Criticism of two of Wikipedia's editors
(part 2) Da Costa's syndrome

Their lies, damned lies, and statistics, and their rule breaking practices, bad manners, and content manipulation

See some real and relevant statistics on how the teamed up against me here

The admissions made by my main Wikipedia critic

The only reliable truth that my main Wikipedia critic ever wrote was in the admission in the first sentence here. This is a quote from that persons exact words . . .
"Initially, I didn't know much about Da Costa's syndrome (DCS) and had some hope that we might have a good editor involved." (end of quote)

This is another set of truths admitted by the same editor . . .

"My interests are probably too disorganized for you to bother with keeping track of; they don't really line up neatly with a particular medical specialty . . .
I'm not a healthcare professional and have no plans to become one . . . . I'm typically useless in cardiology, dermatology, radiology, and surgery; by this statement I mean that I can contribute at a very basic level, such as copy editing or reviewing sources. 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. (end of quote) see here
The following words contain two of that editors ridiculous lies . . .

"I don't pretend to know everything, and if I don't have, or can't get, enough information, then I'll decline to stick my fingers in the middle of the pie." (end of quote) here

 

As you can see later that editor does pretend to know everything about every rule in Wikipedia, and every subject from cupcakes and muffins to major diseases, and every minute detail of medical research history for the past 140 years. e.g. See again here.

 

About the quality and reliability of my references

When I started editing that page it had no references at all, and only four lines of text, and within a year it had become a standard sized article supported by 65 top quality references including the original research paper from 1871 by Jacob Mendes Da Costa who the ailment was named after. Others included those by Sir James Mackenzie 1916, Sir Thomas Lewis 1919, Paul Dudley White, Harvard professor emeritus, 1951, and Paul Wood O.B.E.1956. etc.

My main critic managed to convince other editors and administrators that I was a worthless and stupid person who was using references which were unreliable because they were old, out-of-date, and from before most editors were born. See my report here.

That editor argued that all references must be from top quality journals which have been published in the most recent five years, and then used a children's fiction novel. When I read it and found that it was irrelevant and needed to be removed, other editors were told that I didn't know the difference between a reference and a link.

The editors and administrators who believed that individuals ridiculous lies, had joined Wikipedia to edit articles about opera, art, and baseball.

 

About my ideas and my critics in general

Many uneducated people start criticising my 1000 page book after reading the title and without knowing anything about the wide diversity of topics and concepts inside.

They also don't consider that the reason I did the research and wrote that book is because none of the conventional treatment methods were effective at controlling the ailments.

Most of my ideas are a lot more sensible, practical, and effective.

The only knowledge that some Wikipedia administrators had of the topic was gained after reading one small paragraph in a medical dictionary which would have taken them less than five minutes. e.g. see here

 

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 the childish edit war game tactics used by anonymous socially incompetent middle aged adults. 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 how that editor told lies to convince a young and naive editor to recommend harsh punishment against me here and here. See also 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 also 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 or are more likely to develop it than others. 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 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. Paul Wood has also written about the same topic in a chapter of his book published in 1956 where he presents a picture of the painting of a life-sized portrait of the typical patient showing their typical thin and stooped physique, and he mentions that the chest pain can be relieved by injecting a pain killing drug into an area of inflammation between the ribs in the lower left or right side of the chest. See my report on that chest pain 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 contributors, 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, almost 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 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, almost six months later, at 00:54 on 21st July 2009, that individual made these comments about me . . .

"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.

Again today, almost two years later, on 28-10-11, she made a direct response. She is still misrepresenting facts and telling blatant lies.

However before giving you an 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 that my main critic wrote about 2 years later, on 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 saying that I "now" have my own website, to deliberately create the false impression that I have started it since I was banned.

She is fully aware that I had my own website before joining Wikipedia as is evident two and a half years earlier at 20:34 on 8th February 2008, when she wrote these words . . . "Posturewriter, why don't you put all this up on your own website? It would be a more appropriate home for such specialized material." (end of quote) here.

She was also trying to recruit help from other editors by deliberately giving the false impression that I was trying to harm Wikipedia, when in fact I have never wanted to do that. I have been focusing on the fact that she and her team mate have been telling lies, often for the purpose of turning everyone else in Wikipedia against me, for the purpose of getting me banned.

She also deliberately sews spin into to her words. For example I was trying to make Wikipedia more reliable by getting her blocked for telling lies. However she wants the administrators to believe that I was banned for harming Wikipedia?

