading or baiting me
with insults in the hope that I would make an uncivil response,
and I was being as polite as possible to prevent them from using
discussion policy against me.)
9. WP:GAME( the
term GAME refers to editors using policies as if they were a
part of a game to be used to disrupt another persons contributions
- that accusation is absurd because I was adding content and
they were using policies as their excuse for deleting it. That
was partly because I was not familiar with all of the policies
- they were essentially GAMING they system 90% of the time)
10. WP:SOAP ( the
term SOAP was their way of accusing me of using my UserTalk page
as a SOAPBOX to defend myself from their constant criticism.
However, what they were not telling the other editors was that
they brought their personal attacks on me from the Da Costa talk
page to my own User talk page, and one of them was using their
UserTalk page to make relentless personal attacks on me for months.
They also arranged for their attacks on me to be at the top of
their own page, and when I eventually found it and went there
to defend myself they accused me of violating a variety of policies
and of making personal attacks on them. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter.)
11. ...( this number
did not contain any policy ????)
12. WP:SOUP ( the
term SOUP refers to them accusing me of spitting in THEIR soup,
presumably because they regarded Wikipedia as being their personal
property and they were accusing me of spoiling their fun - it
also refers to producing a constant flow of arguments and policy
objections until an opponent becomes frustrated or bored and
leaves Wikipedia - they were doing that to me and I was just
responding. For example, on the COI number two page, and on every
other page which they set up against me, and where they worked
as a team of two, they were producing four times the volume of
criticism compared to any one of my comments. )
13. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering These two are obviously not policies
or guidelines, but characterise a major problem of the situation;
Posturewriter's continuing and disruptive use of obfuscation
and long, unstructured comments." (My
code name was Posturewriter, and this comment was a case of me
being accused of obfuscation, which means that I was supposedly
writing large volumes of criticism of them to confuse other editors.
However, I only ever wrote one long essay of about 2000 words,
but it was the result of them writing about 5000 words of criticism
in a short time, and me not wanting to discuss their nonsense
six times a day (if I did they would invent six new arguments).
Another essay, which appears long, was the description of their
tactics, but it was not written in one session, but several sessions
that were added each time they used a new tactic against me.
The actual situation was that they were trying to confuse the
other editors with multiple arguments and discussions
about policy to divert attention away from the fact that they
were using policy to control content).
Those 12 criticisms can be seen on the
RFC page here . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=226853495&oldid=226845230
They later added another three to the list, namely WP:MEDRS,
WP:OWN, and WP:TALK, and they
added "failure
to be concise" to their WP:TALK, and WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY
to their WP:NOR accusations. (when
Gordonofcartoon falsely accused me of not being precise you can
see what his motives were; re; if he was precise and only accused
me of violating one policy I could be precise and disprove his
accusation. However, as you can see he was tryng his hardest
to confuse everyone else by accusing me of more than a dozen
policy violations. If you go through the history of edits you
can see that he added fifteen edits over a 24 hour period to
put the accusations together and during that time only one other
editor made a comment, and he was previously influenced by that
sort of onslaught on a COI page, and not the first COI page,
but the second one. . . Gordonofcartoon's objective was to confuse
the other editors and make it impossible for me to give a precise
defence. The real question is . . . 'what is there to be precise
about'????? . . . which of the twelve criticisms should I choose
to prove wrong. Obviously, if I was precise, and proved that
one of the accusations was wrong, my two critics would argue
that there were (in their inflated words) "many, many, many",
"Yup", "many" other reasons for blocking
me, so I had no choice but to present an ongoing defence. I am
essentially being as precise as possible here in proving all
twelve wrong in one essay, because it would be impossible to
prove all twelve wrong with one precise word, or one precise
sentence, or one precise pargraph.
When they couldn't get me blocked for any
of those twelve reasons they just kept accusing me of more, and went to the policy pages to try and change
some of the policies so that they could apply them to me, and they set up multiple pages against me that were all
active at the same time so that I was sometimes wondering
which of six pages of criticism that I should respond to in any
particular week???? They argued relentlessly for months, and
when I produced a subpage essay on Da Cost's syndrome at the
request of neutral editors WhatamIdoing found not one, not
six, but eighty things to criticise, and when I found
12 references to support one statement in that essay (to comply
with 12 different criticisms and policy requirements) It was
indirectly implied by WhatamIdoing that adding multiple references
to the one sentence was stupid. I was often trying my hardest
not to laugh. Their criticisms were often contradictory and
ridiculous so I asked them to apply the same standards of
criticism to other pages in Wikipedia, and they said that they
didn't have time??????? Their real reason for not applying
those standards to other articles is because none of them would
withstand that level of scrutiny and criticism and they would
be met by resistance and protests from every other editor.
Soldier's Heart - the hatnote?
Their response to my criticism of one of their references
(an
example of my two critics making a mistake, and trying to convince
other editor that I was wrong)
Is Wikipedia's goal to provide reliable information?
Can anyone give me page numbers?
One of the early alternative labels for Da Costa's syndrome was Soldier's heart, so when it was mentioned in a link at the bottom of the page, I didn't question it, other than I thought it was a bit odd to use a ''novel" in a medical topic which required top quality scientific references. However, when they moved it to the top line, I decided to check it. It is a well written and popular book which can be found in libraries all around the world. I found it in the children's section of my local library and read it, and although it described the symptoms of normal physical exertion, it did not mention the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, which are quite different. The author had no medical qualifications so he didn't know that, so I told my two critics that it was irrelevant and that they should delete it. However, I also gave them the opportunity to give me page numbers where the symptoms were mentioned, if they wished to argue about it. Of course they used it without even bothering to read it, so they didn't know that it was irrelevant until I told them, and they changed the subject. They lost that argument anyway, because two neutral editors deleted it later. See my full report here.
The Wikipedia page about that children's book here, also describes the main characters ailments as Da Costa's syndrome, so I invite the editors of that article provide me with some page numbers to check, or delete that information because it is wrong. If any of Wikipedia's readers, or the general public wish to read that book and can find anything about those symptoms, please let me know. Thank you.
|
Fools rush in without even bothering to read the items they use to support their arguments.
When my two critics were using and linking to a 'novel' called 'Soldier's Heart', I went to my local library to read it. I knew that 'Soldier's Heart' was one of the many early labels for Da Costa's syndrome, but the book had nothing in it about the symptoms, so it was obvious that they had 'leapt to conclusions' and 'assumed' that it was relevant to the topic, simply because of the title. It was an extremely foolish thing for them to do, so I predicted that they would find some sort of policy to make it sound 'proper'.
it is obvious that a sensible person would read and check the items that they intended to use in Wikipedia before actually including them. For example my main critic wrote this on 29-5-2011 . . .
"I think that "access to the source" is worth mentioning, since people do occasionally try to guess the contents of a publication based on the title." WhatamIdoing 23:35, 29 May 2011
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=431565245
You can see that my main critic is arguing that it is stupid for other people to judge the content of a book by the title, but she is not telling anyone that she does the same stupid thing herself.
A person who tries to guess the content on a book is called a fool who doesn't know the popular axiom . . .
"You can't judge a book by it's cover".
My two critics are 'guess spurts' and a not experts.
I think that my two critics did not know that the novel was distributed to libraries all around the world, and didn't expect that anyone else would bother to check it, or that I would find a copy in my local library in Australia, which is thousands of miles away from their local libraries in America. |
Their heated 'Soldier's heart' argument
My two critics spent several months arguing relentlessly that 'Soldier's heart' was the main alternative label, and they mentioned it on the top line, and in the first sentence, and linked to poems, plays, books, and movies with that title, and argued that they should focus on it ???? See here.
However, here are some facts . . .
J.M. Da Costa wrote his original research paper in 1871, eight years after the American Civil War ended, and he states in his introduction "Much of what I am about to say I could duplicate from the experience of private practice.(end of quote)
Seventy years later, when Paul Wood studied 225 cases in 1941, he found that 73.3% had symptoms before the war, and concluded . . . "This disposes of the idea that the essential cause of Da Costa's syndrome is specially related to war service or to army life" (end of quote)
Another reference from the same year . . . Keith Gordon (April 1944), Effort syndrome, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol.50, p.362-363. The following words are a quote from this editorial . . . "Any term which suggests that it is a syndrome peculiar to soldiers is faulty, for the reason that it also appears in civilians when one learns to recognize it." (end of quote) |
Part 1 - They lost the argument because they were just bullshit artists
At one stage I saw a link to a novel called
"Soldier's Heart" in the "See Also" section
of the page. "Soldier's Heart" was one of the more
commonly used alternative names for Da Costa's syndrome so it
belonged there. However it was mainly used by some authors prior
to the first world war because it became a problem for the military,
but it has since been discovered that it is more common in civilian
life, and more common in women, and is more common in soldier's
who already had mild symptoms before enlisting, and hence there
have been more than a hundred different labels for it. Nevertheless,
I was casually curious about why someone would put a link to
a NOVEL (a book of fiction???) on a medical page that is supposed
to only contain references to top quality medical research journals,
but I thought nothing more of it until one of my critics moved
it to the top of the page to give it prominence. I therefore
read it to see if it was relevant but found it to be a children's
fiction novel, written by children's fiction author, and published
by a children's fiction publisher, with no mention of any of
the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome anywhere in it's text of just over 100 pages.
I thought that I should let them know that
it was irrelevant and that it should be removed so that Wikipedia
users would not waste their time reading it. It was also inappropriate
for them to use a children's fiction novel on a medical page,
but when I said that they started complaining and here are some of their edit warring arguments
1. That it was not moved to the top of the page to give it prominence.
2. That it was not a reference, but just a hatnote.
3. That hatnote policy 'demanded' that they put it there.
4. That they could put a flowering plant at the top of the page if they wanted to.
5. One of them added some poems, plays, and telemovies to the page because they had the same title of
"Soldier's Heart". The other editor later argued that
the problem had been solved because it had become a 'regular' disambiguation page, which means a page that it has words which have multiple uses for the same thing.
6. They argued that I was a stupid person for not understanding their deliberately esoteric mincing of words.
8. When I asked them for page numbers where
the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were supposed to be they changed the subject so I assumed that they had never even bothered to read the book.
9. They argued that I was violating AGF policy which states that I should 'assume good faith' in their motives and editing practices, and assume that they had been sensible enough to read it before they used it????
10. That I was being tendentious (argumentative) for criticising them.
11. That I was being disruptive for wanting to get the irrelevant children's book removed from the top line of the medical topic which requires top quality peer reviewed references.
They just kept arguing like that for weeks
see here and here
22-12-08 An independent editor named El imp deleted the hatnote on the basis that it was inappropriate here
27-1-09 . . . Here is a direct quote from WhatamIoing's argument on the arbitration page where I was banned.
"The other problems that we've encountered
generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions.
For example, at one time, Soldier's heart redirected to the DCS
article. There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we
provided a link to the article about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT,
this link should be in a hatnote instead of in a See also section Posturewriter
complained at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation
link being "in the
lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter never seemed to grasp the
point, and ultimately, it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became a regular disambiguation page.
" . . . WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 here
28-1-09 . .
. Here is a quote from an editor
named Moreschi who came to the arbitration page and interrupted
"I've banned Posturewriter, as I should
have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to this sooner.
That will save you a case, I think". Moreschi 15:36, 28 January 2009
Note that Moreschi was only involved in
one brief discussion with WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon six
months earlier, on a page that I was not told about. When I became
aware of it and joined the discussion it ceased immediately and
I had not heard of Moreschi since, hence I thought he agreed with me. See
here
2-2-09 . . . A few days after I was banned another independent editor named Paul Barlow deleted the link and gave the following reason . . .
"no
point in linking to a disamb page that points back here and lists
unrelated usages" here
However, because I had
been banned from Wikipedia my two critics did not complain, and the hatnote hasn't been put back since.
They were the most argumentative and disruptive
individuals I have ever come across.
Their idea is to start an argument with
me by telling lies and talking nonsense, and then tell everyone else that anything I say in defence is edit warring?
Summary: My two critics moved the words "Soldier's
Heart (novel)" to the top of the Da Costa's page. I read it and informed them that it was a children's fiction story which was not appropriate for a medical topic, and therefore needed to be deleted. However, they argued with me and lost when an independent editor removed it, but they later used that discussion
as an example of me being the person who was wrong, and said that I had to be banned for being disruptive to their attempts to produce a good article. After I was banned another independent editor deleted the link to the novel.
Part 2
Some months
after I criticised my two critics for linking a children's fiction
novel to a medical page they started an argument that focussed
on ONE of my references, and misrepresented it, and used it to
give the fasle impression that all of my references were unreliable,
They had been demanding that I could only
use references that
were from verifiable, top quality peer-reviewed medical journals etc., so I
that met those standards, and only one to a medical consumers.
The webpage was about Myalgic Encephalitis,
which is a common synonym for the chronic fatigue syndrome, with
Da Costa's syndrome mentioned in it's list of 80 other synonyms,
and it was compiled from the work of four doctors. The medical
consumer was interested in iguana lizards and she had a website
about them, and included a webpage about CFS on the same website.
My two critics deliberately failed to mention the fact that the information was based on the knowledge of four doctors, and went to many discussion pages and misrepresented
it by telling all of the other editors that it was a link to
a medical consumers website about iguana lizards, and that she
was a patient, who was not a medical expert, and that it was
not compliant with Wikipedia's policy that requires references
from reliable peer-reviewed sources. They argued that It represented
all of my other references and that I was too stupid to find
reliable sources of information, and that I was being disruptive
I started removing the links to the medical
consumers page but was banned by one of WhatamIdoing's friends
anyway. See discussion 23 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
. . . WhatamIdoing also used that one reference
as an excuse to delete all of the text, including the 60 other
references with these words . . . "Rv POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned
sources such as the personal webpage of a patient" . . . which can be
seen herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214 . . . The text and the full list of references
can be seen by scrolling down that page, and can also be seen here
WhatamIdoing's repeatedly misrepresented
my use of that reference in as many places as possible .e.g.
in item number 52 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#Personal_attacks
Summary:Wikipedia requires editors to use top quality
peer-reviewed medical books and journals as sources of information
for it's medical articles. My two critics only provided twelve
references in the twelve months that I was there. I criticised
them for linking to a children's fiction novel and moving it
to the top of the page where it will mislead people about the
nature of the condition. All links to that novel have since been
removed by two independent editors who obviously agreed with me.
I provided Wikipedia with 64 top quality
references that met the policy requirements and one to a medical
consumer's webpage that was compiled in collaboration with four
doctors and supported by about ten other references in the paragraph
where I used it, and my two critics persuaded the arbitrators
to ban me by telling them that I was an ignorant, argumentative,
and disruptive contributor who was constantly ignoring policy
advice and using unreliable sources of information such as a website about iguana lizards.
The actual facts were that they were linking
to a children's fiction novel, probably because they didn't read
it and didn't know that it was irrelevant until I told them,
and I was using a medical consumer's webpage to bring a neutral
point of view into the article knowing that it was compiled with
the collaboration of four doctors, and I supported it with other medical references.
I criticised them for linking an irrelevant
children's ficiton novel to a medical page, and they responded
later by finding a way to convince the other editors that I should
be banned for providing unreliable references ????
Another essay on the same topic using quotes from five independent editors
WhatamIdoing's
Deceitful Account of the Hatnote Discussions
(I have explained
this aspect in the section above, but in this instance have chosen
to give some exact quotes of the various participants to show
that the majority of independent contributors to the discussions
were agreeing with me)
Gordonofcartoon added the words "Soldier's Heart (novel)" to the "See
also" section at the end of the DaCosta's syndrome page. It was later moved to the top of the page by WhatamIdoing, so I read it, to check
it's relevance. I found it to be a children's fiction novel that
had nothing to do with the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome so I requested that
WhatamIdoing delete it because it was not a reliable source of
medical information according to Wikipedia sourcing policy. However, WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon started arguing relentlessly about
it which you can see in the following extracts.
At 22:14 on20-12-2007 Gordonofcartoon added the following words to the "See also" section at the end of the Da Costa's
page . . . "Soldier's Heart (novel)"
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=179268306&oldid=179126578
At 19:09 on 29-5-08 WhatamIdoing moved those words from the "See also"section up to the top of
the pagewith an
amended comment . . . "For the novel, see Soldier's Heart (novel)" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215793876&oldid=215793297
At 7:60 on 26-6-08 I wrote these
words . . . WhatamIdoing; In the past you have repeatedly required
me to only provide material for the Da Costa article page which
is supported by references from "reliable", independent,
peer reviewed, medical and scientific research journals of the
highest quality. For example here [81]. I would therefore like
you to remove the reference to the children's fiction novel called
"Soldier's Heart" which was presented as the lead on
the first line of the article page by editor WLU on 31-5-08 here
". . . posturewriter(talk) 07:00, 26 June 2008
>Note that I have since found that the link
was moved to the top of the page by WhatmIdong on 29-5-08,
not by WLU on 31-5-08.
At 12:07 on 26-6-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "Your personal diagnosis for Charley
Goddard is quite irrelevant (WP:NOR). The novel is not a medical
reference for the article; it's another topic with the name "Soldier's
heart", and a disambiguation link is perfectly normal.
However, the disambiguation page Soldier's heart does need expanding
to include, at least, the 2008 Brian Delate movie ([84], [85]),
so if that's done, the disambiguation at the top could be changed
to the more generic "For other uses, see". Gordonofcartoon
At 02:41 on 28-6-08 WhatamIdoing wrote these words and many more . . . "If you search for soldier's heart, you might end up at Da Costa's syndrome
instead of Soldier's Heart (novel). Do you want a kid whose looking
for the book to read through the whole DCS page in total confusion,
just so "your" article looks the way you want it to?"
At 23:41 on 29-6-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote these words . . . "For the purposes of the hatnote, it
doesn't matter what the book says; for all I care, it could say soldier's heart is
a kind of small flowering plant. A hatnote is not a reference. It is purely for disambiguation
of topics with the same name, and conveys no implication of relative
importance or 'framing'.
If you interested yourself in other articles on Wikipedia, you
might develop some better knowledge of the conventions here.
Do you believe that The Vampire Bat is a reference for Vampire
bat or, as cited in WP:HATNOTE#Examples of proper use, Dunwich
(Lovecraft) is a reference for Dunwich?
As WhatamIdoing said, if you don't like the way it works, take it to Wikipedia talk:Hatnote
- but you won't get a different answer.
Those discussions can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Comments_on_the_novel_.E2.80.9CSoldier.E2.80.99s
_Heart.E2.80.9D
At 14:37 on 3-7-08 an independent
editor named Dan Dank55 wrote this . . . "This seems more like a content dispute than a discussion about style guidelines to me,
but I can confirm that hatnotes
are not references". - Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:27, 3 July 2008) see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F
At 15:59 on 3-7-08 Gordonofcartooon wrote these words . . . I've expanded the Soldier's heart disambigation
page - it's a popular title - which
makes the single-article disambiguation hatnote redundant. Problem
solved? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Disambiguated
At 1:29 on 16-7-09 NapoliRoma wrote
these words . . . "(<-zing!) OK,I knew I was stepping in it . . . >Re "people might search": try it; I did.
If you search for soldier's heart on Google, Yahoo, or MSN, you do not get
this page in the first tier of results.
Putting a hatnote up because maybe this someday might change is not reasonable.
Re "Gotta be at the top or nowhere, or millions of handicapped
people will die": I think this overstates the case. By this
argument, all links must be at the top. This would be
difficult. My take, and understand I have no horse in this race: having a link to the "soldier's heart" dab page is not vital, but not a bad thing. But because there is little
if any chance anyone will stumble on this page when looking for
any other meaning of "soldier's heart", the one place it should not be is as a hatnote.It
distracts the reader from the actual topic at hand for no defensible reason. Logically, the appropriate
place for it would then be under "See also", with perhaps a bit of an explanation as to why
At 02:29 on 16-7-08 L'Aquatique wrote these words . . . "I see no reason why it should be
here, since following
the guideline does not result in any loss of usability to non-disabled
[review] 02:29, 16 July 2008
At 15:38 on 16-7-08 NapoliRoma wrote . . . "The name of this page is not
"soldier's heart", and there is no redirect to this
page that resembles "soldier's heart". Thus, a link from this page to another page named "soldier's heart" does not perform a disambiguation function. What's being discussed here, then, is a link. It is no different
than a link to "fatigue" or "sweating". As such, WP:ACCESS does not appear to me to apply. Just as I would not include a link
to "fatigue" as a hatnote on this page, I would not
include a hatnote pointing to "soldier's heart". NapoliRoma
At 07:23 on 17-7-08 I wrote these
words . . . "NapoliRoma and L'Aquatique; thankyou for your
comments; . . . Do you understand why I think it is going to
mislead readers who will end up in the children's section of
their local library reading irrelevant fiction - like I did -
and I am an adult interested in Da Costa's syndrome, with no
interest in wasting my time - If your policy solves that problem
then we are in agreement. posturewriter - Preceding
At 15:38 on1 7 July 2008 NapoliRoma gave this reply . . . "It's pretty much an
example of my general point: superfluous hatnotes are distracting at best, and in your case actually
took you off on a completely fruitless tangent. This
is the opposite of improving usability (including accessibility).--NapoliRoma
At 07:54 on 18-7-08 L'Aquatique wrote these words . . . "Disambiguation is designed to provide alternate
articles where there might be confusion regarding which article
is about what, and this is one of those circumstances. If you think the template
is inappropriate for the article, just remove it.But if it's going to
be in the article, it needs to be at the top. There's really
not a lot more to say. L'Aquatique[review] 07:54, 18 July
2008
Those discussions can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Colloquial_term_.E2.80.98Soldier.E2.80.99s_Heart.27.3F
At 13:08 on 22-12-08 El imp deleted
the hatnote from the top of the Da Costa's page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=259521516&oldid=258182319
At 15:13 on 2-2-09 in the history
edits Paul
Barlow deleted
the link to the children's fiction novel and other poems
and plays called "Soldier's heart" and gave these words
"(no point in linking to a disamb page that points back here and lists unrelated usages)" herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152
Result: As you can see my two critics provided
a link to a Children's fiction novel called "Soldier's Heart"
in the "See also" section at the end of the Da Costa's
page, and later decided to move it to the top of the page to
give prominence to their preferred label which was also "Soldier's
Heart". When I read the novel and found that it had no mention
of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome I recommended that it
be removed. They then invented the argument that it was put there
as a hatnote to help readers navigate to it from other topic
pages which included the words "Soldier's heart".
There were five independent editors
who contributed to the discussion
Dan Dank55, NapoliRoma, L'Aquatique, Elimp, and Paul Barlow
Dan Dank55 confirmed that hatnotes were not references, but that was never
a significant issue because the ACTUAL problem created by putting
the link at the top of the page was that it would prompt people
to read it and then learn that it was a complete waste of their
time, which was the reason for me saying that it shouldn't be
put at the top of the page. L'Aquatique agreed with me with these words . . . "I see no reason why it should
be here". NapoliRoma also agreed with me, and became involved in a discussion with L'Aquatique
about the technical details of hatnote usage, but they both agreed
with my suggestion about removing unnecessary links to irrelevent
information. Elimp agreed
with me and removed
Paul Barlow agreed with me and deleted the link.
However,
WhatamIdoing completely ignored all of those facts, and wrote
the opposite, by telling the arbitrators that I didn't understand
Wikipedia policy, and was being disruptive by going against consensus?
These are
the words that WhatamIdoing added to the arbitration page . .
.
At 20:25 on 27-1-09 WhatamaIdoing wrote . . . "The other problems that we've encountered
generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions.
For example, at one time, Soldier's heart redirected to the DCS article. There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we provided a link to the article about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this
link should be in a hatnote instead of in a See also section.
Posturewriter complained at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation
link being "in the lead" and a "reference".
Posturewriter never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately,
it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became a regular
disambiguation page . . . .WhatamaIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009" here
Note how that editor misrepresented a
lot of things in that one paragraph, but I will focus on one
WhatamIdoing was telling the arbitrators
that consensus was against me, and implied that that hatnote
was kept at the top of the page, and that the issue had been
resolved because it was linked to a page which became a regular
The actual facts were that I had consensus,
and the hatnote and link were removed by two independent editors.
Another example of my main critic deliberately deceiving a different group of editors
Note that my two critics lost their argument about their link to the novel called 'Soldier's Heart' when two neutral editors deleted it early in 2009, but here is a previous calculated attempt to deceive newer groups of editors . . .
At 19:09 on 29-5-08 WhatamIdoing moved those words from the "See also" section up to the top of
the pagewith an
"For the novel, see Soldier's Heart (novel)"herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215793876&oldid=215793297
At 22:30 on 6-5-10 that same editor changed the word 'neurological' to 'medical' in this wording . . . "This article is about the medical condition also known as soldier's heart. For the novella by Gary Paulsen , see Soldier's Heart (novel) See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=217632308
At 15:57 on 3 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon changed the wording to this . . . "This article is about the medical condition also known as 'soldier's heart'. For other uses of the term see Soldier's heart" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=223324877
At 01:11 on 16 July 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Aaargh: An editor with very limited experience outside of his single topic area has been giving me fits over an issue of accessibility. He's unhappy that there's a disambiguation link at the top of Da Costa's syndrome. He wants it buried at the end of the (not short) article, despite several explanations about accessibility, inconvenience to users of screen readers, etc.
Basically, the disambiguation page links to a novel (as in, a work of fiction) that doesn't agree with his WP:FRINGEy POV about the medical condition, so he wants it buried. He asserts that putting the disamb link before the article gives "undue weight" to the novel. (The disamb link doesn't even mention the novel. It just says "This article is about the medical condition also known as "soldiers heart". For other uses of the term, see Soldier's heart.")
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Aaargh
Notice how that individual was trying to deceive an entirely new group of editors by telling the that the hatnote at the top of the page did not mention the novel, and didn't mention that the previous criticism was also because their link led d to a childrens story which had no information about the symptoms of the medical condition. You can ultimately see how much calculation and teamwork those two editors were putting into progressively manipulating the text at the top of the page, and the arguments in the discussions, to deceive newer groups of editors.
They were 'obviously' wrong, and I was justified in criticism them, but they tried to argue the opposite???
The "neutral point of view" discussions
Re: my main critic - the merchant of doubt (the doubt monger), and her disinformation campaign.
She carefully deleted the most important scientific evidence and proof of the real physical basis of Da Costa's syndrome, because she wants you to believe that no such evidence exists.
The equivalent methods were used in the past to argue that there was no scientific evidence that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer. The principle was to use doubt to compete with the facts, and to create confusion in the public mind.
Reference, "Merchants of doubt", a book by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway here, and Naomi's talk about the use of disinformation in relation to Global Warning - "Best of Big Ideas", ABC TV, Channel 24, 1p.m. 15-1-12.
Neutral point of view about Da Costa's syndrome
Ever since the ailment of Da Costa's syndrome was first clearly identified by Jacob Mendez Da Costa in 1871 there have been heated debates about whether it was a physical or mental disorder. Since then, with advances in research and technology there has been a massive amount of evidence of physical cause accumulating.
Both sides of the story
My version: While I was contributing to a Wikipedia page about that topic I was made aware of the requirements for neutral point of view, so I mentioned the two sides of the issue.
The first was the discoveries of scientific evidence of physical causes.
Secondly there have been many studies which indicate that, in some cases the ailment may be preceded by or a period of emotional, social, or business stress etc.
One side of the story
The version produced by my two critics: While I was adding "both sides of the story" I was always being criticised by two individuals.
They were keeping all of the information about the psychological aspects, and adding to them, and giving them prominent positions at the top of the page etc. They were also going through the text and systematically deleting all discoveries of the physical causes. Sometimes they would remove several theories in one slab, and at other times they would remove one carefully chosen piece of information, with one carefully given 'reason' weeks or months apart (so that nobody else would notice what they were actually doing).
First the additions: For example, in the first paragraph they stated that it was the manifestation of an anxiety disorder, and that treatment was primarily 'behavioural'. The text of the article, and the reference list are full of psychiatric labels and emphasis, and the top right of the page includes links to ICD 9 and 10 lists, and the bottom of the page includes the categories of 'Anxiety' and 'Somatoform' disorders, which have links to dozens, if not hundreds of psychiatric labels.
Secondly the deletions: They removed bits and pieces of specific research findings, such as the fatigue being due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins etc, known as early as 1916, and the cause of the chest pains and breathlessness being discovered in the 1940'sand 50's.
Each time they would invent an 'excuse' for deleting the information. e.g. that researchers such as "Sir" James MacKenzie were just 'ordinary' men, or 'not experts', or that the reference was 'old' and therefore 'obsolete', or 'out-of-date', or 'from before most editors were born' etc.
Why they banned me
Why they banned me: The next thing they had to do was to block me from adding more information so they told other editors that I had a 'conflict of interest', and was using Wikipedia to 'promote' my own theory, but they deleted that in the second month, and kept arguing as if it was still there for the next year. Also, each time I added information from independent sources they would accuse me of breaking a rule, until they had a list of dozens of false accusations. For example, they wanted to get me blocked for WP:DE ("disruptive editing"), and WP:NPOV violations (not being a "neutral point of view"). They eventually managed to get an administrator to use Wikipedia's 'ignore all rules' policy to ban me.
I invite you to check the facts
1. My version of the article shows 'both' physical and psychological sides of the story here.
2. Their much shorter version gives emphasis to the 'psychological' argument, and deletes the discoveries of physical causes, and or, replaces it with jargon that most readers won't understand. It can be seen by scrolling down past the deletions here.
3. An example of one of them accusing me of breaking more than a dozen rules can be seen here.
4. An example of the other one deleting my version of the article back to their version, and using the excuse that my version was "POV pushing" (pushing my point of view), and that their version was the 'neutral point of view' (NPOV), can be seen at the top of the edit text here.
(Note that "a neutral editor" had previously given them an 'honest' opinion that my version was "actually a lot better" than theirs, and was not biased.
Obviously, they hated that, so they became furious, and sought revenge by starting their relentless process of getting me banned). See here.
|
| The facts |
My two critics ridiculous idea of neutral point of view |
| Da Costa wrote his article in 1871, and the label of Da Costa's syndrome was in common use for 100 years, so I covered that period |
Their version retained my description from just before then (1864) to 1876 - a period of only 12 years, or about 10% of the history |
| Since 1876 there have been more than a hundred different labels for Da Costa's syndrome. The main one in the U.K. was 'effort syndrome', and in the U.S. was 'neurocirculatory asthenia'. Soldier's heart was a popular label in World War one, but soon after that period most experts said that it was inappropriate and obsolete when they discovered that it was common in civilians. |
My two critics argued that 'we should focus of the main label' - Soldier's heart, and then put that label on the first line despite me telling them that it was wrong. |
| Da Costa's syndrome is common in civilian life. It affects some children and is more common in Women than men. |
They wrote the article with emphasis on military history, and focussed on the labels of 'Soldier's heart', and 'post-war syndromes'. |
| I summarised ten different theories in Oglesby Pauls history of the topic. He concluded that the cause was unknown. |
They deleted nine of them and said that he described it as an anxiety disorder. |
| I reported on the scientific discoveries of the physical cause of the five main symptoms and provided the references from top quality, independent and verifiable research journals or books |
The deleted all of those discoveries and all of those references, and replaced them with articles about psychiatric cause. |
Neutral point of view?
My main critic managed to get me banned on the basis of her personal opinion that I was a new editor with a conflict of interest who had produced a biased article about Da Costa's syndrome, and was disrupting her attempt to produce a good quality 'neutral point of view' on the subject.
However, she deleted information about some patients being born with the condition, and that it also affected some children, and was more common in women than men, and that most soldiers who were diagnosed with Da Costa's syndrome already had the symptoms before joining the army, and at the same time she added the label of "Soldier's heart" to the top line, and put "Soldiers heart" in the first sentence, and mentioned that it was often regarded as a "post-war syndrome" in the second section, and then mentioned psychological breakdowns and cowardice in the notes in the reference section. See here
Some facts from 1918
Here is a quote from a research paper published in the British Medical Journal on July 13, 1918, page 29, by B.S. Oppenheimer . . . "it is evident that a certain number of cases of "irritable heart" have suffered from symptoms of the condition long before enlisting, some dating the onset to the formative period or even to childhood. The question whether some cases are not congenital or even hereditary in character also occurs, particularly when dealing with soldiers who belong to the group called constitutionally asthenic. Then there is the serious and, in the American army, immediate problem of dealing with recruits with such histories who break down in training." (end of quote). See here - (What the author is actually referring to with the word "breakdown" is not "mental breakdown", or "psychological breakdown", but that the soldiers with thin physiques get physically exhausted and collapse when carrying a heavy, fully laden knapsack across obstacle courses, at training camps!)
Note that there were many labels for the same condtion including Da Costa's syndrome, irritable heart, neurocirculatory asthenia, and Soldier's heart, etc. My main critic was deliberately giving emphasis and bias to the label of Soldiers heart, almost to the complete exclusion of every other fact.
Regarding the idea of cowardice, my main critic didn't mention that Da Costa described . . . "Case 185, a man who had been in sixteen fights, and for two years had been off duty a day, though gradually more troubled with palpitation, and much distressed while carrying his knapsack on long marches" (end of quote). |
How they tried to change the topic by changing the emphasis or the title of the page
While I was in Wikipedia I was adding small
amounts of information to various pages when I found Da Costa's
syndrome, which I knew a lot about. After making some contributions
to it and then being told that I couldn't mention my own research,
I started writing the history of the topic. The condition has
been around for thousands of years, but was not easily recognized
until a physician named J.M.Da Costa saw it in soldier's during the
American Civil War. He then went back to general practice where
he noticed that it was common in civilians, and 8 years later,
in 1871, wrote a research paper on it. Obviously he couldn't
call it "Soldier's Heart" because that implied that it was exclusively
a soldier's ailment, so he called his article "On Irritable
Heart". Since then more than a hundred different labels
have been applied to the condition. The main alternative labels
throughout that time were the "effort syndrome" in the U.K., and "neurocirculotory asthenia",
particularly in the United States.
My two critics claim that I was looking
for an article about Da Costa's syndrome to use for the purpose
of promoting my own theory, but I wasn't. It was just there as I
was going through the encyclopedia looking for pages where I
had useful information to offer (somebody else started that topic long before I joined Wikipedia).
They also tried to convince the other editors that I was getting
upset about them removing that information, but again, I wasn't.
I could send my ideas to a hundred other places if I wanted to,
and over the years many newspaper, magazine, or journal editors have reviewed it, and accepted, or rejected, or criticised
it, and that happens to all authors. If it was never accepted,
I would not bother to write about it, but many of my letters,
articles, or books were accepted, bought or read. However my
two critics tried to create the impression that I was desperate
to push my point of view when they knew that I wasn't. They were,
however, pushing their own point of view, by starting arguments with
me, and in that attempt they were losing, getting frustrated, using foul language, and
on the verge of tearing their hair out. It was OBVIOUS to me that they have had much less
experience at dealing with controversy.
One of them said that a research paper written by Rosen was a text-book perfect description of the
'hyperventilation syndrome', and the other said that it wasn't. They therefore contradicted each other and defeated themselves without me having to do anything, but it was obvious that Gordonofcartoon hadn't read past the
first paragraph of the article, so I criticised him for that.
However, they didn't stop arguing, but started
three more disputes where WhatamIdoing first sought assistance from medical editors, and also wanted to set up a new page with a different name, and
move the Da Costa's text there where it would become lost amongst dozens of other items. They
failed to get agreement from the medical
editors, and they failed to change the name to Somatoform Autonomic
Dysfunction
because it went against the use of plain English
and avoid jargon policy.
Gordonofcartoon then set up
the conflict of interest page for the second time to create another diversion, and WhatamIdoing went there to give assistance until they got another editor
to threaten me with a topic ban.
I suggested that they should set up a new
topic page, using the label of their choice, and write about
that label and it's history, without deleting the Da Costa page, but they told me
that it was a stupid idea.
Some months later they were trying to enforce
a topic ban so they set up a Request for Comment page. Two neutral editors recognised
that it was in part, if not fully a content dispute, and suggested
that each of the participants write their own version so that
they could merge them later to independently ensure that all
bias was removed. My two critics refused to do that, but of course,
when I wrote another version they both combined to criticise
it relentlessly, and when I transferred it to the Da Costa's
page they were the only ones to revert it and they did it four
times.
My text included the full history from
1871 to 2009, and covered many of the research findings from
all specialities, including the fact that it was common in civilian
life, and more common in women than men, and that most soldier's
who developed the severe symptoms in war time, already had indications
of milder symptoms before enlisting etc.
However, my two critics deleted it and
rewrote it to push
their point of view and turned
the article into a different topic - their preference - Soldier's
heart, but they
did it by stealth.
If you have a close look at the article that they provided
it reads something like this - Da Costa's syndrome was colloquially
called Soldier's heart. (Soldier's heart was mentioned on the
top line and in the top paragraph and printed in bold and given
links) They then said that it was caused by anxiety and is now
regarded as a post-war syndrome.
To push that point of view further they
erased all of the history except the first thirty years which
was all about war studies and had nothing about 130 years of civilian studies. They had failed to change
the name of the page, but they essentially changed the title by adding the label
of Soldier's heart in the top line,
and in the first sentence, and then writing the whole article
as if it was exclusively about a war syndrome.
In another topic another editor made the
comment that some people were using the "See also" section as a "venue" for promoting their own point of view, and in the case of my two critics they moved the "venue" for their POV to the
top line of the page.
I will show their bias by providing a a
few quotes from their preferred version of the Da Costa's page.
Some extracts from the page that my two critics preferred
1. The top
line of the page, above the article,
and the
first words that the reader will see are . . . " This article is about the medical condition
also known as "soldier's heart".
2. The following words
occur next, and are still on the top line . . . " For
other uses of the term, see Soldier's
heart " (this had been changed from the previous words
"For the novella by Gary Paulsen see Soldier's heart (novel)"
end of quote - a novella is a very small book of fiction.
3. The word on that line has a link which makes it
appear in a blue color "Soldier's
heart"
4. That link led to a page which originally had a
children's fiction book linked to it, and Gordonofcartoon provided
that link, and later added poems, plays, and movies with the
title of "soldier's heart".
5. The first line of the
introduction to the topic contains
these words . . . ""Da Costa's syndrome,
which was colloquially
known as "soldier's heart".
6. The term "soldier's heart" on the
first line was presented in BOLD print to highlight it.
7. The next
section is called "Classification" and it contains
these words . . . " The syndrome is also frequently interpreted as
one of a number of "imprecisely" characterized "postwar syndromes".
(Note that If I added the
statement that a label was imprecisely characterised my two critics would
find a policy reason for deleting it, such as cruft - rubbish that is too vague to bother with).
8. It also contains these words about Da Costa's article . .
. "the term soldier's heart was in common use
both before and after his paper"
9. The first words in the history section were
. . . "Da Costa's syndrome is named for the surgeon Jacob
Mendes Da Costa,[12] who first observed it in soldiers during the American Civil War. At the time it was proposed, Da Costa's syndrome
was seen as a
very desirable[13]physiological
explanation for soldier's heart.
10. The remaining history only covers the
war studies for the first thirty years. All of the 130 years of "civilian studies were deleted.
Those extracts can be seen within the text from the Da Costa topic page of 16:58 on 25 July 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=228033527&oldid=225579710
********
There have been more than a hundred labels used as alternatives for Da Costa's syndrome. Neurocirculatory asthenia, effort syndrome, anxiety neuroses, and "Soldier's
heart, were some of the many, and the modern equivalents are
obviously the subject of interpretation, but in general terms
it is common in civilian life and more common in women than men,
so many authors have preferred Da Costa's syndrome because it
didn't focus any emphasis on particular circumstances or unproven
causes. I was writing the history of Da Costa's syndrome because
that was the title of the page, and I was presenting it all in
chronological order, but my two critics wanted to turn it into
their point of view (POV) by removing anything they didn't want
and filling the page with their preferences
On 25th May 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . .
"Actually, DCS is not solely a post-war syndrome, nor even a post-trauma syndrome.
Some individual authors emphasize that aspect, but it is certainly not the only interpretation." WhatamIdoing 19:49, 28 May 2008.
About ten days later Gordonofcartoon gave his own personal opinion with the following words . . .
"I've altered the intro to focus on the main synonym
. . .
We've got so obsessed with the multiple possibilities that the chief one has become buried. Gordonofcartoon 01:15,
7 June 2008
(his idea of the 'chief' label was "Soldier's heart)
. . . and as always, WhatamIdoing agreed with these words . . .
"That looks good to me. The initialism (DCS) isn't commonly used; could
we lose that as well? Also, do you think that we should put the
synonyms in bold
face at their first appearance? I have ambitions of creating redirects for each of them I have ambitions of creating redirects for each of them".
WhatamIdoing 05:33, 7 June 2008
(note that DCS is an abbreviation for Da
Costa's syndrome, and WhatamIdoing was the first to use it, and
then tried to appear helpful by asking if it could be removed
for the benefit of others?????? here
As you can
see I was writing everything about Da Costa's syndrome and covering
the full length and breadth of the history, but my two critics
were constantly deleting and altering my contributions to push
THEIR point of view. However, WhatamIdoing always tried to convince
the other editors that I should be banned for pushing my POV???,
and wrote the following words on the arbitration page . . .
"In the end, Posturewriter . . . requires
an enormous amount of other editors' time to prevent the article
from turning into objects promoting his POV. I am running short
on the patience to continually explain basic issues . . . because
the actual scientific views disagree with his personal POV. His
interactions with anyone that doesn't agree with him rapidly
devolve into hostile sniping . . . I'm tired of the POV-pushing
and the edit wars (which he's currently blocked for). This editor
is apparently not capable of editing without pushing his POV.
. . I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome,
Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even
slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an
appropriate outcome". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January
2009 here
Summary
Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to contain
comments that are independently verifiable from top quality peer-reviewed
medical books or journals, and they are supposed to be free of
the personal opinions, prejudices, or interpretations of authors
or editors. If you check the article you may consider these facts
which show my critics pushing their extremely biased point of
view on readers. Note that if they used proper links to proper
research papers, instead of children's fiction novels and selective
references, and if they mentioned the term 'Soldier's heart' in
the proper context there would not be a problem, but they were
OBVIOUSLY being highly selective with their references and interpretation,
and giving the article an unbalanced emphasis, focus, or view.
1. Gordonofcartoon added a link to an irrelevant
children's fiction novel called "Soldier's heart" at
the end of the page in the See Also section. (if you read that
book you will not learn anything about Da Costa's syndrome)
2. WhatamIdoing later moved the label to
the top of the page to give it prominence, and argued about it
for months, but since then two other editors have removed all
links to the children's fiction novel.
3. WhatamIdoing then proceeded to add that label to the text at
every opportunity, and edited the history section
so that 130 years of civilian studies were deleted and only the
first 30 years of war related research remained.
The page that
I saw in Wikipedia was called Da Costa's syndrome, so I wrote about Da Costa's syndrome which is common in civilian life. When it occurred
during war time some authors called Soldier's heart. My two critics were disrupting
the content to turn it into an article about Soldier's heart, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of
patients have never been involved in wars
.
A final comment
The following quote is from the top line of the
Da Costa's syndrome page of 6-6-08 . . .
"This article is about the medical
condition also known as soldier's heart. For the novella by Gary
Paulsen, see Soldier's Heart (novel)"
end of quote. e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=217632472&oldid=217632308
My two critics had the cheek to argue that they were not misleading readers into thinking that the children's fiction
novel was about this condition.
Reliable Neutral
points of view
My two critics criticise all of
my references in the hope of discrediting me, but they argue
that they are policy experts and ONLY ever use reliable sources
of information themselves, and they used one of Paul Wood's research
papers, so I will provide a quote from a different paper by the
same author, in the same year (1941). He wrote these words in
The British Medical Journal in May 19th 1941 page 763 to 772.
The title of the article
was "Da Costa's syndrome (or Effort Syndrome)"
These words were on his
first page . . . "Terminology - It is recognized that no
satisfactory name has been given to the condition which has been
variously known as "the irritable heart of the soldier"(Da
Costa 1871), effort syndrome (Lewis 1917), neurocirculatory asthenia
(Oppenheimer et al 1918), and autonomic imbalance (Kessel and
Hyman 1923). I urge the rejection of all these terms for reasons
which will become apparent; nor do I feel morally bound to suggest
a substitute, for I believe that the recognition of this syndrome,
as such, will die. Further, if it is, at times convenient to
speak of these physical signs and symptoms there can be no better name than Da Costa's syndome. This not
only avoids reference to the heart, to the circulation, to effort,
or to false or unproven mechanisms, but it has the unrivaled
merit of making Da Costa responsible for it's recognition as
a distinct clinical entity, and is especially fitting if the
syndrome is to become of historical interest only; moreover, it is not just another new name, for the conditon always has been Da Costa's syndrome, and might have been called so
from the start".
On page
545 of the April 12th, 1941 edition of the British Medical Journal, in an
article called "Effort Syndrome in Soldiers", British researcher John Parkinson wrote . . .
"we are well rid of the terms 'Soldier's Heart'"
"and D.A.H" . . . "An expression of this idea
is seen in the term 'neurocirculatory asthenia' (N.C.A.) applied in the United States to the term we call effort
syndrome."
"Our term is not ideal, for it might suggest in
effort lies the origin of the disability, whereas effort merely
reveals it". . . "Tentatively I would define effort
syndrome as a functional circulatory disease, most evident on
exertion, unmasked or produced by war service"
Forty
six years later
Oglesby
Paul wrote a review of the history of Da Costa's syndrome. The first words in his
paper were . . .
"SUMMARY
The syndrome
variously known as Da Costa's syndrome, effort
syndrome, neurocirculatory asthenia, etc.
has been
studied
for more than 100 years
by many distinguished physicians.
Originally identified in men in wartime, it has been
widely
recognised as a common chronic conditon in both sexes in civilian life.
Although the symptoms may seem to appear after
infections and various physical and psychological stresses, neurocirculatory
asthenia is most often encountered as a familial disorder that
is unrelated to those factors, although they may aggravate an
existing tendency."
and included these words on page 308 . .
."A vague waste
basket term 'disordered action of the heart'" . . .
"had also been used
in the British Army, and" . . .