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 personally, but she hides behind a Wikipedia whereas she had been defaming me personally - by deliberately using my real name. e.g. here, and, 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

 

Dirty - grubby - gutter tactics

My two critics knew that I was a person who has this ailment, and they thought that when they deleted all of the information about my own theory and research and said that I could only add informtion from independent scientific journals, that I wouldn't be able to do it. When I started routinely adding evidence from the best quality research journals in the world they became furious, hostile, and resentful. One of their next tactics was to harass me with the implicit threat, that if I kept editing that topic they would defame my character by filling the page with countless comments about mental illness, and links to psychiatric disorders, and combine the effect with so many comments about my "behaviour" in the discussions, that eveyone else in Wikipedia would treat me like an inferior, uneducated, mentally ill basket case, and ban me in disgust.

Most of the administrators who believed them did not know anything about the topic, except what they read in a dictionary, and they didn't read the references, and they didn't check the previous discussions to see if what they were being told was lies or not. They blindly trusted and deferred to the judgement of my main critic because she had been in Wikipedia for four big years?

They were essentially as gullible as sheep and cattle.

 

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

Anonymous editing

WP:Tag teaming W:Cabal  

WP:Sockpuppets

WP:Forum shopping WP:IAR (ignore all rules)  
WP:meatpuppets WP:Gaming the system WP: The Last Word  

 

Instrumental rudeness See also Their bad manners Deletion editing Lies  
Attitude readjustment tools See also LART Double standards Stereotyping  
Setting up to fail      
WP:Moving the goal posts Brown nosing and appeals to prejudice bandwagon effect  

 

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.

 

chokercollar MilitaryCorsets TightBelts

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

They twisted the truth, or spun it 180 degrees

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 everytibng 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 complainets. 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

 

How my main critic Brainwashed other editors and readers

by using simple delete and replace tricks

My main critic is an arrogant individual who thinks that she is intellectually superior to all of the other editors and administrators, and readers of Wikipedia, and that she can fool them all.

However, she does it with simple brainwashing techniques which I can explain. One of her many methods is to delete the truth, or wash, or scrub it out of the page so that the readers can't see it, and start with a clean brain that can be easily influenced. She then adds the information that she wants them to believe without question. i.e. she doesn't want them to use their brains, but just believe what they read.

An example is where she wanted the readers to believe that Da Costa's Syndrome was a rare ailment that wasn't important enough to take up much space Wikipedia. In one of her earlier discussions she argued that it didn't even deserve a page of it's own.

One of the things that she had to do to create that impression was to delete the information that it was common, which you can see in the 1951 section of my version of the article here.

The next thing she did was to use the Rare Disease Database as item No. 4 in the reference list in her version of the article here.

Many of her methods had that delete and replace aspect which she produced in ways that no-one was supposed to notice.

As any intelligent member of the public can understand, if you was to read the article you would assume it was a rare problem of no particular importance because you would not have any reason to think otherwise.

You can also understand that if she is deceiving readers about the nature of Da Costa's syndrome, then she is a liar, and she will tell lies about any disease any time it suits her.

See more examples of her delete and replace tricks here.

She my full description of her motivation and tactics here. (She spent several months trying her hardest to get it deleted, and didn't stop until she was successful). i.e. She deleted the evidence that she was deleting evidence, and left the false impression that she is an honest and trustworthy editor who is adding useful information.

Some more details about the common/rare issue can be seen below.

Their lies continued

Da Costa's syndrome is a common medical condition, but my main critic used the "Rare Diseases Database" as a reference, to give readers the false impression that it was rare?

See how common the problem of chronic faigue is here

 

Introduction: Throughout 140 years of research history Da Costa's syndrome has been described as a common ailment, and it didn't suddenly become rare or disappear. The only thing that has changed is the labels which have been used to describe exactly the same set of symptoms. e.g. These are the words of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul in 1987 . . .

 

"The syndrome variously called Da Costa's syndrome, effort syndrome neurocirculatory asthenia, etc has been studied for more than 100 years by many distinguished physicians identified in men in wartime, it has been widely recognised as a common condition in both sexes in civilian life." (end of quote) You can see his comments in his first paragraph here.

 

However my main critic wanted to deceive the readers of Wikipedia into believing that the condition was uncommon, so she inserted the Rare disease database into the reference list to leave that false impression.

She also lied to other editors by telling them that it was " a vague 19th century syndrome" here.