"the equally unsatisfactory term 'soldier's heart'"
"was used . . . but in
his series Lewis reported that 161 of 277 patients should be
reclassified as "effort syndrome"
There have been more than a hundred different labels used as alternatives
for Da Costa's syndrome, including
"Soldier's heart, but many authors preferred Da Costa's
syndrome because it didn't focus any emphasis on particular circumstances
or unproven causes. Furthermore, the condition is common in civilian
life and can occur in children, and is more common in women than
men, so the label of Soldier's heart was generally criticised
and abandoned as being misleading because it was not exclusive to "Soldiers", and was not a disease
of the "heart".
Wikipedia's . . . Neutral Point of View policy . . . WP:NPOV
"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle
and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other
encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of
view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published
by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected
of all articles and all editors
Bias
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of
view)-what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral
article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description
of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual
perspectives and the published evidence
Article naming
Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality
A Wikipedia
article must have one definitive name
[4]
The general restriction against POV forks applies to article
names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is
relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy
should be covered in the article text and substantiated with
reliable sources. Otherwise,
alternative article names should not
be used as means of settling POV disputes
among Wikipedia contributors . . .
Neutrality requires that the
article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that
have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in
proportion to the prominence of each . . .
Point of view (POV)
and content forks . . .
A point of view fork is an attempt to evade
the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain
subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or
highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally
considered unacceptable. . .
The generally
accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on
a certain subject are treated in one article except in the case
of a content fork.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
and as such should cover the entire range of notable discussions
on a topic." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=315998349&oldid=314477724
My
two critics were deleting other evidence at the same time as
they were adding information that favored their own opinion
In 1871 J.M. Da Costa presented
an article about the health problems of soldiers in the American
Civil War. He described how some of them would contract fevers,
and march for 20 miles while wearing tight waist belts, and carrying
60 lbs. of equipment on their backs in knapsacks that were tightly
strapped to their chests. They would have to stop because of
breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue, and several months later
would recover from the fever but still be prone to the other
symptoms. However, he wrote his paper 8 years after the war,
and knew that it was common in civilian practice.
In fact, those symptoms were
well known to effect women who wore tight waisted corsets which
permanently altered the shape of the chest from being a broad
rib cage with a wide base, to being a funnel shaped rib cage
with a narrow base. The breathing muscle is dome shaped and attached
to the base of the ribs, so it normally moves up and down smoothly
so that air moves in and out of the lungs in a regular way. However,
the narrow base of the funnel chest restricted and cramped the
breathing muscle, especially when the woman inhaled, so they
would often feel breathless, faint, and exhausted by the slightest
exertion, and would get some relief by unlacing their corset.
Their condition was diagnosed as neurasthenia, which was subsequently
used by many authors as an alternative label for Da Costa's syndrome.
When I added information about corsets to the DCS page and linked
it to a corset article in Wikipedia that was provided by someone
else, my two critics deleted the information and the link. I
also added information about studies which showed that many of
the Da Costa's patients had a thin physique, and long, narrow
chests, but my two critics deleted that as well.
I also added some information
about a nineteenth century research study which provided the
scientific measurements of the pressure inside of the chest of
women who were wearing corsets, and those who were leaning towards
desks to write, and those who were leaning toward sewing machines
to make clothes. Of course, my two critics deleted that information,
and the link to the text of that research paper that was also on another
page in Wikipedia, and that was provided by someone else.
There were many public debates
about corsets being a cause of health problems or not, but the
subject was settled with majority agreement in 1904 with a conclusion
that they were extremely harmful, and, as a result, corsets gradually
went out of fashion. About forty years later, a researcher
named S.Wolf was trying to find the cause of the breathlessness
of Da Costa's patients by observing x-rays of the chest, and
he noticed that as the person breathed in and the diaphragm descended
down toward the abdomen it would begin to spasm. That resulted
in abnormal and inefficient breathing, and was sometimes accompanied
by other symptoms, so it was concluded by himself, and many other
authors who reported on his study, that it was the cause of the
breathlessness. Of course my two critics deleted that information,
and the reference, and rewrote their own interpretation of the
findings.
Here are some quotes
from S.Wolf's paper . . . The title was "Sustained Contraction
of the Diaphragm, the Mechanism of a Common Type of Dyspnea and
Precordial Pain". . . and here are the first words in his
article . . . "Complaints of respiratory distress characterised
by inability to get a full breath were found to occur commonly
among anxious individuals and among those who did not obviously
display anxiety. By discussing situational conflicts, attacks
were induced in 17 subjects during fluroscopic observation."
. . . Note that those are the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome,
and that Wolf's study has been referred to and supported by respiratory
research in other Da Costa studies, and that there is additional
evidence that the abnormal breathing alters the amount of oxygen
in the blood and that the symptom of breathlessness (frequent
sighing etc) occurs occasionally at rest, and is more noticeable
during exercise, and that the degree of abnormalities are out
of proportion as the level of exercise increases.
As you can see, I spent 12 months
in Wikipedia adding useful information, and my two critics were
trying to control the content by deleting any information that
they didn't like, and keeping only the small amount that they
wanted, and repeating it throughout the page to emphasise their
own point of view.
However, they wanted to stop
me from adding any more so they tried to get me banned from the
topic, and to do that they told the arbitrators that their request
had nothing to do with the content, and falsely accused me of
being a disruptive editor who was violating a lot of policies.
Here are the words that they
posted on the arbitration page
At 17:46 on 26-1-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I'm asking for Arbitration attention
- ideally a topic ban, covering disruption/harassment on Talk
and dispute resolution pages Gordonofcartoon 17:48, 26
January 2009 See here
At 10:47 on 27-1-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . This is emphatically not about content. Gordonofcartoon 10:47, 27 January 2009
At 20:25 on 27-1-09, of course, WhatamIdoing joined in with a large essay of criticism which
included these comments . . .
"I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome. WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 see here
I was banned
the next day by an editor named Moreschi, and a few days later Gordonofcartoon left a thank
you not on his talk page, and a few months later WhatamIdoing
rewarded him with an Outlaw Halo Award for being the only editor
who was prepared to break all the rules in order to get me banned.
e.g. See here and here and here etc.
Note that almost every word that WhatamIdoing
wrote in those comments to Moreschi and others were carefully
chosen to create and incite prejudice against me to draw attention
away from the real issue which was them disrupting the content
and their deletion of verifiable information.
My
two Critics and their Selective use of policies
When my two critics mentioned that they
were deleting each of my contributions because of policies, they
were being very selective about their choice, and
which paragraph of the policy they were using as their excuse, and if they agreed with it they could have easily
found a different policy reason for declaring it to be an excellent
contribution, or they could have just let it stay without comment
on the grounds of "obvious common sense". More importantly,
they were not applying the same standards to other articles in
Wikipedia where they agreed with "new contributors",
completely "anonymous" editors, or other editors or
employees of organisations who obviously had strong conflicts
of interest. For example, when they asked me to reveal my real
identity I did so to comply with the request, and to comply with
policy, and then they said I can't add anything because of COI,
but when I directed them to some anonymous editors and asked
them to reveal their true identity and write an essay on their
COI, my two critics gave the excuse that they didn't have time
to check every editor of every page??? (I mentioned
one page in particular, and they didn't even bother to check
on one anonymous editor???) Also, when I asked them to reveal
their true identity and the obvious conflict of interest which
made them so hostile and passionate about the topic they responded
with indignation, as if I had no right to ask, and that I was
being uncivil, and that I should assume good faith in them, so
they accused me of violating WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF policies
Also, of course, when they deleted information
on policy grounds I generally did not replace it. For example,
I added my theory once, and they argued that it took up too much
space on the page, so I abbreviated it, and they deleted it again,
in about January 2008, and I haven't mentioned it since. Similarly,
when they deleted the information on corsets etc. I didn't put
it back, but for the next twelve months they just kept going
to every discussion page in Wikipedia trying to get me banned
by relentlessly chanting . . . "We have here a "self-identified",
"conflict of interest", "Single purpose account
"editor filling Wikipedia full of "self-promotional"
'nonsense', COI, COI, COI, SPA, SPA, SPA etc". Gordonofcartoon
was so single minded about blocking me that he even changed the
essay on his UserTalk page to give the impression that his main
aim In Wikipedia was to deal with SPA's (single purpose accounts).
All of their ridiculous nittering and nattering was just hyperbolic
drivel. They were prancing about like power drunk dictators claiming
to represent an entire Wikipedia community, when, in fact, only
two editors were doing 99% of the criticism, and stirring up
contempt against me by using deliberately inflammatory language.
For example, I was just adding reasonable, and verifiable information
to Wikipedia and responding to their policy requirements for
more references, and then newer references, etc, or whatever
their whimsy was at the time, and they would say something like
this . . ."We two critics of Posturewriter must protect
'all' of the other? 'thoroughly disgusted' members of the respectable
Wikipedia community by punishing him for his 'disruptive'
'behavior'. We know how "you" must "all"
be just as 'frustrated' as us, and "we" too? are "losing
our patience", and "we" the truly respectable'
rule-abiding' editors want to help 'you' other rule-abiding editors
deal with all of this. "Our" 'solution' to "all"
of this is for 'you' to put a "broad topic ban" covering
'everything' that he knows 'anything' about until he has 'proven'
that he is 'capable' of editing 'co-operatively' with other 'respectable'
editors on pages about 'cupcakes' and 'muffins'.
If I gave them an appropriate "monkey
see-monkey do" response I would be accused of violating
WP:civil, or WP:Battleground, so I will let you, the respectable,
neutral, independent, and unbiased reader, provide an appropriate
response.
Another example of the way that they manipulate policies to suit their own "opinion"
Paul Dudley White studied
Da Costa's syndrome for fifty years and wrote an internationally
respected reference book for cardiologists in 1951, so I used it as a reference for the history section.
My two critics told all of the other editors that it was an unreliable
reference because it was an "out-of-date book".
However,
when I criticised them for using a children's fiction
novel they told the other editors that I was stupid
for not understanding that it was a hatnote, not a reference. They then argued that it didn't have to be relevant because of that policy. When I also mentioned that Gordonofcartoon was the individual who originally added it to the "See also" section of the page, which had since been changed to the "Related to" section, they argued that just because something was previously in the "Related to" section didn't mean that it was actually related to anything, and
that they could put a flowering plant at the top of the page
if they wanted to.
The following words are extracts from the
Arbitration page where I was banned. Note that that WhatamIdoing didn't tell the
arbitrators that the novel was a children's fiction story. These
were WhatamIdoing's words about me . . .
"By "cherry-picking", I
mean, for example, that Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate
amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive
clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not
seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself
for a century now) and to seriously
outdated materials (a 1951 textbook is cited thirty-four times in his preferred draft; a text from
the 1950s is chosen because texts even as recent as the 1960s
don't support his view) . . .The other
problems that we've encountered generally involve a failure to
grasp Wikipedia's conventions. For example, at one time, Soldier's
heart redirected to the DCS article. There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we provided a link to the article about
the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote
instead of in a See also section. Posturewriter complained
at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being
"in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter
never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved
only because Soldier's heart became a regular disambiguation
page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009
see here
Note that the dispute was actually
resolved because two other editors deleted their hatnote, and
the link to their children's fiction novel.
In general terms when I provided good references
that complied with policy my two critics argued that I did it
wrong, or they invented a new policy argument, and when they
deliberately violated policies they argued that they were complying
with a different policy or that there was something wrong with
the policy.
Note also that I was banned before I had
time to present my full defence which was due on the following
Sunday.
How they contradict each other when they interpret which references are reliable: regarding The New York Times
When Gordonofcartoon linked to a children's fiction novel on the Da Costa's page I told him that it was an unreliable source for medical articles, but he argued incessantly about it. One of his many attempt at justifying it's use can be seen by these words . . .
"Incidentally, a reliable source - The New York Times review cited from Soldier's Heart (novel), [86] (you'll need a
Bugmenot login) - says of the book that Goddard's ... life is shattered by what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder and what was then known as soldier's heart". Gordonofcartoon 14:10, 28 June 2008. See those words by scrolling down to the date here
That article may have been a good review of a children's story, but it was not relevant material for a medical article.
Furthermore, two years later, his tag-team mate wrote the following words of advice to another editor about the reliability of a review in The New York Times. . .
"Some areas have real problems with sources that are trivially available online . . . One of today's problems is is due to "The New York Times . . . (IMO this source shouldn't be used at all" WhatamIdoing 17:47, 24 August 2010
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=380751684#reboot
The same editor made these comments shortly after . . .
"This is how it works, out there in the "real" wikiworld: I (temporarily mislay my editorial judgment and) cite the primary paper. You come along and can't get to the source, but you look around and discover the ''NYT'' story about the article, and you double-cite it per your proposal. (You are unfortunately unaware that the "NYT" screwed up in this instance, but it's an honest mistake.)" WhatamIdoing 18:12, 24 August 2010 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=380756109
That editor continued with these condescending words. . . "And in my scenario, how exactly do you magically discover that that the ''NYT'' article misrepresents the journal article? I have specified that "You are unfortuntely unaware that the "NYT" screwed up. I don't cite the ''NYT'' article because it's wrong: you -- not having advanced mind-reading skills, apparently -- cite ''NYT'' because you are trying to "helpfully" comply with this proposed rule for double-citations. Consequently, we ''are'' talking about (accidentally) citing sources that misrepresent the original paper." WhatamIdoing 18:48, 24 August 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=380763426
You can see that the way WhatamIdoing interprets the reliability of an article is this . . . If another editor used a review in the New York Times they would delete it because it was just a newspaper, and newspapers are full of innocent mistakes. However, if they used it themselves, they would argue that it was written by a highly respected author in one of the most prestigioous newspapers in the world.
They can always find a plausible reason for deleting information that they don't personally approve of, and an entirely different excuse for including information that suits their own extreme bias.
Another comment on the same issue
If you look closely at the following extract you can see how my two critics made a mistake.
WhatamIdoing wrote these words during a discussion with another editor . . . ""This is how it works, out there in the "real" wikiworld . . . You come along and can't get to the source, but you look around and discover the ''NYT'' story about the article, and you double-cite it per your proposal. (You are unfortunately unaware that the "NYT" screwed up in this instance, but it's an honest mistake.)" WhatamIdoing 18:12, 24 August 2010
In their case, two years earlier, they were trying to argue with me, so they did a quick scan through the Google Search Engine, but couldn't find any top quality medical references, so when they saw the article about 'Soldiers Heart' in the New York Times they thought it would be good enough. Unfortunately for them I read the book and found it to be an irrelevant children's story, and when I told them they immediately realized that they had screwed up. However, they didn't want to admit it, so they grabbed their bag of tricks and pulled out a few policies to use as their excuse, and made even bigger fools of themselves.
Ignorant
versus informative history re WP:Undue Weight
Here is the Wikipedia
guideline for Undue Weight at 3:13 on 26th January, shortly before
I was banned . . .
"Neutrality
requires that the articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable
source, and should
do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
One of the important aspects of history
is that names and dates are not as important as the facts that
accompany them, simply because the facts also change, especially
in context. For example, in 1871 the largest group of soldier's
were deemed to collapse with fatigue because of long marches
without proper food etc. It is important to know those details
because nowadays soldiers don't have to march for 20 miles, or
hundreds or thousands of miles, because trucks, ships, and planes
carry them and their heavy equipment to the region of battle.
Similarly the women in the nineteenth century
were deemed to be the weaker sex because they would feel dizzy
and faint in response to the slightest change in the weather,
or the slightest exertion, or the slightest emotion. People who
described them as the weaker sex failed to consider all of the
facts, namely that those women were all from the Western world
and wore whalebone corsets which restricted their breathing and
circulation. However, other studies have shown that women from
native tribes were loosely clothed and didn't have the same health
problems.
My two critics have obviously read too
many modern references to know what was actually happening in
previous decades. These are the facts . . . 1. the conditions
of modern war are totally different to those of the past, and
2. Da Costa's syndrome is common in civilians. Those two editors
expected me to agree that Soldier's heart was the main alternative
label for Da Costa's syndrome????, and that it is a post-war
syndrome because their favorite cherry-picked modern newspaper
or journal says so.?
My two critics then have the gall to act
as if I am giving undue weight to old ideas that are not accepted
in journals published in the past two years.
However, here is my advice to those two
"modernians"
If Da Costa said that long marches caused
the ailment then he said it, so nobody can say that he didn't,
and nobody can delete the fact that he said it, and if the condition
was found in civilians, it was, and nobody can say it wasn't
or isn't, and if somebody found evidence of the cause of the
symptoms in the 1940's, they found it, and nobody can say they
didn't, or argue that because it was discovered seventy years
ago it is too old to mention.
My two critics seem to have a contempt
for history and don't seem to be intelligent enough to know that
something may be said to have undue weight in a modern newspaper,
but that doesn't equate with undue weight in the history section
of an article.
Also, Wikipedia invites people from all
parts of society to contribute all information, not just from
the favorite modern newspapers or journals that were read by
my two critics yesterday morning while they were having breakfast.
THE
POMPOUS JARGON
SNOBBERY OF MY TWO CRITICS
Jargon can be used to impress, to confuse, or to deceive or hide meanings, but in an encyclopedia for the general reader it's use is, at the very least, a failure to understand how to communicate, and an example of incompetent editing.
SNOB - "one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters
of knowledge or taste" - Reference: Webster's Seventh New Collegiate
Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., 1972 p.826
I added some information to the Wikipedia
page about Da Costa's syndrome. The main symptoms are palpitations,
left-sided chest pains, breathlessness, faintness and fatigue,
so I described how poor posture could compress the ribs to produce
tenderness in the muscles between them, and that the various
pains usually occurred on one side more often than the other
because of sideways curvature of the spine. I also explained
that the breathlessness was due to an abnormal function or spasm
of the breathing muscles that resulted in inefficient breathing,
and that the faintness and fatigue was due to a delayed flow
of blood between the feet and the brain which resulted in inefficient
oxygen supply to the brain, and I supported those suggestions
with top quality medical references.
My two critics told the other editors that
I was filling Wikipedia with nonsense, and deleted it all. In one of their first arrogant and pompous comments they referred to my description of Da Costa's syndrome as garden variety orthostatic intolerance, and after 12 months of similar arguing they replaced my final plain English version of the article with the following choice of words . . .
"Da Costa's syndrome . . . "was
classified under non-psychotic mental disorders" . . . and . . . "somatoform autonomic dysfunction" . . . "and is considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder . . . "Physical
examination reveals no physiological abnormalities causing
the symptoms" . . . and treatment
is primarily behavioral".
They appear to have gone into
Wikipedia for the main purpose of impressing their friends with
their ability to use 'fancy' words, and 'fancy' ideas, instead
of going there like 'normal' 'intelligent' people to add 'useful'
information in 'plain English'. They also used the language and jargon to deceive other editors, and to talk down to them in order to artificially elevate their own appearance of importance, and they played with double meanings, inferences, parallel editing, and innuendos, and they used psychiatric labels as badges of shame instead of for their proper purposes.
See also here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=373491136
Their failed attempts to manipulate "Article titles" policy
While I was in Wikipedia for 12 months they made several failed attempts to change the title of the "Da Costa's syndrome" page so that they could stop me or anyone else from writing the real history of the topic. For example they tried their hardest to merge or change the title to "somatoform autonoimic dysfunction", "anxiety disorder", and "Soldier's heart". Since then WhatamIdoing has made 117 contributions to the discussion page about "Article titles" policy between June 2009 and June 2010. I have got no doubt that it is for the sole purpose of one day saying 'by the way, this is just a sheer co-incidence, but has anyone noticed the topic of Da Costa's Syndrome is not acceptable because of the many, many, many recent changes to our naming guidelines. Does anyone object to changing it or merging it with another article.' (end of paraphrase)
See here http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped
=on&page=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles
Blind two-faced arrogance
My main critic is an extremely arrogant individual who made the ridiculous suggestion of merging the topic of Da Costa's syndrome into a new page called Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction which 99% of the readers would not know about, look for, or understand, and in the process made the following deliberately sarcastic and offensive remarks . . .
"Proposed page move: Currently, the ICD-10 names several conditions as somatoform autonomic dysfunctions. Da Costa is one of them. What do you think about moving this page to Somatoform autonomic dysfunction and giving each sub-type/named condition its own subsection on the page? It removes some of the WP:SYNTH concerns in declaring Da Costa to be the same as the others. WhatamIdoing 20:43, 24 March 2008
I gave this reply . . . "Why don’t you ask Gordonofcartoon who, at 11:15 a.m. on the same day, in the sentence immediately above, criticises me with the argument “how many times has it been said that this is meant to be an encyclopedia entry for the general reader”. Might I say, it is not a place for esoteric jargon." Posturewriter 09:08, 25 March 2008
My main then wrote this sarcastic tripe. . . "My proposal for the page move is based entirely on our official naming guidelines, which say that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term or a historical eponym that has been superseded." The current ICD-10 code is F45.3: Somatoform autonomic dysfunction . . . I actually thought you'd be happy about this, because the ICD-10 organization gives you an ironclad excuse to put Da Costa's syndrome, cardiac neurosis, gastric neurosis, and neurocirculatory asthenia in the same article. WhatamIdoing 19:19, 25 March 2008 (end of quotes)
Note that that offensive fool suggested merging Da Costa's syndrome into another page which did not exist, as an excuse to reduce it's size as a stand alone article, and had the cheek to give other editors the false impression that I would be happy with that stupid idea, and then had the cheek to say that it would give me an excuse, which I didn't need, because I was already doing such things appropriately on the existing page.
That attempt to change the name into incomprehensible jargon failed because it violated the policies which prefer plain english titles and descriptions so that the maximum number of readers can understand it.
About three years later that extremely pompous and arrogant individual had the cheek to give the following advice to another editor . . .
"If ''nobody'' (except the author) understands a given thing (whether it is an article, section, paragraph, or sentence), then having that piece (at all) isn't consistent with our educational mission. Zero comprehension = not educational. Consequently, ''somebody'' needs to be able to understand each given piece of material. :::::IMO if only a very tiny proportion of readers understands a given thing, then we aren't showing off Wikipedia at its best.We're instead showing (inadvertently) the vast majority of our readers that either (1) they're too stupid to understand stuff on Wikipedia or (2)we're too {stupid/lazy/arrogant/reader's choice} to explain it properly. (The choice between the two reactions is doubtless consistent with the reader's basic personality, with people who have relatively low self-esteem tending to choose the first.) WhatamIdoing 02:52, 19 February 2011
See here and here
Note that the jargon is very easy for anyone to understand if they are familiar with the topic, and that my main critic obviously thinks that you need to be 'highly educated' and 'clever' to comprehend the simple concepts, and has the attitude that ordinary readers (who don't understand it) are stupid and have 'low self-esteem'.
However, in fact, an intelligent and socially mature adult would recognise that you need to explain things in plain english to other intelligent people who have never read about the topic before, and to fulfil Wikipedia's fundamental reason for existing, which is to communicate the ideas to the widest possible audience.
More on the neutral point of view issues
Soon after I started contributing information
to the Da Costa's syndrome page in Wikipedia it was becoming
apparent that two of the editors had something against me personally,
and that they were going to use any and every policy as their
excuse for deleting every word I wrote.
For example, they were arguing that every
reference I used for verification was inappropriate, unreliable,
or biased.
At one stage I decided to check THEIR references,
and one was by a former Harvard professor named Oglesby Paul
that had been published in the British Medical Journal. I was
familiar with his article, so I read it again and presented a
review of it in the history section where it was appropriate
according to all of the relevant medical sourcing policies.
Paul essentially described about ten popular explanations for the cause that had been suggested and reviewed
between 1863 and 1987. They included 'excessive marching', tight waist straps, viruses, thyroid disease, hyperventilation, neurological disorder, physique, and anxiety etc. All of those ideas had their supporters,
but they had also all been assessed by independent studies, and were
all found to have evidence in favor and against, and none had been scientifically proven. I therefore reduced the ten page article to about
one page of text, and added it to the Da Costa page in chronological
order in the history section. It was my intention that the review
would be sufficient to cover most of the history for the time
being, and that I could, in the near future, review the histories
provided by other authors such as Sir James MacKenzie (1916),
and Sir Thomas Lewis (1919), who gave a more contemporary and
therefore more accurate account of the history from 1863-1919.
I could later add other reviews to more accurately cover the
period 1919 to 1950 etc, and then eventually reduce Paul's review
to one paragraph to cover anything omitted. I also gave my two
critics the opportunity to do the history from 1987 to 2009 since
they were essentially professing to be authorities on the topic?????
Five hours later, one of my critics, named
Gordonofcartoon, deleted my review of Paul's paper before I got
around to making any improvements to the section, and in the
process, he completely destroyed all hope of the readers seeing
any type of neutral article. He replaced it with one sentence which said that . . . 'according to Oglesby Paul Da Costa's syndrome was an anxiety disorder. Even that was a misrepresentation of Paul's
here
My two critics have since repeatedly accused
me of being disruptive, and argued that I was filling the page
with too much detail, or cruft (with their clear inference that
they considered it to be rubbish to be swept away by a broom
as soon as possible), and they have since continued to have the
same offensive attitude by describing everything I add as argumentative,
uncivil, unreliable, out-of-date, and biased. They even established
a specific section on a POV/Civil/Pushing page to accuse me of pushing
my own point of view to the exclusion of every reliable source
of information in history???
One of them also told other editors that I needed to be blocked because my 'disruptive behaviour' was interfering with their honest attempt to produce an accurate article which represented 'neutral point of view'.
(regarding
my review of Oglesby Paul's paper, they were essentially arguing
that my description of at least ten theories that he described
was biased, and their deletion of nine of them, and leaving only their favorite one on the page, represented neutral pint of view??? You can read the POV/Pushing
page
here
If you have a look at the discussions objectively
you will be able to see that it is my two critics who were refusing
to be co-operative, and who were destroying the neutrality of
the article by being argumentative, disruptive, and biased, and
that they dominated the content while I was involved, and dictated
what remained at the time I was banned, and that virtually every
word that I wrote on all pages has been deleted.
The first paragraph of the history from
1863 to 1900 was written by me using secondary sources (which
is the way it is supposed to be done), and another editor named
Avnjay rewrote it. Essentially, Avnjay checked the information
from sources that were independent of mine, and verified that
my original description of that period was accurate and unbiased.
If I wrote those words they would have been deleted, but because
they were rewritten by someone else they were kept.
My critics didn't care about the fact that
the information that I provided was accurate, they just wanted
to make sure that I was not the person who put it there.
The methods they used to completely destroy the neutral poiint of view requirement
During the twelve months that I was contributing
to Wikipedia, my two main critics always worked as a team against me to rig the outcome of
discussions and completely undermine the whole purpose of neutral
point of view, by using words such as "we" think this or that,
which means that "we" have consensus, so you have to
agree.
They have the cheek to imply that they
were unfairly accused of tag-teaming, but the first two comments
on the Da Costa's talk page, which was SET UP BY ONE OF THEM, were made by them, and the RFC page where they wanted
to get a "topic ban" on me was set up by ONE of them, and they set up the arbitration page where I was banned
by ONE OF THEIR FRIENDS. All of the many other pages
related to these matters were set up by ONE of them including
the POV/Civil Pushing page which is typical of the way they completely
destroy any hope of any sort of neutrality.
From the very start of the first talk page
they were both arrogant in their tone by referring to Da Costa's
syndrome as "GARDEN
VARIETY" orthostatic intolerance
(see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Banfield
), and five months later when they set up the POV page they were
putting "Da Costa's syndrome" at the top in bold and
then saying that their dispute about it was a "MINOR" issue. They included a picture of a CATTLE at the top of the page with the sub-title of PC CTL, and regardless
of the meaning they were conveying their attitude that anyone
other than themselves, including members of the public, new contributors,
Wikipedia readers, or journalists etc, were just ignorant fools
who could be easily led like sheep or cattle, or kept in the
dark like mushrooms etc. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=302592402&oldid=302555878
The reason that they called my contributions
POV/CIVIL was because I had generally remained courteous to them
despite their offensive remarks, but they were still arguing
that I was violating another policy by pushing some sort of point
of view. Note that they were insulting me and describing my contributions
as "nonsense" or "crap", which is an example
of them violating discussion policy, and being generally ill-mannered.
They were also plotting and scheming to
ensure that their point of view was the only one that the other
editors saw, by not inviting me to the page to add my side of
the story, AND, in fact, by not even telling me about it, AND
by keeping it a close secret as the discussion proceeded, AND
by breaking the rules to get me banned, AND, by adding comments
after I was banned so that I could not defend myself against
their lies and misrepresentations even if I found the page, AND
by exclusively pushing their own biased, one-sided point of view.
They were arguing that I was pushing a
particular point of view even when I supplied a list of 80 synonyms
by a medical consumer, and my ideas were not included on the
list, and they argued that a medical consumers webpage was not
reliable, EVEN THOUGH it was compiled from the work of FOUR DOCTORS,
and despite that fact that I supported it with A DOZEN TOP QUALITY MEDICAL REFERENCES, and
they said that I was violating original research policy EVEN
WHEN I REVIEWED THE REFERENCES THAT THEY PROVIDED.
If you have a look at the POV/Civiil/Pushing
page you can see that the first essay was added by WhatamIdoing
in May 2008, and the second one was added by Gordonofcartoon SEVEN MONTHS LATER (which was also a couple of days after I was banned),
and he commented again six months later in July 2009. i.e. they
were pushing their own point of view for 12 months WHEN I WASN'T EVEN THERE, and I was never there to give my point of view.
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=302592402&oldid=302555878
THEY DON'T GIVE A DAM
ABOUT NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, but
want to use, write, OR AMEND policies that enable them to rule
Wikipedia with an iron fist in future, AND EXCLUDE EVERYONE WHO
PROVIDES VERIFIABLE REFERENCES THAT DISAGREE WITH THEIR FAVORITE
SELECTION.
MY TWO
CRITICS KEPT PUSHING THEIR OWN POV RELENTLESSLY UNTIL THEY GOT
THEIR WAY
My two critics
had been insulting me and taking my words out of context, and
telling lies for several months so I decided to write an essay
about their tactics and put it at the top of my UserTalk page
so that other editors would recognise their methods. The team
of two were fond of criticising me, but resented me defending
myself, and misrepresented my essay as a personal attack on them,
which, according to their POV, was not warranted, or allowable.
They therefore set up a WikiquetteAlerts page to get it removed.
I then advised one of the editors on that page that they had
my permission to remove anything that was deemed to be unacceptable
according to policy, but they did not remove it, and another
editor closed the discussion, and a third editor removed the
related template from my talk page. My two critics then set up
an MFD page to get it deleted, but failed again, so they set
up an RFC page etc. They kept ignoring the general consensus,
and continued relentlessly, and ultimately set up a discussion
on the arbitration page where they arranged for one of their
friends (named Moreschi) to barge in on the discussion and ban
me on his own. The essay on my UserTalk page was deleted soon
after, and the whole page was then removed.
Here are the words
which WhatamIdoing wrote to an editor named Horologium on the
arbitration page . . .
To Horologium . . . We've already attempted
to address The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics. Repeatedly. We were told that it has to go
to MfD -- that MfD can't deal with partial pages -- that an RfC/U
could address it -- that an RfC/U can't force the editor to delete
offensive text -- and so forth. There's plenty of passing the
buck, and we need a solution. The buck has to stop somewhere. WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009 here . . . see also the MFD page here
Note that MY TWO CRITICS HAD PREVIOUSLY ARGUED THAT THEY
HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN WIKIPEDIA, AND THAT THEY HAD AN AUTHORATIVE
KNOWLEDGE OF POLICY. However, you
can see above that they were complaining about the fact that
OTHER EDITORS REPEATEDLY TOLD THEM THAT THEY HAD SET UP THE WRONG DISCUSSION
PAGES, and that were many other editors who REPEATEDLY told them
that they did not agree with their interpretation of policy.
The methods that they used may "SEEM" intelligent and complicated but are
quite astonishingly SIMPLE. They put a negative spin on every
word I wrote, and every thing I did, and hoped that some of the
here
POV/Civil/Pushing ???
In order to discredit the verifiable information
that I provided to the Da Costa page my two critics accused me
of pushing my own opinion. However I provided 60 references from
a wide variety of independent sources, including Da Costa's original
research paper, and my critics only supplied 12 of the remaining
18 references from a very narrow range of sources
Here are a few relevant facts: Da Costa's
objective in 1871 was to replace confusion with clarity about
chest symptoms that did not appear to be due to heart disease,
and later, the best doctors in England were appointed to study
the problem.
They determined that Da Costa had described
several different conditions in his original report, but found
that a set of symptoms, which became known as Da Costa's syndrome,
was common in civilian life amongst men and women, and was, in
fact, more common in women. The condition was made worse by war,
and generally affected soldier's who had evidence of it prior
to enlisting. It was also called the effort syndrome because
it only affected some soldier's during exercise, and reduced
the capacity for exertion. They were also able to determine the
physical and physiological basis for those symptoms.
My critics accused me of POV/Civil/Pushing
because I presented those facts, and they don't want that information
in Wikipedia.
They want to shove those facts out of the
way to shore up their point of view (opinion) by describing it
as "a vague nineteenth century
ailment, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder". Their
12 references include an online rare diseases data base, a medical
dictionary, a "Who Named it?" website that has a couple
of paragraphs and a medical disclaimer, a link to an irrelevant children's fiction novel that was reviewed in the New York Times, links
to poems, plays,
and telemovies, articles based
on military studies, and references filled with psychiatric jargon
in the title, text, and notes, and websites that include the
label somewhere in the middle of their enormous lists e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#References
My critics
should be accused of POV/Arrogant/Shoving Everything Else Out
of the Way
Here is some more of their POV/Arrogant/Shoving
. . . " It's
overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors'
time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting his personal views. Considering the basic priorities,
the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively
wrong while we deal with more important articles, like Meningitis
or Mental health. here
About Da
Costa's syndrome - which they called "a vague 19th century syndrome"????
Here is a quote from a research paper in The New
York Academy of Medicine, April 1930, Vol.V1., No.4, p.223-242
. . . The term neurocirculatory asthenia was coined during the
World War to designate a symptom complex which had been well known. . . Da Costa during
the Civil War wrote a
masterly description of this condition and termed it 'Irritable Heart' . . . Lewis, in his admirable report suggested the name 'Effort Syndrome'. Before 1918,
despite a rather extensive
literature on this condition, the medical profession was rather lacking in their
appreciation of the
frequency and importance of this syndrome . . . It is especially interesting that even though Da Costa and others pointed out
that neurocirculatory asthenia was not a condition peculiar to
military life, and that the
symptoms in most of the cases, long
antedate military service,
this fact attracted little attention . . . This lecture tonight emphasized the profession's interest and the importance of this condition."
Their selective view of history
Da Costa's syndrome History - Stage 1
When
Da Costa described a set of symptoms that appeared to occur in
the absence of heart disease he, and subsequent authors, started
looking for the cause. By the mid 20th century the
physical cause of all of the main symptoms had been found.
The left-sided chest pain was associated with tenderness of the
muscles between the ribs, the breathlessness was due to spasm
of the breathing muscles, and the remaining symptoms of fatigue
and faintness etc. were identified as being due to the abnormal
pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins.
Da
Costa's syndrome History Stage 2
However,
as is commonly known, the answers to some questions lead to
more questions, so a new chapter of study began. For example,
what causes the tenderness of the muscles between the ribs? Some
suggested that it was due to anxiety induced muscle tension,
and others said it could be due to the strain of frequently lifting
heavy objects at awkward angles etc. Also what causes the spasm of the
diaphram? Some suggested anxiety induced hyperventilation - HVS
(even though the symptoms of the anxiety type are different),
and others thought it may have been due to poor breathing practices
that lead to habitual hyperventilation etc. Finally, what caused
the blood to pool in the abdominal veins. The fact that it occurs
when a person moved from the laying to the standing position
had it relabeled as orthostatic hypotension (which is modern
jargon for blood pooling in the lower part of the body). There
are many ideas of cause which lead to other labels such as neurally
mediated hypotension (NMH), postural orthostatic tachycardia
syndrome (POTS), delayed orthostatic hypotension, or orthostatic
intolerance (OI) etc.The reduced capacity for exertion is related
to that, so it has a similar modern label of exercise intolerance.
In the
process of changing the labels the link to Da Costa's original
observations have become absorbed into modern concepts, but according
to Oglesby Paul in 1987 the basic syndrome still existed and
was the same, well defined, and easy to recognise.
WhatamIdoing
has used trumped up policy reasons to delete all information
about the original discoveries, which is "deceit by deletion"
c.f. deceit by omission.
The general advice that I was given can be summed up like this. My two critics didn't know much about this topic before I started contributing to it, but they then claimed to have seen that it is "considered to be" an anxiety disorder in a reliable modern dictionary, and therefore I am only allowed to discuss the history of all of the anxiety theories. I was not permitted to mention any of the 100 other ideas, and if I provided any information about the discovery of the physical causes it would be immediately deleted and I would be permanently banned.
The editor who banned me, wrote these words about another topic . . .
"On
Wikipedia, this translates to rewriting history, and tampering
with facts and verified information" here
The question of my contributions being sense or nonsense
In 1975, as far as I had been told, and
as far as I was aware, there was no known way of explaining the
cause of some types of chest pain and breathlessness etc, so,
in order to solve the mystery I began to study those problems
myself. During the next five years I documented my observations
and conclusions in 16 essays. The most significant one was called
"The Matter of Framework" which I have since called
THE POSTURE THEORY. I called it a THEORY because I was
suggesting it as a conceptual way of understanding the symptoms,
and TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM A DOGMATIC STATEMENT OF FACT. Also,
although I may have written that posture is the "cause"
of health problems, I was actually being more circumspect than
that by suggesting that, if the person has poor posture their
head is placed forwards, which will put strain on the spinal
muscles and pressure on the chest, which will make it MORE LIKELY
for them to develop backaches, chest pains, and fatigue etc.
By contrast, if they have good posture, and their head was perfectly
balanced on top of their spine, there will be no strain on their
spine, and no abnormal pressure on their chest, so it is UNLIKELY
that they will develop posture related health problems.
From time to time I discussed the theory
with people from all walks of life, and the most frequent response
was that it was COMMON SENSE, and many of of those individuals
asked why such an OBVIOUS and LOGICAL idea hadn't been thought
of before. However, over the years I have been told about, and
found for myself, that there are other, very similar ideas, which
have been presented before, such as Yoga, and the Alexander technique
etc. which started from different origins, and assessed the same
sort of problems, and came to similar conclusions.
A close look at the medical literature
reveals that similar ideas can be found there as well. For example,
Paul Wood O.B.E., was one of the most influential writers in
the history of Da Costa's syndrome in Britain. In chapter 23
of the second edition of his book called "Diseases of the
Heart and Circulation" (1956) he discussed various possibilities
for the cause of a specific type of left-sided chest pain, and he states that it . . . "arises locally in muscle
or fascia, and suggests that it
is related to 'fibrositis' and low back pain. It may be initiated
by fatigue or strain of respiratory muscles in cases with respiratory
neurosis, by strain
of certain muscular attachments involved in such actions as cranking an engine, or lifting a
heavy weight, by incessant minimum trauma from the light-hammer
blows of an overacting heart, OR BY FAULTY POSTURE . . . Although
pain may be common during effort, it is more frequent afterwards;
it is also common at night and may prevent the patient sleeping
on the left side" . . . and one of the 19 physical signs of the ailment that he lists in four sections
on page 942 is "Tenderness in area of left-inframmamary pain" . . . and . . . the pain "is exaggerated
and perpetuated by the belief that it arises in the heart."
He also states . . . "The exact mechanism
of the
pain is obscure. It is immediately abolished
by the INTRAMUSCULAR INJECTION OF 2ml. OF NOVACAINE AT THE SITE
OF MAXIMUM INTENSITY OR TENDERNESS.
Cutaneous or sub-cutaneous anesthesia has no effect" . .
. which indicates that the pain is coming from the muscles between
the ribs - and not from the skin, and not from the heart !!!.
I.e. One of
the top medical authorities on the topic stated
that the pain was in the muscles between the ribs, and one of
his many suggestions was that it could be caused by poor posture.
In addition, there is the photo on page
941 opposite the text. It shows a large life-sized portrait which
was hanging on the walls of the museum of the Post-Graduate Medical School of London, so it was regarded as an important feature of the
ailment according to the curators of the medical museum who put
it on display. It depicts the typical thin, stooped
physique and chest shape of a patient who had that type of chest
pain.
Another example is from the author D.M.BAKER
(1955) who made it clearer by stating that "IT IS OF COURSE RECOGNISED that the pain under the left breast could be a manifestation
of A PATHOLOGICAL
CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHEST WALL", and described how gently tapping the area of
pain with the finger tip with reveal tenderness in the muscle in 45%
of such patients, and that injecting
novocaine between the ribs also relieves the pain in the shoulder
blade that is often associated with it. Also note that by using
the words . . . "of
course" it
is recognised . . . Baker was indicating
that the possibility was so OBVIOUS that it was routinely understood by everyone
familiar with the subject.
The cause of the other
main symptoms are just as OBVIOUSLY verifiable as the chest pain,
using equally independent, neutral, and reliable sources.
***
At 02:25 on 18 May 2008 WhatamIdoing described my contributions as "nonsense" . . . and on the
same page eight months later, at 16:57 on 3 February 2009 Gordonofcartoon wrote that the editors who made favorable comments
about my contributions, only did so in the context of others
saying it was "crap". here
Note that those comments
refer to the words of a neutral editor named Avnjay when he wrote that my contribution was "actually
a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently
up", and that they were made in the context of some
relentless and offensive criticism by WhatamIdoing, who, nevertheless, did not use the word crap, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
Note also that Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing always work as a team of two against
me and always pretend
to be criticising me separately, and that the "other"
editor or "editors" that each of them often refer to
is curiously unnamed, but is generally the "other"
one of those two.
Note also that at 10:51,
5th October 2008, Avnjay, the independent editor, was saying that my contribution was "actually a lot better and more detailed" than
their version
That statement
seriously upset the delicate sensitivities and pride of my two
critics, and intensified their vindictiveness, and made them
more determined to criticise every word I wrote, and everything
I did, e.g. ten
hours laterat
21:21 on 5th October 2008 hereuntil
they eventually got me banned on 28-1-09.
***
The information that
I provided about the physical and physiological aspects of the
symptoms was deleted by my two critics and replaced with the
following words from the first sentence at the top of the page
. . . "Da Costa's syndrome . . . is a syndrome with a set of symptoms that
are similar to those of heart disease, though a physical examination
does not reveal any physiological abnormalities" . . . and by the following words in the Symptoms section of the page
. . . "Physical
examination reveals no physical abnormalities causing the symptoms" e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#Symptoms
***
Summary; The fact that Paul Wood O.B.E.
favored the popular view that anxiety was the cause of the chest
pain, does not change the fact that he also suggested posture
as a cause. i.e. that suggestion was also made by a top medical
authority in verifiable mainstream literature, and it was a routinely
recognised possibility. It is therefore not appropriate to
assume that all cases are the same, or that there can only be
one cause, or that combinations of factors don't disppose to
the problem, or that they are irrelevant to the problem, or to
ignore the facts in order to favor one point of view.
it is therefore ridiculous and offensive to refer to my comprehensive contributions
as "fring'y'", "nonsense", or "crap".
It is equally ridiculous to say that the information is out-dated
or obsolete, or that I am giving undue emphasis to any part of
it, or that it is not relevant to the modern understanding of
the condition, because such facts never change. The chest pains
will always be associated with tenderness of the rib muscles,
as surely as Henry V111 will always be Henry V111 - You can try
to hide history but you can't change it. Also, the choice of
words, and the information that my critics left on the page is
misleading and, or, wrong. Tenderness of the chest muscles is
a physical characteristic, and it can be clinically tested for,
and it is not normal, and their pedantic spin can't change that.
They also can't change the fact that the other symptoms are associated
with many physical and physiological abnormalities that can be
found on clinical examination, and with blood tests, x-rays,
and tilt-table tests etc. The deletion of that information is
deceit by omissiondeceit by omission.
Their lies were a violation of the Wikipedia Civility policy
One of the sections that I contributed to was about the history of scientific research into the nature of the ailment. Amongst other things my two critics
were expecting other editors to think that my description of the
nineteenth century research was accurate enough for inclusion,
but that the twentieth century section was rubbish that needed
to be deleted. However, the main purpose of that period was
to determine the physical causes of the five main symptoms, and
most of it was found in the 1940's. They deleted all
of that information and left the general impression that it was an anxiety disorder, and that nothing had ever been discovered to shed doubt on that opinion.
This is a quote from Wikipedia's Civility policy that gives examples of: "uncivil behaviors" . . . "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information"
and
"Assume good faith as much as possible. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence. " here http/en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=371733215&oldid=
371732675#Identifying_incivility
For a brief introduction to their massive number of lies see here and here
For descriptions of their extremely ill-mannered behaviour and their very serious disregard for civility policy see here
For evidence that they were always working as a team of two against me, in violation of the tag-team guidlelines, see here
Details,
Details, my two fussy critics don't like details??
Da Costa's syndrome includes brief stabbing
pains in the lower left side of the chest which may occur once
every few months when the person is relaxing in a chair and reading
a newspaper, or in other similar situations, and the symptom
of sighing occurs more frequently than usual and is different
from normal sighing. There is also a tendency to faint when standing
up suddenly, and sometimes the person may feel dizzy when bending
down to tie up their shoelaces, and they may feel abnormally
tired or fatigued throughout the day. Those symptoms sometimes
occur separately in entirely different situations, or together
during strenuous exertion. I included that type of detail in
my essay for Wikipedia and supported it with 65 top quality medical
references.
One of my two critics, named WhatamIdoing,
wrote this at 17:37 on 6-10-08 . . . "I tried making things
that need repaired, but it's basically a disaster. The history
section is much,
much, much too detailed" (end of quote). They deleted my essay and
replaced it with their version which was only a third as long,
and was supported by only 17 references, including websites.
One of their references was 'whonamedit.com', and they used it
to represent reliable modern mainstream opinion???, but it had
only three very small paragraphs of information including these
words . . . the "Symptoms and signs of this syndrome closely resemble those of emotion and fear, rather than those
of effort in a normal subject"???
Needless to say they are completely different
to the ordinary symptoms of effort or emotion.
***
My two critics were busy removing details
and justifying their actions by calling it cruft (and
they were using that word deliberately for it's dual meaning
of rubbish). However, the reason that it is important
to know that the pain can occur when relaxing in a chair, and
that dizziness can occur when bending down to tie up shoe laces,
is because it is evidence that it is not always due to anxiety,
worry or stress (or the fear of battle???).