The modern temr for Da Costa's syndrome is the Chronic fatigue syndrome. See more evidence about how common it is my report about Simon Wessely here.

 

My main critic 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.

 

From the perspective of research history 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
and the misleading reference number 4, provided by my main critic, to the Rare Diseases Data Base here
The definition of a rare disease on the NORD data base can be seen here

See the discussion betweem my main critic and Guido den Broeder here

 

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.

 

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 domnant 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 biasedhere[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

 

Two anonymous editors told lies, cheated, broke all the rules, and plotted and schemed for 12 months to get me banned from Wikipedia.

One of their schemes was to say "we" think this and "we" think that to create the impression that they represented 160 million respectable rule-abiding editors, and that I was an outsider.

Their objective was to get help from 160 million editors, and to have 160 million editors hating me and trying to discredit me.

They were spectacularly successful.

An example which is just the tip of the iceberg, is where they confused a young editor into agreeing with them.

That individual was a naive youngster who joined Wikipedia as a teenager, and gave themselves the ID of "ArbitrerOfTruth", and made a statement of this nature . . .
"This is our most glorious mission in life - to create the most magnificent and reliable source of information in the world, so that we wonderful people can give it to the whole world of needy people for free. Posturewriter is stopping us from doing that so we must punish him. We have to teach people like him a lesson, and send a message to all of the other vandals that they cannot stop us from achieving our magnificent objectives."

See my report on ArbiterofTruth and Moreschi here.

 

It is human nature for people to support and defend members of their own group even if they are wrong, and to attack outsiders even if they are right.

My two critics exploited that fact by repeatedly saying "we think this" and "We have told Posturewriter that", and by mentioning each others reputation for many years of contributions and established trust amongst other editors who they called "the respectable rule-abiding community".

However, in fact, 95% of the criticism came from just those two, and the remaining 5% was from editors who they incited to criticise me. e.g. See the statistics here, and my report here

They were trying to create the ridiculous illusion that because they had been in Wikipedia for so long that their motives and methods were "respectable" like other honest editors, and that I was a despicable outsider.

I was watching them use that method to whip up a frenzy of hatred against me with some amusement, because it was rather obvious that sooner or later they would have conned enough editors into hating me to get me banned.

 

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 here and 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 month, 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 (See the first paragraph here). That editor always had a tag-team mate named Gordonofcartoon, who was interested in Art (See here). 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. His main interests were maths, statistics, and molecular and cellular biology (See here). He didn't know anything about the topic when he started, and said that he got some information about it from a dictionary. 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 He was a sports biographer (See here). 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. According to his user page his main interest was opera but he has since used page protection tools to hide the comments on his own User page from that time, and has rewritten it. 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 main 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 labeled 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. See here
and the "History" section of an earlier page edited by me at 6:43 on 12 May 2008 here
See more about the history arguments here

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 ß

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 and unbiased view of the whole history for the Da Costa's page, with the intention of improving it later by adding other sources etc give a more neutral point of view (several points of view from several authors). It was meant to be a page in progress 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 only 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 wwe already went through this particular issue with the User: Guido den Broeder (now perma-banned)." signed 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.

Here is an exact quote from the third paragraph of the first page of Oglesby Pauls's paper about Da Costa's syndrome where he says it is "a disorder of unknown origin". here.

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 acts like a policy troll by the way she tries to influence, write, and change the rules so that she has countless ways of controlling other editors and article content to suit her own devious purposes.

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 supposed 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
One of their tactics was to say "We" think this to give the impressions of a whole group, when in fact there were only two.

 

A quote from Wikipedia

"We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge . That is our commitment—and we need your help." here.

See some statistics on how my 2 critics teamed up to argue against me here

 

On 5-11-2012 I watched a talk on channel 74 by Australian television journalist Kerry O'Brien who discussed how large organisations and political groups have always been able to manipulate public perception by using spin etc. He added that advances in technology such as the internet were making it easier because there have been developments in the methods so that now anonymous representatives can create the false impression that they are independent and therefore neutral and reliable sources of information. They can also use softwear tools and other methods that he called astroturfing to fake popular opinion and drown out the opinion of ordinary people. (See my report on the unreliability of the information provided by my main critic here).

Astroturfing

This is a quote from the page about Astroturfing in Wikipedia . . .