Also, these are Sir Maurice Cassidy's words
from the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine of April
22, 1941 . . . "the symptom of left sided chest pain is
"produced locally in muscles, fibrous tissue, or fascia
of the chest wall" . . . and . . . is associated with tenderness
over the area of pain . . . and . . . "is not referred from
the heart" . . . and . . . "the difference between
left infra-mammary pain and angina has been recited again and again."
The reason that such a small detail was
repeated 'again and again' in research papers etc was because
it is important to know the precise difference between chest
muscle pain and heart disease pain, otherwise the problem would
be misdiagnosed, and patients would worry unnecessarily about
their hearts.
Anxiety or Postural cause and treatment?
According to my theory the cause of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome is poor posture or anything else that puts pressure on the chest and abdomen, and according to my research and scientific proof, the symptom of fatigue involves a reduced capacity to exercise. The method of relieving the symptoms is therefore to improve posture, wear loose clothing, and to stay within the persons exercise limits, and of course, lifestyle limits.
According to my two critics my ideas are nonsense, and in their version of the article they say that . . .
"Da Costa's syndrome is considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder"
You would therefore expect them to follow that statement with these words
'the treatments is therefore psychotherapy to relieve anxiety'.
However, they don't. The information that they used for the treatment section of their version are the words that I wrote, and were based on my theory and research.
This is a quote from the first paragraph of their version . . .
"treatment is primarily behavioural, involving modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion."
and the following words are a quote from the entire section called "Treatment. . .
"The report of Da Costa shows that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity or sustained lifestyle that caused them.
Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back in some cases, which relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains, and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases".
They told all of the other editors that I was writing nonsense and crap, and managed to get me banned on 29th January 2009, but the text for the treatment methods were written by me and based on my theory and research, and are still in the article 20 months later. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=389110449
My two critics are devious and unethical research thieves who don't understand the topic and in an attempt to make me look foolish they have made themselves look ridiculous by turning their own arguments into a hodgepodge of non-sequiturs and contradictions.
see also here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/DaCosta'sSyndWikiwebpage3.html#CriticismOfMyTheory2
Modern research confirming my theory
In my own theory, which I wrote thirty years ago - in 1979, and published in 1980, I mentioned Valsalva's maneuver as a scientific method of increasing air pressure in the chest to show how it reduces blood flow to the brain. I therefore concluded that repeated air pressure in the chest caused by repeated poor posture when leaning toward a desk to read and write could strain and damage the walls of all of the blood vessels below the chest, and cause weak circulation and hence chronic fatigue. I also stated that the problem of faintness and fatigue was aggravated by movements on a tilt table, and that the tilt table could be used for diagnosing the condition. When I joined Wikipedia in 2007 and started on the Da Costa's syndrome page I also mentioned the studies by Sir James MacKenzie and comments by Sir Thomas Lewis about the symptoms being due to the pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins, which confirmed my own theory. I also provided references to show that those characteristics were seen in patients who were given the modern labels of the chronic fatigue syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).
However, my two critics deleted all of the information, and all of the references, even the ones that had nothing to do with me, and told all of the other editors that it was nonsense and crap which violated almost all of the policies of Wikipedia, including original research policy, and the MEDRS requirement for up-to-date evidence.
However their own version of the article included this statement
"The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)[11]"
The following quotes are from a research paper by Phillip Low. and his colleagues from the Mayo clinic in 1994. It compares POTS to orthostatic intolerance caused by autonomic failure, and refers to the orthostatic dizziness, and variability of blood pressure. This is a direct quote - "Since POTS patients have a marked reduction in pulse pressure on standing, a major mechanism of their symptoms might be venous pooling. We therefore studied "the cardiovascular response to head-up tilt, Valsalva maneuver and deep breathing in: control subjects . . . patients with orthostatic hypotension secondary to autonomic failure . . . and patients with POTS" . . . and concluded . . . "These findings suggest that sympathetic arteriolar function remains relatively intact but that sympathetic venomotor function is selectively impaired. These findings may have "significant implications for the treatment of patients with POTS."
Reference: Phillip A. Low et al, 15th December 1994), Comparison of the postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with orthostatic hypotension due to autonomic failure, Journal of the Autonomic Nervous System, Vol. 50, Issue 2, pages 181-188 Phillip A.Low was from the Autonomic Reflex Laboratory, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA See See here
THE
SUBJECT OF PERSONAL NAMES, WIKIPEDIA ID'S, AND ANONYMITY
Their ad hominem arguments, and defamation of my character
See also here
The News of the World has recently been closed down because of a scandal where editors were tapping into private phone calls to get information. It has been called the phone hacking scandal. (this opening comment was added 11-7-11). The majority of items below were written in the previous three years.
How they successfully defamed my character
While I was contributing information to the Da Costa's syndrome topic I had two editors who were constantly finding excuses for deleting sentences, or paragraphs, or large slabs of text, when suddenly, an anonymous editor deleted the whole page. I couldn't prove anything, so I simply drew attention to the coincidence, and the high probability that one of them had sent an email to a friend outside of Wikipedia, and asked them to do it.
An associate who does that sort of thing on their behalf is called a "Sockpuppet", and organising it is a violation of the Sockpuppetry policy.
After tolerating several more months of deletions, lies and criticism I decided to write an essay about their tactics which included "flooding' the discussions with so many diversions that everyone else became confused about the actual issues involved.
However that arrogant pair resented me for criticising them and responded by setting up a relentless series of discussions to get that essay removed and me banned.
In the process, a young editor with the grandiose ID of Arbiteroftruth did become completely and utterly confused, and accused me of violating that policy. This is what he recommended . . .
"I personally think that at this point in time, what Posturewriter has done is so disruptive that the Wikipedia community should not tolerate that. Therefore, I am going to propose a a much harsher solution: ACB blocking of his account, perhaps hardblocking as well.
Creating sockpuppet to try to get a point across is not a thing that a responsible editor should do. I have been dealing with sockpuppets for a year now, and I find them not only extremely disruptive, but it degrades Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. That is our mission: to create a reliable source for people around the world to come to for expanding knowledge. If we let this one go, what's the message we are sending to other vandals? We cannot let it go, and we have to show EVERYONE that sockpuppetry will only bring forward their end on Wikipedia.
Therefore, I am suggesting an indefinite, irreversible ban on Posturewriter, his accounts, and his IP addresses." signed Arbiteroftruth 04:12, 24 July 2008 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Outside_View_by_
user:Arbiteroftruth
|
In accordance with Wikipedia Civility policy I responded to that criticim politely by pointing out his mistake in a matter of fact manner. He retracted his comments but the damage to my reputation was not just confined to his mistake, because my two critics were trying to instil the same attitude of disdain and contempt in as many editors as possible. My fuller report can be seen here |
Introduction
Like most people I prefer privacy, so when I joined Wikipedia with the opportunity of using an ID I chose something that I could remember, which was Posturewriter, but was soon required to provide online proof of my real ID, and details of all of my publications. I have absolutely nothing to hide, so I gave that information without fuss. However, it was not long before two editors started telling everyone else about it, and prompting them to demand more and more details, and used the information as a weapon against me at every opportunity, and continued relentlessly for twelve months when the eventually used it to get me banned. Eighteen months after I was banned one of them made the following comments on a discussion page about "conflict of interest", and then had the cheek to act prim and proper and make the next change to the actual policy.
This is part of WhatamIdoings remarks on the discussion page: "The latest comments there indicate that the voluntary nature of COI disclosure is not evident to some editors. Specifically, the link is opposed supposedly on the grounds that the disclosure on the editor's user page and article talk page wasn't "enough" (failed to mention absolutely every person or organization he'd ever worked for I think). This is beyond silly for something that we "encourage", but have never absolutely required." signed WhatamIdoing19:20, 27 September 2010. See here
These are the words which that editor added to the actual "Conflict of interest" policy . . .
"When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." See here
I described in some detail how that two-faced individual used the "voluntariliy disclosed" information against me in the essays below which have been written in the past 18 months.
|
When I entered Wikipedia I did so on the
understanding that information would be accepted from all members
of society and that most people chose to use a Wikipedia ID in
place of their real name to ensure privacy.
I thought that it was an excellent idea,
because I gain my ideas from as wide a variety of sources as
possible to get as many clues as possible to develop an understanding
of the problems that I was trying to solve. I was not particularly
concerned at the time about privacy issues, but I could see the
advantage of adding to controversial topics without necessarily
having to put up with the consequences of being involved in disputes
where some people lose their tempers and resort to personal insults
instead of objective matter-of-fact evidence based discussions.
Such arguments can often occur in rooms full of people where
many individuals have many different and strong views about the
same topic, and such situations have been common in the history
of Da Costa's syndrome research, which is one of my many interests.
It is such a common feature that I routinely expect it.
However, within a short time of someone
else submitting an article to Wikipedia with my approval, they
were accused of violating my copyright, so I had to go to the
discussion page and confirm that I had given them permission
to provide an account of the material in my book. I was then
told that it would still be rejected unless I proved my own real
identity, and gave proof that I was the author, and that the
book actually existed, and then I had to provide more and more
details of the actual dates of publications etc, until the page
was deleted anyway without explanation here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_posture_theory&diff=175835483&oldid=175645543
Shortly after The Posture Theory was deleted I was adding information
to a small number of other pages when I saw four lines of text
on one with the title of Da Costa's syndrome and a general invitation
for contributors to improve it. Everything proceeded harmoniously
until I mentioned my own theory and my own research, and then
the trouble started and never ceased.
Two editors set up a talk page with
my own personal Sir name at the top,
which I naturally saw as a threat that I would be ridiculed under
my real name if I continued to add content to Wikipedia, although
of course, my two critics will deny that. It was obvious to me
that if they were genuine and had good intentions they would
have courteously respected my confidentiality by using the topic
as the heading, or chosen my ID of "Posturewriter".
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Banfield
They proceeded to comment about my contributions,
however, I got their message, or 'hint', more clearly when they
used my personal first name at the start of the sixth paragraph
of the same talk page.
They lost an argument with me soon after
that, and, rather than admit it they established other arguments
as a diversion and went to the Conflict of Interest page where
they accused me of being a "self-identified" person
who was contributing to Wikpedia for "self promotion"
purposes. See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
I repeatedly explained that I only added
my name on the first occasion because it was requested by other
editors, and that it was added to a private discussion page to
be seen only by other editors for administrative purposes
only, and not on the topic page where Wikipedia readers
could see it. I also explained repeatedly that when I later
added information about my own research to the Da Costa's page,
and it was deleted as taking up undue space, I abbreviated it,
and as it was deleted again I haven't put it back since. I then
explained that I had set up a space on my own webpage for Wikipedia
notes, because I could put copies of newspaper articles on it
to give the online proof of publications that the other editors
required (to make it easy for them to verify), and I could put reviews that had been deleted from
Wikipedia there rather than waste them. I wasn't going to waste
information that took me months to compile just because my two
critics didn't like it. I also was not going to give them all
of the information because some of it was not appropriate for
Wikipedia, and some of it was for my use only, and my copyright.
(They even suggested that I should put all of the infomation
on my own website insead of in Wikipedia).
However, they continued for a year to relentlessly
refer to me as a "single purpose account", and a "self-identified
individual" who was using Wikipedia for "self-promotion"
purposes, and they chose their words carefully to create the
false impression that I was mentioning my own name and my own
theory ever day on every page, every week during my entire time
in Wikipedia, and that none of my 65 references were reliable
or independent etc.????? They even had the cheek to accuse me
of violating Original Research policy for reading and reviewing
the links and references that they provided. e.g. in the second
paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F
They persuaded other editors to demand
that I reveal more and more information about myself when everything
about my name, research, theory, and website was
already known to them, and they were telling all of the other
editors about them and linking to them repeatedly. They were doing that to create the ridiculous impression that I had never mentioned
it, or never answered their questions before, and was tying to
hide something. I would be told that "if only" I would
mention something about myself the other editors would view my
contributions more favorably, but each time I added something
new my two critics would say "Yup" told ya so, "single
purpose account" (SPA), SPA, SPA, "self-promotion" again, again, again, conflict of interest, COI number 1, COI
number 2, COI again and again, and they would say that incessantly
to get topic bans on me etc. e.g.see item 63 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
and 65 in the archive here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_
24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
I was therefore curious to know about their
background, and why they were so biased in their edits, and what
their conflict of interest was, and what made them so hostile
toward me, but when I asked them they essentially told me that
it was none of my business and that they were respectable editors,
and that I had to assume good faith in their motives, otherwise
I would be violating WP:AGF policy. (They obviously have double standards and conveniently overlooked the fact that their quesions about my COI etc were the same and would have been a violation of exactly the same policies)
The following excuse was given by Gordonofcartoon when I asked him to reveal his real name and COI . . . "Nobody else is obliged to demonstrate a thing (I certainly can't write anything on my supposed COI because I don't have one - and only self-WP:OUTING would demonstrate that I've nothing to do Da Costa's syndrome and have no medical affiliations).Gordonofcartoon 12:09, 8 August 2008. See here See here and here
This is the opinion of another contributor named LeadSongDog. . . "As pseudonymous editors, we have no independent credibility. The reader can only trust the article if it can be verified in reliable sources. Sometimes we get so caught up in details we forget that. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:26, 3 November 2010 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeadSongDog&diff=394507025&oldid=394447899
The arrogant tone and manner of my two critics, and their
incessant insults and lies were offensive, and obvious to me,
but they managed to persuade another editor to interrupt an orderly
arbitration process and get me banned in January 2009 before
I had time to present a full defense. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#User:Posturewriter
I have been involved in controversial topics
for 30 years because the process interests me, much the same
as it does many people, such as the members of the SKEPTICS societies,
so the criticism did not concern or influence me, and unlike
many individuals who get discouraged by criticism, I don't, because
I know how much easier it is to criticise, compared to doing
something constructive, and am therefore a good and confident
critic as well.
I therefore noticed the irony of the situation,
when one of my two critics responded to a question from another
editor who suggested that revealing their actual names and qualifications
might be useful . . .
WhatamIdoing admitted to remaining anonymous because of the adverse consequences of controversy, and, when discussing
the webpages of a permanently banned editor, was referring to
my website, when giving the following reply . . .
"I'm not prepared
to quit being anonymous. See [http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html this page] (and others on the same site, e.g., [http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSyndWikiwebpagel.html]) by a permanently banned editor for one reason:
Would any rational person really want to make their identity
available to a person like this? . . . I edit Wikipedia to get
away from my real world commitments. I want my work to be taken
or rejected for its merits, not because I'm a person who's supposed
to know something."WhatamIdoing 00:54, 21 July 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=303248221&oldid=303244894
My two critics were mercilessly insulting
me and incessantly revealing my real name and personal details
to as many other editors as possible at every opportunity,
while at the same time they were being extremely aware of the importance of their own
privacy, and being extremely protective of it??? . . . and . . . While feigning indignation above, WhatamIdoing
was also acknowledging that if a persons real name is mentioned
they can be dissuaded from contributing. That was one of their
many ways of trying to disrupt my contributions.
Another policy that they violated
WhatamIdoing deliberately used my personal Sir name as a heading in a prominent position two lines from the top of the Da Costa's
syndrome talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1
, , , and later used my User ID on their own personal talk page, and then selectively, and blatantly archived the other discussions
so that my ID was the first topic to appear on that page, and
later argued that it's position at the top of the page was sheer co-incidence e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
WhatamIdoing was ignoring or violating these words from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines . . .
"Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond
to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's
edits but not specifically to a user . . . and . . . Never use headings to attack other users:
While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other
users by naming them
in the heading is especially
egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in
the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries
and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that
wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for
an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded
from search engines.[1] Reporting on another user's edits from
a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting
edit warring or other incidents to administrators." see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=318170925&oldid=
318166721#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages
Also, while completely ignoring and violating those guidelines WhatamIdoing gave this advice to another editor at 4:12 on 8-10-09 on the talk page guidelines . . . "Editor's names .
. . Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages discourages addressing editors by name in talk page headers. It's presumably trying to discourage ==John is an idiot== or
==John, please discuss your changes== kinds of headings. I saw
it recently misunderstood as meaning that userids should never
be present in headers, which is a problem for most of the noticeboards,
which use these guidelines as a model. Is it worth saying something
like "This doesn't apply to noticeboards" or "Some
discussion and administrative pages, such as WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI
frequently include editors' names in headers"? Or even "Including
editors' names in headers may be acceptable if it's done in a neutral or positive fashion" (e.g., ==Thanks, John==)?"
WhatamIdoing 04:12, 8 October 2009 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=318597429#Editor.27s_names
Some more
relevant notes and quotes;
When two neutral editors suggested that
I write a subpage article as a potential replacement for the
Da Costa page I started, but on 18-9-08 one of my critics set up a section on their own talk page and
began telling one of the neutral editors that they were incompetent
at understanding the topic, and began insulting me at every opportunity
in order to discredit everything I wrote. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=269715826&oldid=269639173#Wikipedia:Requests_for_
comment.2FPosturewriter
That critic was WhatamIdoing,
and it may be acceptable to use an ID on an RFC page, but it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to use the same heading on their own personal talk page. WhatamIdoing later archived the page so
that the section about me became positioned in the most prominent
position as the very first item on the page. Any one of fifty
items could been left at the top after routine archiving, but
WhatamIdoing argued that it was sheer coincidence that my name
was placed at the top. Editors are supposed to let other people
know if they are discussing them on any particular page so that
they can respond to the comments, but WhatamIdoing criticised
me for weeks without telling me, and when I eventually found
out about the page I went there on 31-12-08 to defend myself from the enormous volume of vindictive lies,
misrepresentations and insults about me. WhatamIdoing would have
been quite happy to continue insulting me while I wasn't there,
and tried to justify the ridiculous suggestion that I shouldn't
go there to defend myself. The following quotes show my criticism
of the placement of the section, and WhatamIdoing's ridiculous
and unbelievable reply . . .
At 1:15 on 11-1-09 I
made these comments . . . "WhatamIdoing; you have positioned
a section with the title of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter at the top of your User Talk page so that all of your friends
will see it, in the hope that they will assist you in your relentless
efforts to insult me for the purpose of discrediting my contributions."
Posturewriter 01:15, 11 January 2009
At 1:23 on 11-1-09 WhatamIdoing gave this ridiculous reply . . . "the reason
this section is at the top of my talk page is because I archive
in date order. Like all normal talk pages, new items go on the
bottom. If you would quit adding to this section (as I've suggested
several times now), then I'd be able to archive it during the
next regular round. If you don't like having it at the top of
my user talk page -- then stop posting here!" WhatamIdoing
01:23, 11 January 2009 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
Note that WhatamIdoing is presenting the
absurd argument that if I didn't post comments there the
discussions about me would be archived, but the insults went
on for weeks before I even got to that page, and WhatamIdoing
was NEVER going to stop until I was banned, regardless of whether
I went there to defend myself or not.
In fact the whole purpose of deterring
me from making comments is so that the other editors would be
more likely to believe WhatamIdoing's one sided view, and misrepresentations
of the facts.
An example of where the same tactics were used against another editor can be seen in relation to the Policies Differences essay where WhatamIdoing established a talk page at 5:46 on 2 April 2010, and put the heading "Reisio's changes" at the very top here, and then, at 19:05 the same day, added sub-headings of "1.1 Bright line", "1.2 Heading", "1.3 Contradictions", and "1.4 Invalidation" here, so that those sections were personally aimed at him, and would be the first thing that all other editors saw.
The
Relentless Self-Identification Argument
When I first mentioned
my real name in Wikipedia it was because other editors requested it, so I gave it on a private talk page which was read by editors
only, and not a topic page that was open to the general readers,
and it was for administrative purposes only. When I later mentioned
it on the Da Costa's page I was requested to abbreviate the account
of my own research, so I did, and when the abbreviation was deleted
I haven't put it back since 14-1-08. However, whenever my two critics lost arguments against me and
wanted to get me blocked or banned they set up new pages and
tried to create the false impression that I was always mentioning
my name. Essentially they were saying "self-identified here, self-identified there, and self-identified everywhere", as if it was a zealous chant, and they were trying to incite
and inflame contempt against me. For example . . .
At 21:13 on 13-5-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote the following words on the Conflict of Interest
page number 2 that they set up against me after Conflict of Interest
number 1 failed . . . "Can we
revisit this one, as it seems unresolved? . . . The previous
discussion is archived here: Posturewriter self-identified1[47]
as MA Banfield, an author with a known strong interest in a particular
"postural compression" theory relating to this and
similar conditions. [48] . . . He argued then that we should
put this information "back in the box" because he was forced to disclose it during an AFD: I'm not sure this washes, and in any case he has since repeated the disclosure in all but name[49]. . . . The
problem is his refusal to act by COI guidelines and his continuing
SPA activity on Da Costa's syndrome with edits that although not explicitly naming his theory, have an ongoing
focus on the respiration and chest issues central to this theory. Gordonofcartoon 21:13, 13 May 2008
However, at 17:29 on 20-5-08 (a week later) another editor named Guido
den Broeder said
this . . . "I don't care what he may have done half a year ago.
He does not need to be stopped, since he is not promoting anything or adding any original research to the article now".
Guido den Broeder 17:29, 20 May 2008 - in item number
65 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
Soon after that they arranged for Guido
to be banned.
At 18:16 on 20-7-08,
after a Wikiquette alerts page, and an MFD discussion failed, Gordonofcartoon set up another page to get
me blocked, namely an RFC page with a massive and lengthy argument
starting with these words . . . "The dispute concerns Da
Costa's syndrome and Posturewriter (talk · contribs), who has self-identified [1]
as MA Banfield, an author with a self-published book - externally
reviewed here - and website promoting his Posture Theory about
the syndrome's cause.. . . Gordonofcartoon 18:16, 20 July
2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Statement_of_the_dispute
To support his claims he linked to an article
where other editors had asked me to identify myself in relation
to a copyright question, and I honestly and courteously gave all of the information that they needed about my book, my research, and the dates of publications etc, I gave it without the slightest hesitation and without feeling any need to hide anything. Those discussions were very detailed and thorough,
and went from 30-11-07 to 5-12-07.
However, eight months after I co-operatively
gave that information, at 18:16 on 20-7-08, on the RFC page, in the description of the dispute section, Gordonofcartoon attempted to give other editors the ridiculous
false impression that I was a disruptive contributor who was
trying to hide something. He did it by accusing me of 'failure
to clarify the copyright situation'.
Also at 18:16 on 20-7-08,
on the RFC page, in item number 10 of the disputed behaviour
section, Gordonofcartoon falsely accused me of denying identifying myself,
and gave a link as evidence dated 23:56 on 29-3-08. When I checked
it the actual words I wrote were . . . "there is no reference
of my name in Wikipedia anymore except where you used it".
That criticism continued at 18:16 on 20-7-08 on the
RFC page, in the same section in item number 11 Gordonofcartoon made another false accusation that I was . . .
"Obstructing COI discussions by denying the existence of
identifying information" . . . and he linked it to a previous
discussion where I explained that I wasn't going to reveal my
identity again because my two critics were adding it to their
list of examples of me being 'self-identified' which all other
editors could see anyway. (all they had to do was to click on
Gordonofcartoon's links and they could find all of the information
that they were asking for).