"Astroturfing refers to political, advertising or public relations campaigns that are designed to mask the sponsors of the message to give the appearance of coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity, by witholding information about the sources' financial connection. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers use sophisticated software to mask their identity. Individuals have been found operating over seventy personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's agenda. Studies have shown that astroturfing is effective at changing public viewpoints." See the Wikipedia page here, and my reports here, and here.

 

It was obvious to me that my two critics were deliberately creating the false impression that they had a lot of support for their criticism of me.

99% of the time there was only the two of them trying their hardest to convince the occasional other editor that I was interfering with their capacity to produce and article from a neutral point of view.

The created that illusion by using such phrases as "we" think this, and "we" think that and "I'm asking for Arbitration attention . . . on grounds of Posturewriter exhausting community patience, See here, and "The other problems that we've encountered generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions" See here etc.

 

My main critic would dish out orders as if she was "Lady Muck" telling a servant what to do.

In most cases the only person who agreed with her was her constant companion who would agree with her, regardless of the merit of any argument, and occasionally she would mislead another editor into believing her nonsense.

She would then rush off to another discussion and start acting like a tough army sergeant talking with power and authority in a deep growling voice about a private . . . "WE" TOLD HIM TO DO THIS, AND "WE" TOLD HIM TO DO THAT, BUT HE REFUSES TO CO-OPERATE".

What she doesn't tell them is that she was trying to make it impossible for me to edit by asking me to support every statement I made with a reference. When I provided the references, which she didn't think existed, she became annoyed, frustrated, and angry. SHE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE REFERENCES, she just didn't want anyone adding information unless she wanted it there.

By saying "WE" told him this" she tries to create the ridiculous impression that she is the mighty leader of hundreds of other editors who are becoming frustrated with me??? For the most part no-one else cared.

She was also trying to create the impression that she represented the other editors, and Wikipedia itself, and that I was the evil outsider, so that all the other editors would come rushing in to defend WIDIPEDIAS NOBLE CAUSE by helping her get rid of me.

She could not edit like that unless she had studied propaganda techniques and knew exactly how to use them to mislead the other editors. She also knows that the editors who supported her will not want to admit that she sucked them in, and made them her mindless winged monkeys.

 

Wikipedia started out with the objective of providing all people with the sum of all knowledge from all of society, so as a medical consumer I thought it was a good idea. However, the vested interest groups who have previously controlled public opinion via the print and television media, and their supporters or agents, are now taking control of the internet, including Wikipedia. They are playing the political game of consensus to over power verifiable scientific facts and evidence.

For example, in the past, psychologists have had their psychology journals, but they now have WikiProjectPsychologyi in Wikipedia to "watchlist" and control the content of any article which, in their opinion, has a psychological cause. The medical profession have Wiki medicine which ensures that their opinion dominates. My critic overseas a page which promotes medications as a treatment but doesn't properly discuss the side effects. PR agents now want to edit on the basis of the argument that they can be trusted to edit without being influenced by financial incentives from their employers or customers. Politicians are paying staff to delete negative information which might harm their chances of being re-elected, and replacing it with favorable details. Every power group from the past has gained an influence, and yet my main critic wants the readers to be gullible when she says "We", the Wikipedia community of "respectable", "rule-abiding", "trustworthy", "volunteers" agree with each other.

At the very least they are not producing the "sum of all knowledge", but are "deletionists" who are removing everything that they don't want the public to see.

From the obvious mathematical standpoint the idea that "deletionists" are producing the "sum of all knowledge" is ridiculous.

It is virtually impossible for any honest person to add anything significant to Wikipedia without being watched, hounded, edited, harassed, and banned if it is not what the vested interest groups or their supporters, or highly paid anonymous agents, want the readers to see.

Of course, they want the readers to believe that anyone mentioned in Wikipedia is a respectable "expert", and anyone who isn't, is an insignificant fringy kook who has no value to society.

 

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.

Trawling for consensus

fishing for support or "forum shopping" etc.

One way of describing how my main critic fakes consensus is to discuss the difference between an ordinary person who goes fishing, with the methods used by a professional. The ordinary man will use one fishing rod with one hook dropped into a river to perhaps catch one fish. A professional will use a boat and fishing line several miles long with thousands of hooks on it dragged behind the boat for 100's of miles in the Pacific Ocean to catch thousands of fish.

In that regard I was generally doing only one or two edits a week (see here), whereas my main critic was doing up to 300 in one day.

When she tried to get me blocked from editing a topic her tag-teamer set up a page for that purpose called "Request for comment/Posturewriter" here. See two of my reports on her tag-teaming with Gorodonofcartoon here and here.