However at 11:38 on 20-7-08he ave the following ridiculous excuse for repeatedly using my real name . . . "You're mistaking the meaning: 'self-identification' is entirely neutral, meaning that you identified
yourself here on Wikpedia (i.e. I mentioned it to show that there's been no breach of WP:PRIVACY)." Gordonofcartoon
11:38, 24 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Re:_My_evidence_of_trying_to_resolve_the_disputes
At 9:21 on 1-8-08 I wrote these words to WhatamIdoing on my User talk . . . "as
I have mentioned several times before, there has been no mention
of my name or ideas on the article for at least 6 months".
At 17:46 on 24-1-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote the following words on the arbitration page
. . . "Statement by Gordonofcartoon. . . This concerns
long-standing disputes surrounding Posturewriter (talk · contribs), an editor with a sole SPA interest in the article
Da Costa's syndrome and a demonstrable conflict of interest (he
has self-disclosed his identity as operator of a website
expounding his "Posture Theory" about illnesses relating
to this syndrome)." here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397
#Statement_by_Gordonofcartoon
He was essentially arguing that he was only mentioning
my name as often as possible to show that he wasn't breaching
my privacy???, when in fact, his real objective was to give the
deliberately false impression that I was adding my own name to
Wikipedia on every page in every week in every argument and needed
to be stopped. He did that by linking to many previous
discussions where he had repeatedly described me as being self-identified.
When I asked him to identify himself he
told me to mind my own business.
I found his whole line of argument to be very offensive but also highly
amusing.
Conflict of interest
My two critics claimed that they did not
have a conflict of interest but here is what one of them wrote
about members of company or government agencies who are paid
to do their job, which includes editing Wikipedia, but not revealing
that fact to other editors . . . "Except, of
course, that they are getting paid for doing a job, and that
job (at least in their own interpretation) results in Wikipedia
being edited. Some people will consider this "paid editing";
others won't." WhatamIdoing 01:43, 30-10-09
Another
essay of the Self-identification accusations
I have been interested in many aspects
of life and have written a thousand page book on health which
probably covered a range of dozens of different illnesses, and
included consideration of the politics, economics, and cultural
influences, and the effects of the climate and environment etc,
and I have provided a translation of seventeenth century medical
terminology into modern English. The cover is black, with the
title in print, and I did not see any need to put a photo of
myself on the cover, or any identifying photo any where in the
book.
When I went into Wikipedia I noticed that
all people have the opportunity to choose an ID that is independent
of their real name, so I did, and each person is provided with
a User Page where they can tell everyone about themselves and
their interests if they want to. Mine was blank when I started,
and blank for the entire 12 months that I was there. However
several editors asked me to put information about myself there,
but I repeatedly told them that I preferred privacy and gave
them other ways of obtaining all the information within a few
seconds of searching.
By contrast, I had two critics who had
a lot of information about themselves on their User Pages that
was aimed at impressing the readers, including their 'annoyingly
high IQ???? probably measured while they were standing on a very
tall ladder at the top of a very tall ivory tower, but there
was nothing about who was or was not paying them to edit, and
nothing about their real identity, and when I asked them about
it they pompously accused me of making personal attacks on them
and essentially told me that they didn't have to reveal anything,
and that I should mind my own business.
They had extreme and offensive double standards,
and no manners, no respect for my, or other contributors privacy,
and no sense of ethics or responsibility, and no integrity.
I mentioned my name and theory on the Da Costa's
page because anyone can do that, but my two critics treated it
as a crime and argued that it took up too much space, so I abbreviated
it and explained the change, and then they called me uncivil,
and threatened to put me on their watchlist and hound me 24 hours
a day and delete everything immediately if I added any more about
my theory. I therefore responded by complying with their request
without fuss because there were a couple of policies which they
had some case for and were never going to relent about. However,
they tried to give other editors the ridiculous impression that
I crumbled under the pressure of their stern authority????. The
last time that anything about my own research appeared in Wikipedia
was January 2008, and I didn't mention it for the next twelve
months because I accepted the policy.
In order to give the false impression that
I needed Wikipedia, and was using it to promote my ideas, they
mentioned my Sir name in Bold print at the top of the Da Costa's
Talk page, so that every comment would appear to relate to me
personally, and they went to at least six forums, including the
arbitration page twelve months later, and started with words
like this which I paraphrase in summary . . . "We have a
single purpose account by a self-identified Max Banfield, who
has written a book called The Posture Theory" which he keeps
on promoting and linking to over and over again despite the fact
that we have been repeatedly telling him not to every week for
the past year".
The last time
that my name and research were mentioned by me in Wikipedia
was on 14-1-08 when it was deleted by WhatamIdoing. I then started writing the history of research for the history
section of the topic, and mentioned the findings of fifty or
more other independently verifiable studies.
These were Gordonofcartoon's words on the Conflict of interest (COI) number one page 2 months later on 30-3-2008 . . . "Posturewriter has self-identified
as Max Banfield, a lay author who promotes a particular "Posture Theory" on the syndrome and it's descendants, involving
chest compression, breathing disorder, breathlessness and the
diaphragm . . . his subsequent edits invariably add material
related to breathing related studies, which comes across as WP:SYNTH
supporting his own theory (even though it's no longer explicitly mentioned). (end of quote)
Note that the theory that my two critics
were favoring was "habitual hyperventilation syndrome"
HVS, indicating that in their own opinion it was entirely due
to a breathing disorder - and they were telling me that I had
to discuss Da Costa's syndrome without using references about
respiratory research????? - I actually also used references about
every aspect of the research, not just the breathing studies.
Also when they refer to me as a lay author they are trying to
convince you that I am an ignorant person with no knowledge of
scientific methods, and that my own research didn't involve scientific
procedures, but they are not telling you that I was offered a
scholarship to study optometry at Melbourne University at the
age of fifteen, and three scholarships to study Group Psychology
at the age of nineteen, or that I was invited to conduct research
because of my ability to organise groups - which includes research
committees, and my interest in the topic, and because nobody
else was interested in the neglected area of research, and they
are not telling you that they have never been invited to do formal
research, or that the average university graduate has an IQ in
the top 5% and my IQ is in the top 2%.
On 14-5-2008 Gordonofcartoon started Conflict of Interest (COI) number 2 attempt to get me blocked with these words . . . "Posturewriter,
self-identified as M.A. Banfield, and author with a known strong
interest in a particular "postural compression" theory
relating to this and similar conditions. He argued that we should
put this information 'back in the box' because he was forced
to disclose it during an AFD, I'm not sure if this washes, and
in any case he has since repeated the disclosure in all but name"
In other words Gordonofcartoon was saying
that I did not mention my name, or my theory, but he found a
way to complain anyway.
This was WhatamIdoing's exact words on a Civil/POV/Pushing page on 18-5-2008 . . . "We
have identified a single purpose account, run by an identifiable
individual who "just happens" to have a non-mainstream
take on a particular set of symptoms. His real article called
The Posture Theory was deleted as non-notable through AFD"
(end of quote) . . . (Note that the AFD was actually closed without
explanation, and that WhatamIdoing obviously hasn't read my book
which contains information on dozens of illnesses, not just one
single topic, and that I contributed to six other topic page. However, that editor had me on a watchlist and made it clear that they would delete everything
everywhere I went.)
These were Gordonofcartoon's words at the start of the RFC page on 20-7-08 . . . "Posturewriter
began contributing in 2007, creating an article on his own theory,
The posture theory, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for
deletion/The posture theory in December 2007. He immediately
began a pattern of single purpose account edits at Da Costa's
syndrome. Self-promotional edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome
and Da Costa's syndrome led to warnings from JFW, Gordonofcartoon, and WhatamIdoing . . . (and he failed to) . . . clarify the copyright
situation." (end of quote) - Note that they were saying that
if I didn't prove that I was the author of my own book they would
block me for 'breech of my own copyright', and they demanded
that I should identify myself again so that they could block
me for having a conflict of interest. I refused to identify myself
again, and provided links to past discussions where I had been
required to identify myself by other editors).
These were Gordonofcartoon's exact words on the arbitration page of 26-1-09 . . . "This
concerns long standing disputes surrounding Posturewriter, an
editor with a sole SPA interest in the article Da Costa's syndrome
and a demonstrable conflict of interest (he has self-disclosed his identity as operator of a website expounding his "Posture
Theory" about illnesses relating to this syndrome).
What I didn't tell my two critics was something
that was obviously beyond their very feeble comprehension. I
am good at arguing, and I am just as good at being a critic as
I am at dealing with criticism, which is why I was never, at
any stage whatsoever, concerned about their threats to ban me.
That is not a reflection of Wikipedia, but is criticism of "only"
two, very insignificant and highly self-opinionated editors who
are damaging Wikipedia's value to everyone. If I needed Wikipedia
to do anything I would have had to toe the line like a groveling
lap dog and agree with their POV, which means that while they
are in Wikipedia it will never be able to claim neutral point
of view on anything,
This
is what they could do to You!
This is what my two critics would do to you if you wrote a book that they personally didn't want mentioned
in Wikipedia . . . 1. They would make the following request .
. . "Please prove that you are the author of the book or
we will have to delete it for breech of copyright. 2. You then
respond courteously in the following manner . . . "Thank you
for your question" . . . and then tell them your name, and
when your book was published, and what library it can be found
in, and you direct them to your website. 3. They then tell all
of the other editors for the next 12 months that you are
a "self-identified" individual who has a "conflict
of interest" and are using Wikipedia for the sole purpose
of promoting your book.
If you asked ten independent experts to
look at the page they would not be able to find your name, or
the name of your book, or anything to show that it had anything
to do with you, unless your two critics kept saying so.
In fact, at least two editors thought that
I was a well qualified expert academic, and three experienced
editors and administrators asked me to provide more information
about myself because they couldn't find it in the the history
of edits themselves. I could have said that you can find it here,
here, and here, in the history of edits, twelve months ago, where
no-one else can find it without my help, and then link to my
website, which no-one else could find, and then my two critics
would say "we told ya so, 'self-identified, again, again, again, again, again, and again' we have yet another example to prove that this author
has a conflict of interest - we told ya so. We want you to ban
this sucker for exhausting the patience of the entire community
of five thousand and twenty three respectable rule-abiding editors
like ourselves, who are thoroughly disgusted with his self-promoting
crap.'
A
summary of the behavioral pattern of my two critics
Here is how I would criticise them . .
. "They have broad but very shallow knowledge, and went
into Wikipedia in search of status and power, and act as dictators
rather than courteous and co-operative community members. They
don't have any common sense but think that the are the only ones
who do, and they make judgments about others, and think that
they have a right to criticise, but resent people making judgments
about them or criticising them, and yet they are very poor judges
of character and appear to be completely oblivious to all of
the faults in themselves. Hence they don't want a policy about
double standards. They are impulsive and temperamental and get
easily frustrated, and they impose their opinions without regard
for facts, evidence, truth, or discussion, and they cherry-pick
policies to use as their excuse to perform the function of deletionists in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental purpose of existence
- which is to encompass all human knowledge from all reliable,
"independent", and verifiable sources". My two
critics have not revealed their true identity, so they are in
fact, un-named, unknown, un-accountable, nobodies who have a complete lack of confidence in themselves, and a total lack of courage in their own convictions, and are trying to control information
while wearing a two-faced mask of usefulness and disruption.
They are not part of the solution of getting all information
to all people; they are part of the problem.
On the 8th August 2008, a neutral editor named SmokeyJoe wrote these words addressed to me. . .
"I'll agree with you with you that all editors editing in areas related to their professional interests should explicitly declare their interests.
An hour later Gordonofcartoon gave this reply . . . "Nobody else is obliged to demonstrate a thing"
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=230597203
Wikipedia Policy - "Never use headings to attack
other users"???
This is a quote from the Wikipedia talk page guidelines as at 17-9-2008 . . . "using
headings to attack other users by
naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it
places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading
in the edit summary of the page's edit history . . . and damage
their credibility for an indefinite time period" (end of
quote)
WhatamIdoing criticised me in a discussion on their User Talk page which had a main section heading with the title . . . "WIKPEDIA:Requests for comment /Posturewriter" . . . It was presented in large print which was highlighted in blue and linked to an RFC discussion page.They later positioned it as the first discussion at the top of the page which made it the most prominent "discussion heading". Clicking on the link in the title leads to the
RFC page where WhatamIdoing's tag team mate Gordonofcartoon accused
me of violating more
than fifteen policies.
That discussion continued from 5-10-08 to 3-11-08, and included almost 2000 words
with almost 1500 of them being written by WhatamIdoing who
was making relentless insulting remarks about me, and criticising
the subpage that I was writing in co-operation with a neutral
editor. I eventually found out about it because WhatamIdoing
had cut and pasted that subpage and subjected it to more than
80 items of criticism and was telling Avnjay that there were
more things wrong with it.
I went to the discussion
for the first time at 21:56 on 31-12-08, and WhatamIdoing later inserted a small
sub-heading with only three words - "Fit
the second" at the start of my comments, and I replaced
them with only six words - "WhatamIdoing's attempts at undermining NPOV
policy" and
WhatamIdoing told the administrators that I had violated the
policy that said you can't use headings to make personal attacks
on other editors.
Here were the words
used by WhatamIdoing on the Administrators Noticeboard in
a second discussion . . . "Previous version reverted
. . . Note that this involves partial reversions, plus additional
comments, the edit war is over his determination to restore a
subsection head that attacks me" signed WhatamIdoing17:45 11th January 2009.
Summary: An editor named WhatamIdoing wrote fifteen
hundred words to
criticise me for
a month in a section at the top of their Usertalk page called "Requests for comment/Posturewriter, and linked it to a page where
I was accused by their tag team mate of violating more than fifteen policies. I then joined the discussion and
made it a two sided discussion, with 1800 words of mine,
and 900 words of reply from WhatamIoing, and during that time
I changed three words into six on a minor sub heading four times in one day, and mentioned only one policy violation, and then WhatamIdoing went rushing
off the the administrators and asked them to block me for using
a section heading for the purpose of making personal attacks
on them???.
Number
1 - The top discussion on WhatamIdoing's User talk page for more than three months
The Requests for comments/Posturewriter heading was first placed on WhatamIdoing's
Usertalk page by an editor named Wizardman at 20:18 on 18-9-08
where it was item
number 15 at the end of a small list of 15.
It was still number 15 on a list of 31 at 8:43 on 24-10-08, and then
at 18:08 on the same day WhatamIdoing moved half of the items to an archive so that the "Requests
for comments/Posturewriter discussion appeared at the top of the page as
item number 1 in a list of the remaining 17.
I found that discussion
and started making comments there at 21:56 on 31-12-2008 when it was still number 1 in a
list of 70 and
that proceeded until I left my last comments at 7:43 on 11-1-08
and was blocked.
At
that stage it was still number 1 at the top of the page and the list had grown to 102 discussions involving other editors
on other topics.
At 1:15 on 11-1-09
I wrote these words . . . "WhatamIdoing; you have positioned
a section with the title of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter
at the top of your User Talk page so that all of your friends
will see it, in the hope that they will assist you in your relentless
efforts to insult me for the purpose of discrediting my contributions"
At 1:23 on 11-1-09
WhatamIdoing gave this reply . . . "the reason this section is at the
top of my talk page is because I archive in date order. Like all normal talk pages, new
items go on the bottom. If you would quit adding to this section
(as I've suggested several times now), then I'd be able to archive
it during the next regular round. If you don't like having
it at the top of my user talk page - - then stop posting here!"
WhatamIdoing expected
me to believe that a list of 31 was reduced to a list of 15 as
part of a routine archiving process arranged in date order, and
that the discussion about me was placed at the top of the page
as the result of sheer co-incidence, and that it was still
number 1 in a list of 70 when I started adding to it five weeks
later, and that it was still number 1 in a list of 102 when I
was blocked from that page, and it was still number 1 on a list
of 97 on the day I was banned - 28-1-09, and that it was then
archived along with 98 other articles as part of a routine
process only nine days after I was banned, when it
was still number 1 on a list of 103 at 20:50 on 10-2-09, leaving
a new page with a total list of only four at 20:53 on 10-2-09.
i.e. WhatamIdoing
expects me to believe that the discussion was put at the top
of the page on 24th October 2008, and kept there for more than
three months, as the list of discussions grew from 17 to a massive
102 items, and was then archived only nine days after I was banned
because of routine archiving practices related to date order???
It was obviously put on the top of the page so
that it would be the first item that all of WhatamIdoing's friends
would see, in the hope that one of them would eventually find
a way to ban me, and it was always going to stay on top until
that happened. However, after I was banned, it had served it's
purpose, and was not in the least bit necessary, and so then,
and only then, was it "routinely" archived???
As they say . .
. If is looks like a duck, and it swims like a duck, and it quacks
like a duck - it's probably a duck.
***
Note that I had previously
responded to six months of constant criticism from the same two
editors by writing an essay about the tactics being used against
me, complete with links to the evidence. They called it an attack
essay, and kept arguing about it until I was banned and it was
deleted. That essay was called "The Motivations, Strategies,
and Tactics of my Critics", but I did not put their name
in the heading, and I didn't mention their names in the text,
but linked to their discussions to show evidence and to
verify the way some editors were violating their own principles
and policies. I was new to Wikipedia and I didn't know all the
policies, so I wrote in plain English that they were using "wild
goose chases" which is the Wikipedia equivalent of "moving
the goal posts". etc. Another word that I used to explain
the way they were editing was "policy tactics".
Their Ad hominem
method
Their are two distinct ways of arguing.
I use facts and evidence as the basis, and my two critics use
ad hominem, which essentially means that they try to create so
much prejudice against me that no-one watching the disputes will
notice the facts, or assess the evidence properly. For example,
if a man has a clean white hat, a white shirt, and white trousers
he will appear to be the good guy, and if someone has a dirty
black hat, a scruffy black shirt and torn black trousers he will
appear to be the bad guy. "Image" determines the way
strangers are judged, so if I am new to Wikipedia, and my two
critics don't like the top quality verifiable information that
I am providing they will try to clothe me and the information
in black. Hence when I use a reference from one of the most reliable
sources of information in the history of the topic, they will
describe me as an ignorant and stupid person who doesn't understand
the MEDRS policy for up-to-date evidence, and as being deliberately
disruptive for using an out-of-date 1951 text book. Their objective
is to lead other busy editors to the conclusion that I am an
unworthy contributor who doesn't deserve consideration, so that
they won't bother to read chapter 22 in Harvard professor Paul
Dudley White's internationally distributed university reference
book.
Very convenient co-incidences in policy changes
I revealed my name to prove that I had given permission to review my book at 1:59 on 30-11-07 here
I continued to answer the questions about my personal life until 3:40 on 4-12-2007 here
However, in between those three days, at 15:06 on 3-12-2007 another editor named Mangojuice made some major changes to the Wikipedia Username Policy advising editors to choose their Username carefully or they may be blocked, and was mixed in with the following words that obviously look as if they were invented for the purpose of justifying a block on me.
"If you create an account with a username that matches your unknown company or group, it will almost certainly be blocked if you engage in promotional activity. Editing with a conflict-of-interest (such as a user editing about the company they own or work for) is not categorically disallowed: you may be allowed to make such edits if you learn the relevant Wikipedia policies first. However, even in such cases, it can be a problem if you choose to use your company or group name as your username, because even the use of that name can be seen as raising visibility for yourself. Also, it is frowned upon in general for any company or group to have an account that represents the group." (end of quote) See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username_policy&diff=prev&oldid=175493674
You can see that any future editor will be able to use that policy to give the impression that the policy existed before I started, and as if I chose my username to promote myself, and as if it was my fault because I should have learnt that policy first. However, all I knew at that stage was that new contributors didn't need to worry about policies but just use common sense in everything until you were told otherwise, and I hadn't actually read any policies, let alone the username policy. Also, I didn't discover that the change to that policy coincided with my comments until 9-3-11, more than two years after I was banned when I saw a recent edit to that page by my main critic and decided to trace the history of edits back to see what the policy was like when I started.
The following words were added by my main critic at 19:40 on 1-3-11 . . .
"Accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name; see Sharing accounts below. Please note that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of username, and you should generally avoid editing articles with which you may have a conflict of interest. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's guide to editing with a conflict of interest." (end of quote) See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username_policy&diff=416604695&oldid=415695689
Note that my main critic took pride in insulting people, or gaining power, or having control over other editors indirectly, and that the word "personal interest" is just as easily substituted for "company interest". If an argument about usernames started today, that editor would refer to that policy to make it "appear" as if I went into Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting myself and was deliberately, blatantly, stupidly, and disruptively violating the Username policy and the COI policy, and then typically continue with words like this . . . "bye the way we've had discussion before, we've told him this in the past, this issue has already been dealt with before, and the entire wikipedia community has 'repeatedly' reminded him of his 'obligations' according to policy but he ust refuses to accept them.
|
They selectively criticise common practice
From the view of pure common sense I knew that millions of people would not have read all of the fine print of naming policy and would have chosen names based on their interests. For example if someone was interested in horses they might call themselves "horseman", or cars they might call themselves "carman" etc.
The following words were part of a discussion that my main critic recently edited . . .
We've got a rash of complaints over at COIN about people whose usernames are related to the subjects of their articles". WhatamIdoing 19:48, 1 March 2011
This is a quote from the arbitration page where I was banned . . . "I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome. WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009
See here and here
The following words are qutoes from the current Wikipedia Username policy as at 14:52 on 24-2-2011. . . "Use of a real name allows contributions to be more easily traced to an individual. This may make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as harrassment both on an off wikipedia. You should consider the benefits and drawbacks of making substantial contributions under your real name before doing so, especially if you plan on editing or discussing potentially controversial subjects in Wikipedia articles or on any of the associated project or talk pages. While it is possible to rename accounts (see Changing your username below), a record of the previous name will still exist." (end of quote) See here
|
Somatoform theories versus The Posture Theory
I began studying medicine to solve my own health problems, but only after consulting doctors for several years and not being able to get a useful diagnosis, or an effective treatment, and where the side effects of the prescribed medications were having a worse effect than the ailments.
I soon established that I had Da Costa's syndrome and knew that, if I wanted to learn any more I would have to do it myself, and in the longer term acquired enough general knowledge of medicine to become a medical critic.
I became aware that the psychiatric explanations were the most popular, and that if I discovered a physical cause that I wouldn't be popular with that profession, but I had to look in order to solve the problems.
I also knew that the educated man's way of defaming someone else's character without being prosecuted would be to create the illusion that there were genuine reasons for branding me as a psychiatric case, and that such a tactic would be used to silence me, or discredit me personally, instead of admitting that the older ideas were doubtful.
I managed to evade the defamatory aspects of that insidious tactic by publishing my articles and books without a photograph of my face, and without using my full name, and hence published with the byline of M.A.Banfield. The only people who knew anything about me were my close friends, and the editors or journalists who I actually met, or the doctors who were offended by my ideas and put me on the equivalent of the Wikipedia watchlist to discredit or block anything I wrote.
As most mainstream newspapers had medical editors I generally chose to send my articles to non-mainstream, or alternative health publications where they were readily accepted.