She then set up a new section on her own UserTalk page with the same title here. She then archived every other topic so that her discussion about me would be number one at the top. She didn't tell me about it, and I didn't join the discussion until much later so all of her insults and lies about me went undefended. She then left it in that position of prominence while another 100 discussions took place with all of those editors having the opportunity to see it. She knew that some of those editors would believe her lies or share her prejudices, and go to the other discussion to leave a vote to block me. See here.

From all of that exposure she only achieved results from about five out of more than 100.

She and her teammate later argued that I had been blocked by a clear consensus, which was about 5-2. i.e. My main critic plus her team-mate, plus SmokeyJoe, plus a couple of others, versus me and Avnjay (a neutral editor who was helping me write an article so that it met all of Wikipedia's policy requirements).

She then gave the arbitrators the false impression that the "Wikipedia community" left a clear consensus against me here. i.e. she wanted them to believe it was "obviously" in her favor, but it was actually 5 in 105, which equates with very poor support for her.

An administrator who was deceived by her "fishing expedition" banned me, on the grounds of his belief that I was the worst troll in Wikipedia history who was going against the wishes of the entire Wikipedia community. See more about my ID being used as discussion titles here, and their personal attacks on me here.

 

 

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 'cavalry' arrived but wasn't banned for edit warring or breaking Wikipedia's rules which ban personal attacks on other editors WP:NPA

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 overturnign 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 properly 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

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 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 an eyelid?" Moreschi 23:08, November 2009..

If Moreschi was consistent with his editing he would ban my two critics permanently.

(it is a violation of civility policyry, and the No personal attacks policy to call other editors a troll, but Moreschi doesn'g give a dam about manners, or the rules. This is waht he said about another editor . . . ":Tundrabuggy is a troll. Ban him permanently." Moreschi 15:50, 28 January 2009 here).

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) See here. 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.

Moreschi according to another website

According to another website called Encyclopedia Dramatica, Moreschi is "Wikipedia's resident admin troll", whose hobbies included going to arbitration pages and making a pest of himself. Arbitration pages are where a group of editors is sitting in judgment over whether or not to block or ban an individual from Wikipedia articles.

The author claims that Moreschi swears and is mean to what he calls "poor nerds", and that he doesn't understand autistics, called "aspies", who are described as having "delicate feelings". The word aspies is linked to another page which describes such individuals as having the most bizarre and extreme social problems of not being able to communicate or get along with fellow humans.

The author then goes on to say . . . "Moreschi uses his admin powers like an LAPD police officer, so basically "to protect and serve the powerful" (end of quote). He then adds some examples of his ill-mannered comments to another editor who he called Moreschi's "arch nemesis". See here.

My comment: My two critics were deliberately offensive to me, and were deliberately critical of almost every word I wrote, in order to provoke me into uncivil remarks. They were also doing that to create the false impression that I was some kind of social misfit who didn't understand other people's feelings, and was struggling to get along with them. Of course, I do not have any particular difficulty in "normal" social situations, and I didn't have any difficulty co-operating with other neutral and unbiased editors, until those two individuals defamed my character, and turned them against me.

Also, after trying their hardest to get every one in Wikipedia to treat me with contempt they set up an arbitration page to get me blocked. When Moreschi barged in on that page and started insulting me, I gained the immediate impression that he was an arrogant fool trying to big note himself as some kind of mighty authority figure, by "acting" like the chief of Wikipedia police.

It was also obvious to me that he was an insignificant person who was just serving the interests of my two critics who were established editors, and that his confidence came from the idea that they would protect and reward him later.

He also tried to give the impression that all of his friends were the mighty and powerful who deserved respect, and that all of the people he was criticizing were immature, mentally ill social misfits who deserved to be treated with contempt.

Consequently he sees himself as someone who has the right to ignore Wikipedia's rules about good manners and treat me, or anyone else like inhuman trash.

According to Wikipedia's rules all editors are required to treat each other as equals, and with courtesy and respect at all times, but Moreschi never took that into consideration.

His attitude and comments were flamboyant and extreme, as you would expect from a drama queen. See here.

 

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

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??

 

The unethical use of psychiatric labels as badges of shame in Wikipedia

This is a quote from Wikipedia . . .