I joined Wikipedia about thirty years later, and some months after that I began assisting an email correspondent to write an accurate summary of my theory so that it could be included as one of it's topics. The article progressed smoothly with the simple and non-controversial statement that poor posture strains the spine to cause backaches, and compressed the chest to cause chest pains breathlessness, and fatigue, and the stomach to cause stomach pain. I also included a few other details to support that simple, logical, and perfectly sensible set of ideas.
Obviously nobody could object to that, so I was becoming confident that Wikipedia was different to mainstream publications insofar as it was compiled by the public, rather than the professions, so I decided to make one small change to the introduction so that it became . . .
'The Posture Theory is a concept used to explain why many people experience a variety of backaches, chest and stomach pains, and other symptoms without any particular diagnoses.
Previously, the symptoms has been regarded as the imaginary complaints of those with hypochondria, because there was no x-ray evidence of disease. |
Of course the article then became a challenge to at least 100 years of other medical theories about 'psychological' cause.
Within the next 24 hours six editors came rushing to the page to recommend it's immediate deletion.
The following comments were obviously just excuses that editors were using to evade admitting that they had a conflict of interest, in protecting their own views from challenge, and were possibly co-ordinated by one editor, or one group of associated editors, and were all made within an 8 hour period as follows . . .
21:13, 28 November 2007, an editor named JFW set up a page called "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The posture theory"
and wrote these words . . . "Theory of health promulgated by one author in one book. Not recognised by health scientists in general. Limited support from authoritative sources (no results on PubMed beyond the 1980 paper)
21:35, Speedy delete Martijn Howkstra wrote "copyright violation, simple refactoring"
21:40 Delete Blanchardb wrote "original research edited by single-purpose account. Speedy if copyvio is confirmed
21:46, Speedy delete Ten Pound Hammer wrote "copyvio"
21:47, Delete Tim Ross wrote Speedy or slow. Non-notable in any case"
00:38, 29 November 2007 Barian wrote "WP:FRINGE, WP:OR" (which means that in his opinion it violated the fringe theory and original research policies.
3:13 Delete Sombguy wrote "one guys theory"
4:50, Delete Masterpiece wrote "per nomination"
I spent the next week answering their questions in a polite and matter-of-fact manner, and explained that the editor who wrote the article had my permission to do so, and was therefore not violating my copyright. I was then asked to prove, and verify that I actually did write a 1000 page book, and that I actually had been a research programme designer and co-ordinator at a formal research institute, and I gave dates and phones numbers of newspaper articles etc to establish notability according to their requirements.
Ultimately I had met every one of their policy requirements for keeping the article, but, of course, they just didn't want it, so suddenly, a new editor entered the discussion and closed it without an explanation, and left this comment . . .
1:45, 5 December 2007, Close discussion:Delete Fang Ail wrote "The result was Delete." See here
I was offered the general opportunity to appeal the decision, but I wasn't particularly interested in more discussions of that nature, and certainly wasn't in any hurry to change that decision, so I started looking for other articles to contribute to.
As you would expect, the perfectly logical process would be to consider subjects that I knew a lot about, and to simply look through the Wikipedia topics to find if there was anything that I knew, that nobody else knew, or had bothered contributing to.
I suppose I thought of 20 or more possibilities and started searching to see what already existed and what didn't, and i soon found an extremely small, completely neglected subject called Da Costa's syndrome, which I had been interested in for 30 years, so I started writing about it.
7:39, 9 December I made my first contribution to that topic, and then made another fourteen up until 6:10 on 18 December without any problems.
21:16, 18 December my main critic made a contribution (but had also made some very minor contributions to the page before I started).
5:42, 19 December an editor named Arcadian made the first of ten edits in one day and only contributed one more a few days later and none since then.
However, during that week he started making normal and useful contributions but at . . .
6:04, 19 December he edited another Wikipedia page called "ICD-10 Chapter V:Mental and behavioural disorders" and added some labels to section F45 (Somatoform disorders), and F45.0 (Somatization disorder). The new labels included . . .
"Briquet's disorder
"Multiple psychosomatic disorder
(F45.1) Undifferentiated somatoform disorder
(F45.2) Hypochondriacal disorder
Hypochondriacal neurosis
Hypochondriasis
Nosophobia
(F45.3) Somatoform autonomic dysfunction
Cardiac neurosis
Da Costa's syndrome
Gastric neurosis
Neurocirculatory asthenia
(F45.4) Persistent somatoform pain disorder
Psychalgia
(F45.8) Other somatoform disorders
(F45.9) Somatoform disorder, unspecified
(F48.) Other neurotic disorders
(F48.0) Neurasthenia" (end of list)
In other words the editor named Arcadian had obviously read my website, and my theory about poor posture being a real cause of real symptoms, and was doing the groundwork for a counter argument against me by adding more than a dozen labels which can be used to argue that the symptoms have various imaginary or psychological causes. Most of them were essentially just modern jargon for hypochondria. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICD-10_Chapter_V:_Mental_and_behavioural_disorders&diff=178897612&oldid=167828720
6:04, 19 December He went back to the Da Costa's page and added the concepts of neuroses and post-war syndromes to the text, and added some references about the psychiatric theories.
6:20, 19 December He added an information box to the top right hand side of the Da Costa's page with links to ICD-10 F45.3, and ICD-9 306.2.
6:36, 19 December He edited the Da Costa's page and deleted the link to my website where I provided a logical explanation for a postural cause.
6:37, 19 December he added the following words to the text "now classified under 'somatoform autonomic dysfunction'" See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=178900911
00:03, 20 December
My second critic joined the discussion for the first time and transferred the word "Soldier's heart" from the "See also" section at the bottom of the page, all the way up to the first sentence on the page to give it prominence. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=178900911
22:29, 22 December Arcadian added comment about "Mental and behavioral disorders (F 290-319) at the bottom of the page, and included a link to the Wikipedia page called "Emotional and behavioral disorders". The following words are a quote from the first sentence "Emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is a broad category which is used commonly in educational settings, to group a range of more specific perceived difficulties of children and adolescents."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=179354385
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_and_behavioral_disorders
My comment: My two critics continued to criticise me relentlessly for 12 months until I was banned, but Arcadian simply disappeared from the discussion so I didn't notice, or look into any details to see what he had done, until about two years after I was banned. I became curious to know where all of the 'somatoform" and "somatization" labels had come into Wikipedia, and searched through his history of edits. It was a simple matter of going back to the date I started on the topic, namely 9-12-07, and checking the relevent edits of that period.
I then noticed the co-incidence of him adding the large list of "somatoform" related labels to the ICD-10 page, and then introduced them into the Da Costa's page where my two critics could continue to seed them and the innuendo's into the topic page, and all of the talk pages about my " behavior", and essentially target me to defame and discredit me and my theory. They were essentially tossing psychiatric labels at the topic and me as if they were grains of wheat being thrown against a barn wall, and as they are so fond of "colloquial" expressions, I will give them one . . . 'they were throwing so much of "it" at me in the hope that some of "it" would stick'. (The basic argument is that undetectable illnesses are caused by anxiety, but if the patient isn't anxious they need another idea so the say he is depressed, but if he is neither anxious or depressed they still have dozens of other arguments that they can use in the hope of convincing everyone else that the cause is psychological. They also use modern jargon such as somatoform to replace the old word hypochondria so that the public don't know what they are talking about anyway).
Of course, I naturally became curious about Arcadian and checked his Userpage and found that he was a medical student, which means a "teenager", possibly as young as fifteen years old when he joined, and he was getting his knowledge in one day, from a list, and he was flexing his young intellectual wings by trying to argue against me, a mature, emotionally stable adult, who is old enough to be his father. Perhaps he would have had more chance if he had joined forces with another teenager with the grandiose ID of Arbiteroftruth, another adolescent student, of journalism, who became confused by all of the ranting and prattling of my two critics because he didn't bother to check the facts.
See Arcadian's Userpage here and Arbiteroftruth's retraction of his mistake here
Note the three pronged nature the process where Arcadian went to the Da Costa's page and deleted the link to information about a postural cause, and literally flooded another page with 17 different psychological explanations that had not been in Wikipedia before, and then linked that information to the Da Costa's topic.
Also note that, at the time, Arcadian was acting as a deletionist by deleting information about my theory. However, by complete contrast he was using this quote from Jimbo Wales as the main principle governing his editing practices . . .
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” -- Jimbo Wales" (end of quote)
Arcadian, that may be a very good principle, and even an excellent prinicple, but it is definitely NOT what you are doing. That is what I WAS doing, and had been doing for thirty years.
Finally, I should mention that the Posture Theory demonstrates that there is more than one way of explaining a large number of previously 'undetectable' and 'unexplained' symptoms, and that the people who need to be criticised are those who are trying to argue that poor posture doesn't cause 'undetectable' symptoms, or that 'every' undetectable illness is trivial or imaginary, or that 'every' person with 'undetectable' illness has a psychological problem.
It is quite stupid and futile, and bad for the doctor patient relationship to try and convince patients who are not anxious that their sypmptoms are caused by anxiety, or that their real symptoms are imaginary.
|
Miscellaneous essays
My
two critics were making a mockery of research and science
My two critics systematically deleted
all information about the scientific discoveries of the physical
basis for four of the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome and
systematically replaced it with words such as "considered"
to be an anxiety disorder, and "classified" as a non-psychotic
mental disorder, and "interpreted" or "imprecisely
characterised" as a post-war syndrome. They were essentially
making 100 years of science subordinate to their own personal
opinions and have the cheek to argue with me. Their problem is
that they don't think clearly enough to recognise the difference
between the value of "proven scientific facts",
and the value of considerations, characterisations, interpretations,
impreciseness, and a motley assortment of other unprovable "opinions".
For example, the typical pain in
the lower left side of the chest can be relieved by an injection
of provocaine, but if the injection is given in the wrong place
or at the wrong depth it won't relieve the pain, which identifies
it's precise location, and that the pain is real, and that the
benefit of the injection is not due to the placebo effect. I
concluded that it was due to the pressure on the ribs caused
by poor posture, which is a perfectly 'reasonable', 'sensible'
and 'logical' theory that my two 'ignorant' critics describe
as 'fringy' 'nonsense' that isn't evident in the 'real'
medical literature. However, Paul Wood said it was a possibility, independently of me, 20
years earlier, and he was a world renown authority
on the subject, and he was reflecting
the general statements in the medical literature that the relation
to 'constitutional factors' such as 'physique' was 'obvious',
'common', 'unmistakable', and 'easily seen' etc. Paul Wood also 'considered'
the 'possibility' that it could be due to constant anxiety straining
the respiratory muscles, so some people interpret it as a psychosomatic
pain, and classify it as part of an anxiety disorder etc.
I provided the scientific facts and the interpretations,
but my two critics deleted the facts and objected
to using this portrait of the typical physique of Da Costa's patients.
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214
|
Wikipedia and Da Costa's syndrome
I started providing Wikipedia with some information about Da Costa's syndrome on December 9th 2007, and added a link to another Wikipedia article about Fainting Rooms at 23:46 on 28 Dec 2007 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=180594412.
This is a quote from the second paragraph of that page . . .
"It was fashionable for Victorian women to have a perfect hourglass figure; moreover, to achieve this outcome, many wore corsets that would cinch their waist, squeezing their ribs and internal organs. This could lead to many health problems, the most common being dizziness and fainting."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fainting_room&diff=prev&oldid=172433441
However, as I continued contributing I had two critics who were deleting almost every word I wrote, and at 4:53 on 15 January 2010, about a year after I was banned, you will notice that an anonymous editor (id 69.138.46.82) removed those words
They deleted that small paragraph without giving a reason, so you can draw your own conclusions about who that anonymous editor was, and why they deleted it. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fainting_room&diff=prev&oldid=337941511 |
The
Misuse of Policy by my two critics
When I was involved in disputes with my
two critics it became obvious that they were not being honest,
and were not being sensible, reasonable, or co-operative, and
were not using or interpreting policies properly, but were simply
using them as their excuse to dictate the content of the page.
For example, when I referred to my own
research studies they said that I was violating 'conflict of
interest' policy, and when I started using papers by Paul Dudley
White, and Cohen etc that were in my filing cabinet from thirty
years ago, they said that I was violating 'original research'
policy because the references were from my own filing cabinet?????.
When they linked the top line of the article to a 'novel'???
I became curious about why they were using 'fiction' for a medical
article, so I read it and found it to be a children's fiction
novel. When I told them that it was not appropriated to use childrens
fiction as a link they argued that I shouldn't do that because
it was a violation of 'original research' policy for me to read
and, in their words 'interpret' the childrens story????, I didn't
even have to interpret it because all I said was that there was
nothing in it about the symptoms, and asked them to give me page
numbers if they thought there was, but of course they couldn't.
When they left me with no other option
but to write the history of the subject they deleted everything
on the grounds that 'history' could only be written on the basis
of another persons view of history published in the most recent
five years??? Of course with that interpretation of policy they
don't need intelligent and knowledgeable adults to help them
improve Wikipedia, because all they need is themselves, or ten
year old children who can paraphrase encyclopedia Britannica.
This is what another editor named North8000
wrote . . . "Abut 50% of nearly every article, per the Wikipedia
definition of OR (original research), although it is not actually
OR per the obvious 'outside of Wikipedia' meaning of that term
. . . The
issue is that an unrealistic (e.g. widely 'violated' ) rule can
be selectively invoked to wreck/ attack any article , and create
unwikipedian articles.Sincerely,
North8000 1:31, 21 March 2010 |
Revenge or Spite ?
On 27-1-09 I made this
statement on the DCS talk page . . . "Gordonofcartoon .
. . note that WhatamIdoings qualifications are self-described here[44] in particular WhatamIdoing is not a healthcare
professional and have no plans to become one" . . . and
is "typically useless in cardiology" and "can
contribute at a very basic level, such as copy editing or reviewing
sources" . . . and . . . If it's important . . . WhatamIdoing"can become an "instant expert"on more
or less any narrow subject". . . Posturewriter (talk) 10:08,
27 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter . . . My words can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266720727&oldid=266717167
and the original statement by WhatamIdoing
was made at 5:55 on 23-10-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=247115577&oldid=247067496
The next day, On 28-1-09 Moreschi made this statement . . . "Posturewriter
is banned. Apologies for not getting round to this sooner".
Moreschi (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266982962&oldid=266980099
Three months later on 8-5-2009 WhatamIdoing wrote
these words to Moreschi . . . "A long overdue thanks . .
. ''The Outlaw Halo Award''' . . . I saw this just now
and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community
that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to
tear my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter|a
disruptive, self-proclaimed
subject-matter expert]] in
January. [[User:WhatamIdoing]]
23:41, 8 May 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
Note that when an editor makes a claim
about what someone else was supposed to have written they are
supposed to provide a link to verify that they actually wrote
it, so I provided a link to verify that WhatamIdoing did actually
claim to be an "instant expert". However, when WhatamIdoing
said that I was a 'self-proclaimed subject matter expert"
I can't recall ever saying that, and WhatamIdoing did not provide
a link, and it is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I cannot recall ever referring to myself
as a subject matter expert, but here are some words by WhatamIdoing
that were addressed to me in a discussion about Da Costa's syndrome
. . . "Posturewriter
. . . I'm asking for your personal opinion, as a relevant expert
in this area" signed Whatamidoing 18:44, 15th July 2008 |
To
Copy the EDIT WAR methods of my two critics
I went into Wikipedia to add useful information
but soon found myself getting insulted and criticised all the
time, and it wasn't until after I was banned by a RULE-BREAKING
editor that I was able to look back and examine their EDITORIAL
BEHAVIOR. They used a variety of tactics but mainly one SIMPLE
method that could be called a TEXT-BOOK PERFECT edit war method
as follows.
Step 1. Identify any new contributor who
adds information that was contrary to the existing editors personal
opinion.
Step 2. Join together with one or more
of your friends and do everything to inflame the "newbie"
by deleting everything they add, and by accusing them of violating
every policy possible, and by insulting them, and deliberately
bait, goad and provoke them for weeks, months, or longer until
they lose their temper and respond with foul language etc.
Step 3. While you are insulting them hundreds
of times, patiently wait until they respond in any sort of minor
uncivil way, and record each occasion on a list until you have
two or three examples.
Step 4. Tell all of the other editors that
the newbie has REPEATEDLY violated WP:CIVIL policy and ask them
to ban him.
Step 5. Delete all of the pages and all
of the information that has information contrary to the existing
editors point of view, and that shows all of the evidence that
they were the ones who started the edit war.
*******
On the POV/Civil/Pushing page WhatamIdoing
admitted to using "attitude readjustment tools" against
me, but had failed to have any effect. (attitude readjustment
tools are used to inflame and provoke an uncivil response - see
LART). However in the same section on the same day WhatamIdoing
then acted as if the edit war hadn't already started, and that
it may be necessary in the near future with this suggestion .
. . "I can team up with other disgusted editors to be so
mean and rude to the SPA that he leaves in disgust" signed
WhatamIdoing 2:25
18th May 2008
The same two editors continued to systematically
insult, bait, and goad me for several months but they still failed
to provoke me into responding with the type of foul language
that could get me banned. However, their constant insults were
also aimed at making me look stupid in the eyes of other editors,
so I had to let them know that I wasn't prepared to tolerate
their nonsense indefinitely, so on one occasion I wrote an essay
about their tactics, and on another occasion described them as
acting as if they were apes beating their chests. They immediately rushed in to charge me with incivility and get me banned with these words . . . . "he had openly
flouted WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL with an extended userspace
attack on two
editors called The Motivations,
Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics, and inflammatory language
like editor X's"web of deceit"
and "juvenile duplicity" and editor Y"swinging through the wiki trees beating his
breast and yelling his typical bark". signed Gordonofcartoon
16:57 3rd February 2009.
Note that they deliberately and incessantly
insulted and provoked me for twelve months and yet only found
3 examples of objective and mild responses that they exaggerated,
and they pretended to be heroically defending
two other editors named editor
X and editor Y, but they were actually just defending themselves. The reason that
they had to defend themselves was because, as they acknowledged,
most of the other
editors and administrators had been
telling them that they were making a big fuss about nothing. In fact, the comments that I made
were very mild compared to the type of extreme hostility that
I have seen between other editors discussing other topics such
as politics. Hence, my two critics had been essentially told
to stop complaining
about nothing and try to work toward
consensus. Of course, they had absolutely no intention of doing
that, and were going to keep criticising me until they found
someone to ban me. That process violates the policy of forum shopping which says that you have to accept decisions against
you, and you can't just keep on going relentlessly from one group
of editors to another until you get the outcome you want.
My two
critics were complaining like this . . . "But what response
do we get from the
broader community? We get responses
that add up to 'Y'all play nice now. 'It's a content dispute
you should 'work for a consensus' " . . . and . .
. "you get admins looking at this and saying stuff to the effect
of "Oh, I
don't see anything here that really constitutes an attack or
serious incivility" . . .
and . . . "he's not particularly rude so why bother blocking
him" (end of quotes). See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=
272385511&oldid=271706431#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome |
To copy my two critics
editing practices more accurately you should always combine
their basic text-book perfect method with all of their other
styles. e.g. you could write in an authoritative, or even pompous and condescending tone to give the impression
that you have the advantage of knowledge and experience and are
giving advice to naive individuals who have difficulty understanding
the meaning of simple words like 'co-operate', 'consensus', or
'stupid'. You can also combine with one or more of your friends to edit as a tag team and falsely claim consensus for every decision, and to conduct edit wars where your
opponent can be called the Luser, and you can use 'attitude
readjustment tools' (LART) to annoy or provoke them into
a hostile retaliation. You can also substitute the words
"we think this" for "I think this", and the
word "behavior" for "editing", and
then exaggerate your own influence with this type of writing
. . . ''We the entire Wikipedia community of respectable
rule-abiding editors are thoroughly disgusted with WhatamIdoing's
disruptive behaviour', . . . and then, of course, accuse
them of a dozen different policy violations so that it looks
as if they are unco-operative and evil ugly monsters called trolls
who live in underground dwellings or caves. If the slightest
doubt is shed on one of your accusations you can keep on chanting
. . . 'but what about all of the others . . . we need to nuke
this sucker now'. You
also need to keep telling them that they must obey all
the rules, but never tell them that you will be ignoring all
the rules any time you want. It was their devious way of
gaining a furtive one-sided advantage in disputes that
should have been decided responsibly and ethically by merit.
*******
In a second classic example
that I have discussed more fully in another section of this web page, Gordonofcartoon added these words
. . . 'Do we want to Up the Ante', . . . so I replied . . . 'would you like me to teach you a lesson that you
won't forget in a hurry', . . . and almost immediately,
at 18:16 on 20th July 2008, he started
trying to convince the other editors that it was an example of me making an
unprovoked personal threat???? with this accusation . . .
"Evidence of
disputed behavior - 5. Unspecified threat - 'By way of gratitude would you to like
me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry'".
Needless to say that Gordonofcartoon was hoping to hide his words "Do we want to up the ante", so that
I wouldn't be able to locate them and show the other editors
that he deliberately provoked the response. He also lied to deceive
them when he called it 'unspecified'.
Gordonofcartoon
was an expert at defeating his own arguments. For example, when
he accused me of being uncivil for saying that he was swinging
through the wiki trees and beating his own breast, he was also
describing his own 'incivility' six months earlier, at 11:31
on 4th August 2008 when he said that I was 'thumping the same
polemical tub"!!!! |
|
"STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES
MOUTH"
The
real meaning of the phrase
(it
does not mean 'go straight to a person in authority to get the
truth' as defined in many dictionaries)
The phrase actually refers
to the idea that a person should not wait around while other
people pedantically nitter and natter about a problem, but should
look for the answers themselves in the OBVIOUS PLACES © 10-5-09 M.B. That definition is derived from an old story something
like the one below from 1432, and probably also before then,
and will always be a useful self-evident truth, now, and in the
future. Essentially it means, in modern English, that if you
want to know the number of teeth in a horses mouth, and the 'so-called'
'experts' can't find the answer in their books, and they don't
or can't know, or don't want to know, or if it is inconvenient
for them to find the answers, then you will be wasting your time
waiting for the answer etc., so just go and find a horse and
open it's mouth and count them yourself.
"In the year of our Lord 1432, there
arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of
teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation
raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were
fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was
never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the
beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing
asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and
straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep
wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner
coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse
and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity
being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining
in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and
thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan
hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of
ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers.
After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat
on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to
be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical
and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down."
Reference: Mees, C. E. K. (1934). Scientific thought and social reconstruction.
Electrical Engineering, 53, 383-384. (A quote from Francis Bacon (1592)
?) |
From Machiavelli
Thirty years ago, after I discussed my theory with a professional researcher, he said something like this . . . 'Come over here to my bookshelves for a moment, there is something in the back of one of these books that I would like you to see. Oh yes. Here it is' . . . The following words from Machiavelli apply to many things, not just new ideas.
"And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only the lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the fear of adversaries who have the laws on their side and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who will never admit the merit of anything new, until they have seen it proved by the event."(end of quote)
My two critics think that their criticism of me is heroic. I think they are pathetic. Neither of them has done any real research of their own.