"A task force of the US National Institutes of Health states . . . "Medically unexplained syndromes (MUS) present the most common problems in medicine". (end of quote here)

*******

Large organisations have a lot of money which they can use a small percentage of to provide research funds to psychiatrists to invent "all in the mind" theories which can be used in courts to swindle honest patients with undetectable illnesses out of their entitlement to insurance, compensation, or other legal rights.

They are highly organised, and their agents are highly educated and know a lot about economics and history, and are highly paid, whereas the countless millions of patients are ill, poor, uneducated, and ignorant of history, and go to court like lambs to the slaughter.

It is most likely that the major cause of anxiety, depression, and other forms of mental illness result from the illness, the defamatory labels, and the poverty which results from them being denied their entitlements.

Those organisations could also directly or indirectly pay, or motivate anonymous Wikipedia editors to fill it with psychiatric labels to cover every form of "normal" or abnormal behaviour for similar reasons.

A Wikipedia editor criticised another person for using templates as "badges of shame", but that individual is fully aware of that process, and uses it on a grand scale to discredit any and all opponents in disputes, and floods some medical pages with labels and links to psychiatric labels to have the same effect. See here,

 

Soldier's heart is just one of more than 100 labels which have been used as an alternative to Da Costa's syndrome. When it affected soldiers during war time it was also called Effort syndrome, Battle fatigue, Combat fatigue, and nowadays is most commonly called the Chronic fatigue syndrome.

It has been a common condition in society affecting 2-4% of the population, or 200 million people worldwide,

There is no cure so it presents an enormous cost to large companies, the military, and governments in terms of compensation, insurance, or pensions.

One way of reducing those costs would be to argue that it had no physical basis and was "all in the mind", and to hide any scientific evidence or proof of a physical cause, and to fill pages with psychiatric labels.

The use of such labels, and arguing that the ailment is caused by "cowardice" in battle would also have the effect of shaming patients out of claiming their entitlements, and that appears to be the objective, or the consequence of the way my two critics were editing the page about Da Costa's syndrome in Wikipedia.

******

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; See here.

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 main 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 discussions 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 of the article, and the top right side of the page has links to ICD-9 and ICD-10 entries associating it with dozens, if not hundreds other labels, most of which were psychiatric 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).

They also selected research papers and books to use as references in their reference section, with many of them deliberately chosen because of the multiple psychiatric labels in their title, and sub-titles, and the word cowardice deliberately included in the notes for their reference number 13. (It is a quote from one sentence which they deliberately cherry picked from the middle of a 250 page book).


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 behavioural 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
The version at 17:08 on 17 Oct. 2007 can be seen here
See where WhatamIdoing replaced the link to 'Anxiety Disorders' at 21:33 on 18 Dec. 2007 here
My version at 7:46 on 25 January 2009, showing more than a dozen articles with more than five labels, see the full link here

To show how easy it is to add labels and categories to people and topic pages see Pre-trichtillomania here

 

They think they are being clever by adding all of those psychiatric labels to the article, but anyone could do that for any ailment, and any person.

 

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".

I began by adding some general information and scientific evidence of the physical basis for the symptoms. However, 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, behavioural disorders, and depression. e.g. See here.

At the same time they were systematically deleting evidence of a physical cause.

They also deleted a survey 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 here, 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. See here and here and here and here.

 

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. See here.

 

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

 

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. See here. 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. See here.

 

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

The conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia

Who are the anonymous editors? See here.

What conflict of interest makes them tell lies? here

Is someone paying them to tell lies? here

It would be extremely naive to believe, and deceitful to argue that my two critics did not have a bias, or vested interests, or allegiances, or allies that were influencing what they wrote for Wikipedia, and why they spent so much time and effort controlling the content of articles. They expected me to be gullible, but they told too many lies to convince me of anything. See here.

 

An administrator was overwhelmed by their lies

On one occasion my two critics wrote so much criticism about me that an administrator name 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?

 

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.

 

 

Conflict of interest in the sport of cycling

At about the age of 19, I was offered three scholarships to study a course in group psychology at the South Australian Institute of Technology. It was called Group Work, and involved the evaluation of interactions of people within and between groups. Hence one of my assignments was to assess six different groups which included sports and political organisations etc.

More recently I was involved in Wikipedia where I found myself in disputes with two editors who thought that I was a dumb, ignorant , and gullible person who didn't know how they were manipulating the system.

I have also just watched an ABC TV program called Four Corners on 15-10-12, which investigated the accusations of drug cheating against Tour de France winning cyclist Lance Armstrong.

I don't wish to make any judgments one way or the other about Lance Armstrong, but merely draw some comparisons with that report on the group dynamics of Wikipedia.

Lance Armstrong won several races in a row which made some members of the public consider the possibility that he was taking performance enhancing drugs, which is against the rules. However, he repeatedly denied such accusations.

According to the report Armstrong had been telling lies, but had argued that his accusers, who were telling the truth were crazy, and were seeking revenge by telling lies about him.

However, when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer his doctor asked him if he had taken any performance enhancing drugs such as EPO, cortisone, or testosterone, and he said, in front of several friends, that he had.

During his cycling career another doctor had back dated a prescription to give him an excuse for having a high level of drugs during a race.

Further evidence showed that he had paid a doctor a million dollars for advice about those drugs, such as the dosage, and how and when to take them in a way that minimised the risk of being caught.

He set up a charity to fund research into cancer because he had survived cancer and wanted to help others, but it also gave him the image of respectability

He also donated thousands of dollars to cycling organisations who later had the role of policing drug cheats, and reported some to give the impression that they were doing their task properly.

Further evidence suggested that when a new rider joined the racing community and was identified as having natural ability they would encourage him to take drugs to reach champion levels.

The argument was that it was how the system worked, and everyone does it, but it also made cycling a dirty sport, and the whole idea of policing drug cheats a hypocrisy.

It presented a situation where, if any one person was to acknowledge that Lance Armstrong was cheating, then it wouldn't be long before the other riders were identified, and the reputation of the whole sport of cycling could be damaged, so it produced a culture of silence where there was a conflict of interest where the truth didn't matter.

 

Cold blooded calculated cheats

On 21st October 2012 the ABC TV show called "Offsiders" showed some previous film footage where Lance Armstrong was acting like an honest sportsman, and he argued that being a drug cheat wasn't worth the risk because if he was caught he would lose all of his sponsors and the faith of all of his cycling fans, and those who supported him for his fight against cancer. Another example of an old report described him as surviving cancer because of the power of his mind, which was the same characteristics which enabled him to win bike races.

However, one of the commentators asked if the evidence indicated that his denials were due to his delusional belief that he wasn't cheating, or if he was just one of the world's most cold blooded calculating liars. It was suggested that he had the power to keep all of those around them in line to withhold the truth from the media. There was also the fact that he was a key figure in advancing the sport of cycling which presented a conflict of interest where those who were benefiting financially acted like a protection racket from the lowest to the highest levels of the sport .

The TV reporters said that it was a major story where those who were responsible for the cheating needed to be made accountable for their actions and reveal the full truth about what actually happened, and that it was inappropriate to shoot the messenger.

 

Why his cheating was not investigated

A website report by Steve Madden, former editor in chief of Bicycling magazine explains why he didn't investigate Lance Armstrong in the past. He says that he knew that many of the top cyclists took performance enhancing drugs but that there was no evidence against Armstrong in the blood tests.

There was also the fact that Armstrong had survived cancer and was giving hope to other patients, and that he as editor did not wish to report any misconduct by Armstrong which might detract from that hope.

Here are three quotes from that report . . . "From a strictly journalistic perspective, that story was almost impossible to report during that time, and the burden of proof was huge. Cycling's code of silence, and the vengeance taken out on people who broke the omertà , is well documented in the USADA report and made verifying allegations nearly impossible . . . and . . .

Armstrong employed a team of legal eagles who rebuffed even the slightest bit of disloyalty with lawsuits, counter claims and rumors, and most publishers in the enthusiast space are risk-averse . . . and . . . Through his various sponsorship and endorsement deals, he could make an advertiser disappear from our pages with the same flick of an elbow that one rider uses to silently tell another to pass him. Helmets, sunglasses, wheels, bikes, all of these companies' ads were the lifeblood of the magazine, the one that paid my salary and that of my staff." (end of quotes). See here

 

Establish a Truth commission ?
The Lance Armstrong saga continued on 22-10-12 with the International Cycling Union declaring that they will strip him of all of his 7 medals and make him disappear from the history of it's records for the titles he won between 1999 and 2005.

It has been concluded that he was involved in an enormous sophisticated doping program but ICU president Pat McQuaid said that he didn't know if Armstrong would ever admit to his guilt.

USADA has recommended that a Truth and reconcilliation commission be set up to uncover drug cheats in cycling. See one of many reports here.