Problem solving statistics
Don't tell other people your problems. 30% don't care, 30% are glad, 30% will see it as a disadvantage that they can use when they plot and scheme against you, 5% will laugh at your attempts to solve a problem that no-one else can solve, and the other 5% are useless fools who have already tried and failed, and are desperately looking for a scapegoat. M.B.
|
My two predictable
and amusing critics
(for double standards or reference section)
When I was contributing to Wikipedia I
noticed that I had two critics who would make "weird",
"odd", "bizarre", or "irrational"
criticisms. For example they would say that a 1951 reference
was an unreliable source of information for the "history"
section of an article. To compound their problem I had a look
at other medical topics where there were many examples of "old"
references that were sometimes used to support modern accounts
of topics, and some were provided by my two critics, and when
they deleted my "old" references, because they were
"old", they would replace them with their own references
which included "old" articles - sometimes from exactly
the same years that I used, and sometimes they used some of my
"old" references. For another example, their article
about Da Costa's syndrome did not use J.M.Da Costa's 'old' 1871
research paper, so I added it, and they kept it, because it would
be impossible to write about the topic 'properly' without that
one hundred and forty year 'old' reference.
However, to save myself the trouble of
getting into an argument about their obvious hypocrisy and double
standards, and being accused of "tendencious" editing
- again and again???, I simply spent a couple of weeks looking
for some "new" references that were published in the
past five years, even though the term Da Costa's syndrome has
not been in common use for thirty years. Essentially what "always"
happened was that within five minutes, or five hours of me adding
anything they found ten different policy reasons for deleting
everything, until they arranged for me to be banned me on the
trumped up grounds that I was using unreliable sources of information
and "tendencious" editing??????? |
My critics use of children's stories
The editor named WhatamIdoing often referred to children's themes or myths during various discussions, and actually moved a link to a children's fiction novel to the top of the Da Costa's medical topic by using 'hatnote' policy.
Another example of that editor using childrens themes is one from the bugs bunny TV show and can be seen below, and was extracted from a discussion with other editors about WikipediaTalk page guidelines.
"I'm reminded of the old bit of animation. Bugs Bunny reads a book about the feeding preferences of the Tasmanian Devil: "Aardvarks, Ants, Bears, Boars, Cats, Bats, Dogs, Hogs, Elephants, Antelopes, Pheasants, Ferrets, Giraffes, Gazelles, Stoats, Goats, Shoats, Ostriches, Lions, Jackals, Muscrats, Minks, Dingoes, Zebras, Foxes, Boxes, Octopus, Penguins, People, Warthogs, Yaks, Gnus, Newts, Walrus, Wildebeests... What, no rabbits?" -- and the Tasmanian Devil, turning the page for him, declares, "And especially rabbits!"
Assuming that editors will always "turn the page" is simply not safe. Many editors look into pages like this only when they are looking for a single sentence that they can quote out of context to "win" a dispute. We should avoid handing them misleading soundbites." WhatamIdoing 05:33, 21 April 2010 - in the fifth last comment in the section here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines
&diff=prev&oldid=357355024#Altering_what_other_people_write
Given that editors apparent interest in such things I would like to introduce them to a story that they apparently haven't read yet, about the young shepherd who cried wolf here http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html
It is relevant to any editor who tells lies about Wikipedia policy in order to gain an advantage in arguments. One day that editor might tell the truth to get out of trouble and no-one will take them seriously.
|
A
TEST FOR STUDEDNTS OF "MEDIA STUDIES", "APPLIED HISTORY", SOCIOLOGY, AND "INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM".
No.1
The term 'in-depth' journalism implies the quality and reliability of an article, but, as you can appreciate, some people will be given 'one-sided' reports of an event, and will then be shown 'supposedly' 'independent' and 'reliable' evidence, and a photo or video etc, which convinces them of it's truth within a few minutes. The shallow journalist won't bother to go any further, but the thorough journalist will look at, and consider all of the evidence from all angles. I have looked at all angles of Da Costa's syndrome (for example), which is why I was confident at dealing with all arguments - I've looked at the evidence, and I've considered the opinions, and mentioned most of them, but my critics removed all of the information that I 'know', and left behind only the bits and pieces that make their motives, and their ideas look good. They want you to 'believe' them, but I want you to assess the facts from an 'in depth' perspective.
My two critics in Wikipedia were trying to
convince all of the other editors that my contributions to the
Da Costa's syndrome page were based on references that were trivial
and poor quality, and in that process they argued that one of
them had supposedly been written by 'Sir James MacKenzie' who, in their opinion, was just an ordinary doctor who
joined a society,"showed
up at a meeting", and read
his paper, which was then printed in the society's Proceedings.
In another example they were referring to a book written by Harvard professor Paul Dudley White, which they described as an outdated "1951 textbook",
and with a further reference they said that I was blathering on
about Harvard professor Oglesby Paul, who they
described as "this
guy" who just wrote a routine
review. e.g. see here and here, and here and here and here.
Your test will be to write an essay on
those comments, and you can mark it out of 100 yourself, in the
following manner. 20 points for reading references 1, 2, 9, and
23 in full, and naming those three authors and doing brief summaries
of their information. Add 20 points for researching and summarising
the qualifications, relevance, and significance of the authors.
Add 20 points for reading references 7 and 24. Add 20 points
for writing your assessment of the quality of those references,
and another 20 points for assessing why my critics would want
to misrepresent them and their information. The references can
be found in the list here
Media studies students test no. 2
1. Look at the small volume of information
on the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome page that was
available before I started on the Da Costa's Syndrome page in
December 2007 and note that there were only five references and
that none of them were numbered or linked to the text for verificaton.
The article had been there for 3 years. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=175682466&oldid=175647909
See also here
AND here where, at 22:05, 15 May 2008, WhatamIdoing gave this opinion . . . "the "cardiac" DCS symptoms look strikingly like postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Physical_v_psychosomatic
2. How many times did anonymous editors
contribute to the Postural
Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome page between December 2007 and December 2008. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&limit=500&action=history
3. How many times did WhatamIdoing edit
it during that period. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&limit=500&action=history
4. Comment on this question; Should the
anonymous contributors be blocked from the topic until they have
provided a proper Wikipedia ID, and discussed any COI issues.
5. What was the photo of several dozen
colorful tablets put there for, or left there for??? - write
your own assesment of the reasons . . . see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=268159600
. . . and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=268160372
. . . and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=286159089&oldid=286158866#Medications
. . . and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WhatamIdoing&diff=266425204&oldid=266219728
6. What is the relationship between the
two syndromes. Note that one of the most common names for Da
Costa's syndrome was neurocirculatory asthenia, and then read
reference numbers 18, 37, and 38 here
7. According to my critics; references
for medical articles should not be original research by the contributor,
and should not be original research by one author, and should
only be "reviews" of multiple articles by independent
experts, and should only be from top quality peer reviewed journals,
and non-neutral sources, or should not be older than 5 years
or written by medical consumers etc., and none of the statements
in the text should be be there unless they have been properly
linked to verifiable references according to Wikipedia style
guidelines. According to my critics they should only contain
summaries of mainstream generally accepted and proven ideas from
modern text books and encyclopeidas or journals. Count the number
of references that fit all of those requirements on the Varicose
veins page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=285836582&oldid=285835992,
and on any two other medical pages of your choice, and compare
them to the references that I provided here
8. How would you assess the value of the
history section here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=286159089&oldid=286158866#History
9. Comment on the fact that section headings
are supposed to be standard to all medical articles, but there
are several on this page that are specific to the topic here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=286159089&oldid=286158866
. . . Check 3 other medical pages at random and comment on the
variety of tailor made section headings and include those in
your comment.
10.Give yourself ten points for reading
the links and answering each question, and 10 points for writing
an account on the EXTREME
DOUBLE STANDARDS applied to the
criticism of the Da Costa's page and this one, and two other
medical articles of your choice and make similar comparisons.
An example of the type of criticism of the DaCosta's page
can be seen by scrolling down to the page text here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880
. . . and by reading the discussions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosture
For more information see here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#POTSinfoTransfer
and here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#PlateOfPills
Media
studies students test no.3
The information that I
provided on DaCosta's syndrome in late January 2009 was deleted
several times and replaced with the text that was preferred by
my two critics and can be seen by scrolling down past the changes here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266506092&oldid=266482273.
Give yourself four points
for reading that page, and eight points for responding to each
of the following 12 requests or questions.
1. Count the number of
psychiatric labels in the text.
2. Count the number of
personality or psychological factors mentioned in (a) the reference
section, (b) in the title of the articles (c) in the title of
the journals, and (d) in the notes about the references.
3. Go to the lower left
hand side of the page to the categories section and click on
the link to somatoform disorders, and count the number of psychiatric
labels in the list.
4. Click on the link to
anxiety disorders and count the number in the list.
5 Go to the top right hand
side of the page and look at the box with the text of "classification
and external resources" and click on the link to ICD-10
F45.3 and count the psychiatric lables in that list.
6. Click on the link to
ICD-9 306.2 and count the psychriatric labels on that list
7. Add all of the totals
and write down the grand total of those labels.
8. Note that before I started
adding content to the page in early December 2007 there was only
one psychiatric label in the text . . . "anxiety disorder"
. . . and only one category with the same label . . . see the
8-12-07 page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_disorder&diff=176553856&oldid=176323327
9 Note that many of the
links lead to large lists of labels, where Da Costa's syndrome
is only one, somewhere in the middle of a large page, and then
consider the following facts and read the links . . .
(a) According to Wikipedia
WP:NPOV "Article Structure" policy . . . "Be alert to arrangements of formatting, headers,
footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor a particular
"side" of an issue, and to structural or stylistic
aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly
and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related
viewpoints" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=288163547#Article_structure
. . .
(b) "Undue
Weight" policy . . . "Keep
in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's
prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among
Wikipedia editors" . . .
(c) Also note WP:MEDRS policy . . . "History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)&diff=280101242&oldid=280088220#Use_up-to-date_evidence
. . .
10. Write a brief essay on the appropriateness
of linking to all of the categories and labels, and if Wikipedia
policy should be changed
(a) to require editors to be more precise,
and decide which of the lists is most appropriate, and only show
the relevent word in the relevent line
(b) to restrict the number of lists to
one, and the maximum number of labels in that list to five.
11. Consider that I provided more than
60 references which were top quality, reliable, independent,
verifiable sources according to Wikipedia policy, and that I
added the reference to J.M.DaCosta's original 1871 article, and
gave brief accounts of the reviews of the history of Da Costa's
syndrome by (a) Sir James MackKenzie in 1916, (b). Sir Thomas
Lewis 1919, (c).Paul Dudley White of Harvard Medical School,
(d) Paul Wood O.B.E., (e) Oglesby Paul of Harvard, and (f) Charles
Wooley articles on the history in 1976, 1990, 2002, and 2006.
The references are listed here
12. In the past 130 years there have been
more than 100 labels and theories for Da Costa's syndrome and
many heated arguments and controversies. Write an essay on the
objectivity, neutrality, and accuracy of the history that I provided
and compare it with the history provided by my critics.
Media
studies students test no.4
As they say; You
cannot judge a book by it's cover.
For example, a
tall strong healthy looking man may have a brain tumor and six
months to live.
A person with Da
Costa's syndrome may look fit and be able to walk for several
miles at a casual pace, but they will not be able to sprint,
or climb steep hills like a healthy person, which is evident
from the fact that there are not many physiological abnormalities
at rest, but as the level of exercise increases, the level of
physiological abnormalities increases.
The Da Costa's
syndrome page that my critics provided after banning me contained
the following statement ""a physical examination does
not reveal any physiological abnormalities"
At a physical examination
a doctor looks at the color of your skin, feels the temperature
of your forehead, and presses his finger on your wrist to measure
your pulse. Those are 3 tests. You will score 40 points if you
read references number 1,2,3,16,24, and 28. You will score an
additional 40 points if you look through the other references
or do your own search to find a total of 20 physical tests for
DCS. e.g. Orthostatic Hypotension refers to changes in blood
pressure when a person stands up suddenly. If those words are
in the title it would be one of the clues where to look.
As you can see, I have
previously added information about the physiological abnormalities
from properly referenced reliable sources here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266273949&oldid=262846727,
so my critics were fully aware of them.
You will score an additional
10 points if your write a few paragraphs to explain why my critics
deleted the information, and later claimed that there were no
physiological abnormalities. You can have another 10 points if
you suggest two or more possibilities. The references
can be found in the list here |
|
Damned if you do and damned if you don't (my age and experience advantage)
One of the strategies that my two critics used was to always write about me in a deliberately overbearing and patronising tone which I can paraphrase to make clear . . .
"We the great experienced gurus of Wikipedia 'know' that you, the 'not very valuable' 'newbie', are 'struggling' to 'understand' the 'demands' of the 'many, many', 'very, very, very', and 'most, most, most' 'complex' aspects of our 'little ' policies, so why don't you stop 'upsetting yourself' and leave Wikipedia and do things that will be a much 'happier' 'hobby' for 'your type of person'. Alternatively you might like to spend some time 'proving' to 'us' that you are 'capable' of 'working co-operatively', with 'other editors' by using 'our' 'special' 'random article link', and fixing little spelling errors on pages about 'rare Patagonian butterflies'."
What they didn't want the readers to know, for obvious reasons, was that they were both at least ten years younger than me. In fact I was so confident at dealing with their 'inappropriate' 'attitude' that I didn't feel any need to bother with them, but after about eight months I noticed that their 'attitude problem' was becoming infectious and that other editors were starting to act the same way.
In fact several editors reported that I was "generally polite . . . and . . . mostly remained calm throughout this protracted affair". One editor advised them that I appeared to be very intelligent and well educated, and that it was inappropriate for them to be using such patronising tones, and that their offensive attitude may turn out to be a big mistake that gets them into serious trouble. Nevertheless, none of the other editors threatened to ban them for telling lies, for having disgusting double standards, or for being arrogant, patronising and rude.
As they say, sometimes you have to do everything yourself so I had to do something to stop them from being offensive, otherwise all of the other editors would start treating me as if I was a fool and I would end up being banned anyway. re; the expression; 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't
I told them that they were both younger than me and that they should stop pretending to be older, and to stop beating their chests like a couple of apes swinging through the wiki trees. Naturally that sent them into a furious, and immature frenzy of revenge that didn't stop until they got one of their friends to ban me.
This is what I wrote shortly before one of their friends interupted a formal discussion and banned me. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid
=267259599#Statement_by_posturewriter
(As the story goes; If you keep on letting someone punch you in the face, and always turn the other cheek, eventually your neck will be twisted 360 degrees and your head will fall off - Wikipedia's civility policy sounds fair and reasonable, but only to reasonable people, and only if it is enforced on both sides. In the meantime, if my two critics were forced to discuss content, and not gossip about their opponents, they would be useless.)
Dilemma skill development
Some CFS patients develop skills at dealing with dilemmas because they often find themselves in situations where, no matter what they do, they will still be faced with problems. For example, if they are inexperienced at dealing with the symptoms and therefore always exhausted, they will be diagnosed as having fatigue caused by anxiety, but if they develop methods of managing their lifestyle so that they are relatively free of fatigue, and therefore appear to be healthy, they are likely to be told that their symptoms are 'trivial, or are 'imaginary', or that they are 'faking' etc.
They are essentially trapped because they have a health problem that no-one can cure, so they have to tolerate all of the different, and contradictory interpretations of their actions, and they have to deal with all of the criticism in a calm and orderly way.
As the saying goes, double edged arguments 'are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem'.
Doing nothing about a problem is not a practical option because nothing will change - but it sounds like a sensible idea to people who don't have the problem.
People with the chronic fatigue syndrome are often told that there is no scientific explanation for their symptoms, and that they are just complaining excessively about the sort of normal tiredness that everyone gets. They may also be told that they are just lazy, or that they are faking symptoms to get sympathy, or that it's just nerves, or that they are just worriers, or that they are just depressed or mentally ill, and their symptoms may be dismissed by ridicule with the use of various insulting labels such as 'yuppie flu'.
What those patients and the general public may not be aware of is that there are many people who spend a lot of their time inventing those labels and insults, and hiding, or denying, or deleting all of the scientific evidence which has been accumulated over the past 100 years.
While I was in Wikipedia I spent 12 months providing a description of the history of research into an ailment called Da Costa's syndrome. However, I had two critics who were systematically deleting all evidence about the scientific discoveries of physical causes, and, at same time, were filling the page with as many words, labels, and jargon as possible, such as 'anxiety disorder' 'post-war syndromes' 'post-traumatic stress disorder', 'psychosomatic disorder', 'mental illness' 'somatoform disorder' ' somatoform autonomic dysfunction', depression' ' responsibility', and even 'cowardice'.
They were also trying to hide the link between Da Costa's syndrome and the modern label of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
This webpage provides descriptions of how they did that, and it should make interesting reading to patients who have the chronic fatigue syndrome and wonder why they have so much trouble getting their ailment taken seriously.
|
|
The
complete version of the Da Costa's Syndrome Article that I prepared was Deleted from Wikipedia
and later posted on this website on 30-12-08 here
My age and experience advantage again.
As you can see when you read it, the information about my own research and theory has been deleted and not put back - as requested, and information from independent sources has been added to comply with policy, and secondary sources (or review articles), and modern sources have been added, as requested, and all are from top quality peer-reviewed medical journals to comply with the never ending series of policy requests, and the article was better than my critics according to a neutral editor, but they deleted it anyway. I was, as you can see, occupied with the task of complying with all content requirements, and wasn't going to read hundreds of pages about rules or guidelines because I was invited there to use common sense and good judgment, and I did, and I honestly expected some experienced administrators to come along and block or ban my two critics for being arrogant, rude, insulting, unco-operative, and disruptive, and for violating virtually all of the policies that I was aware of, but nobody did. I then waited until after I was banned to start looking for, and describing all of the evidence that they were telling lies etc, with the idea that someone inside Wikipedia would block them, but 15 months later, they are still editing. As the common saying goes 'why would I want to go back to an organisation that has such low standards that they would accept my two critics as members'. Also as they say, 'if you want something done, sooner or later you have to accept that you will need to do it yourself'. I don't want to criticise all of Wikipedia, but just say this. You have two holes in your Titanic.
Typical of their truth twisting
When I was told that information about my own theory and research took up too much space on the Da Costa's page I thought that it was a reasonable criticism and told them that I would be happy to abbreviate it, and when I did they became hostile and removed it again, so I didn't put it back. However, the following remark was made four months later, and is typical of them finding fault with everything I did and everything I wrote relentlessly. My courtesy and co-operation was portrayed as a 'clear admission' of violating 'original research policy', and 'conflict of interest policy'. . .
"Yes: here's Posturewriter saying he'd be "happy to abbreviate my theory to one paragraph of plain text if required" (emphasis added) -- a clear admission of WP:OR and WP:COI" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Break
Typical of their misrepresentation of facts and policies
They also had the remarkable cheek to put words and attitudes into the mouths of 1000's of other editors, and even put words into my mouth, when they were only giving their own personal opinions. A summary of their style could be represented like this . . . "We and our colleagues, and the entire Wikipedia community of rule-abiding editors are thoroughly disgusted with your behaviour, and we know that you are upset and angry with us, because we keep telling you about how our rules demand that we use our hatnotes, and that we can put flowering plants at the top of medical pages if we want to, even if they have nothing to do with the topic". (note that two uninvolved editors have deleted their hatnote and the link to a children's fiction novel called 'Soldier's heart)
See Gordonofcartoons comments about flowering plants, and a large volume of other ridiculous and offensive lies and nonsense, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Comments_on_the_novel_.E2.80.9CSoldier.E2.80.99s
_Heart.E2.80.9D
Also take into consideration, when reading those discussions, that one of them said how sorry they were for making me read a childrens story about the war.
However, they made those comments in order to create the impression that I was young and sensitive. They should have mentioned that I was older than both of them, and then apologised for being stupid, and for wasting my time. You will notice that they have not tried to annoy the uninvolved editors by demanding that they put their hatnote back.
Their behaviour can be summed up like this. They were always goading, baiting, and begging for an argument, and would rush off to get help from dozens of other editors after I occasionally responded with evidence that exposed their lies. They would insult me relentlessly on my user page for months, and when I replied with one line of criticism they would say . . . please don't put 'nasty' comments on their user page, or they will block me for 'edit warring'????.
I often wondered what type of immature fools would use words like "Aaarrrrrh', 'Ooops', 'Yep', and 'nasty', and then tell me that they had read a selection of ten children's stories, and were surprised that only one of them was worth their while????
Wicked witches, ugly monstors, ancient Greek gods, and the plotting and scheming and intrigues of other predictable yarns occupied much of their time.
|
From
the start to the finish
In December 2007, when
I first saw the page about Da Costa's syndrome I noticed that
it only contained four lines of text and no references,
and that it had been there for eighteen months, and was most
recently modified by an editor named WhatamIdoing. It
was no better than a photo copy of a dictionary entry, and the
amount of detail was not sufficient to distinguish it from a
dozen other ailments. It was the equivalent of describing the
Amazon jungle as "an area of land which has many trees and
animals and a large river". Such a description would be
useless at distinguishing the Amazon from the Congo, or from
an ordinary park in any country.
When I prepared an article on
the topic I added the details from papers written by physicians such as those
who had been Knighted for their contributions to medicine,
Harvard professors, and top international researchers. Some of the
references were books for specialists, and reviews in the Journal
of the American Medical Association etc.
However, I had two critics,
including the main one with the ID of "WhatamIdoing", and his sidekick named Gordonofcaroon, who described my references as unreliable sources
of information, and then deleted most of the article and replaced
it with a version that was not much better in quality than the
one I first saw. They were keeping the standard of Wikipedia
down to their own very low level. In fact, if they didn't read
the reference to Da Costa's original paper that I provided they
still would not actually know what they were talking about. See
the 2007 article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=165216444
On 15-7-08 my main critic left these remarks on my User talk page . . . "I'm
asking for your personal opinion as a relevant expert in this
area."
On 23-10-08 that person
wrote this reply to another editors question . . . "My interests
are probably too disorganised for you to bother with . . . I'm
not a healthcare professional and have no plans to become one
. . . If it's important I can become an 'instant expert' on more
or less any narrow subject, but organizing the general field
requires more than the bits and pieces of information that I
have."
On 27-1-09 the same individual
told the arbitrators this . . . "Initially, I didn't know
much about Da Costa's syndrome (DCS) and had some hope that we
might have a good editor involved"."
As you can see, my main critic admitted to not knowing much about Da Costa's syndrome from the start, and has read some
of the references that I provided, and asked for my personal
opinions, and now knows a small fraction of what I know. That
Is an example of imitation being the only form of flattery. |
Summary
My review of Wikipedia shows
that it now consists of some entrenched elitist editors whose
censorship of verifiable content makes it a biased and unreliable
source of information.
If you decide to criticise
those editors you need to recognise that the task will not be
a popularity contest and that your comments are likely to be
taken out of context and misrepresented or deleted, and your
pages can be blanked to hide the discussions, and the editors
can break all of the rules any time they want, and you will be
banned and subjected to the most offensive insults aimed at discrediting
you and your contributions.
Sticks and stones can break
your bones but words will only influence people who can be fooled
by words, labels, jargon, and spin.
Consider
the evidence, and don't believe the insults
1. I had two critics who were
doing 95% of the disruptive editing.
2. They had two main methods
(a) delete verifiable information that shed doubt on their opinions
and (b) delete or water down statistics for the same reason.
3. They were able to do it
because of (a) double standards in the interpretations of policy,
and (b) their knowledge and use of practices that rigged the
decision making processes in their favor (c) WP:IAR, the policy
that allows editors to ignore their own policies. |