 

Wikipedia comparison

The comparisons of those reports with two anonymous Wikipedia editors can be seen in how they argued that they should be trusted because they had been in that organisation for four years. When i provided evidence that they were both prolific liars and cheats they denied it, or changed the subject, and accused me of being a "disruptive editor", and eventually accused me of "edit warring" and arranged for an administrator to ban me by using the "ignore all rules" policy. See here. (A few months later my main critic secretly gave him a barnstar called the "Outlaw Halo Award", which has a symbolic illustration of a head with the devil's horns, and a halo above - doing something evil while pretending to be innocent).

My main critic has since written a page about her "Shiny Goodness" to give the false impression that she is an honest individual. It contains a list of the various barnstars or medals for those years. See my report here, and one of many lists of that editors massive number of lies here.

It was apparent to me that other editors were reluctant to support me because they did not wish the become the victim of vengeance by my main critic, and that news organisations would be reluctant to question any of the main editors of Wikipedia because of the risk that other editors would defame the character of their journalists or the paper itself and make it "disappear" by deleting any mention of it from the encyclopedia pages.

Lance Armstrong bribed the drug police

Tufts University of Massachusetts has voted to take away the honorary degree which they gave to Lance Armstrong, so he can no longer claim the title of doctor. According to the Director of Public Relations, Mr. Kimberly M Thurler . . . "Armstrong’s actions as an athlete are inconsistent with the values of Tufts University." See here.

Wikipedia should similarly take away all of the barnstars which have been awarded to my two critics because their disgraceful lying and cheating is not consistent with Wikipedia's rules, principles, and values and their disgusting behaviour is bringing shame and disrepute to Wikipedia. See my report here.

Furthermore the Outlaw Halo Award for "ignoring all the rules" should be renamed the Lance Armstrong Award for disgraceful lying and cheating to reflect it's actual two-faced usage by administrators such as Moreschi who used the "ignore all rules" policy to ban me. That policy is coded as WP:IAR. See my reports here and here.

The board of Wikipedia should also apologise to me for the way my character has been defamed by those two unscrupulous liars.

Lance Armstrong the cheat, also bribed the policing authorities

Lance Armstrong made a donation of $25,000 to the agency which was investigating drug cheats, and offered to pay them $100,000 more a few years later. When asked why he did that he said that he wanted to help them catch the cheats.

However, according to a 4 Corners TV report on 20-1-13, an athlete should not be paying money to the authorities who were policing him. They also questioned how anyone could dupe the public and fool the authorities for so long, and suggested that he could not have done it alone.

It presents the scenario of an obvious conflict of interest, particularly when the authorities failed to act upon the evidence produced by other riders.

 

Lance Armstrong the liar, cheat, and bully

who bathed in the glory of the real champions of cycling, and now he should be drowned in it

During his interview with Oprah Winfrey Lance Armstrong admitted to being a liar, a cheat, and a bully (see here). However he tried to justify his actions by arguing that other cyclists were taking banned drugs, so that all he was doing was evening the playing field? Nevertheless giving himself an advantage over honest cyclists is cheating.

He also used devious arguments in his attempt to justify his intimidating and bullying of anyone who accused him of being a cheat.

One of the other reports referred to the fact that there had been a lot of cheating in cycling, but nobody questioned it properly, and the question was . . . "Why not?"

In order to prevent those problems nowadays the detection of cheating is more than taking drug tests and listening to denials but is a sophisticated process of collecting and checking evidence.

Two Wikipedia editors were also liars, cheats, and rather stupid and incompetent bullies. You can check the evidence that they were prolific liars from the index here. They cheated by ganging up as a team of two against me (see my reports here and here), and my main critic admitted to being a cheat, and encouraging others to cheat by using the ignore all rules policy, and by giving a barnstar called the Outlaw Halo Award, to the administrator who ignored all the rules to ban me (see my report here). That same editor admitted to using attitude readjustment tools against me, which are methods of hounding, harassing, provoking, baiting, and annoying people (See my report here).

That editor made stupid and childish attempts to justify that sort of behaviour by using the same tricks as other cheats.

Such liars, cheats and bullies are not good role models for other Wikipedia editors.

 

Summary of the scam

As far as a summary of the situation is concerned, it is quite common, or even standard practice for people who a manipulative liars to establish an "image" of respectability to divert attention away from their sinister practices.

For example, the tobacco industry paid scientists to do research and argue that there was no scientific proof that smoking caused lung cancer. They promoted such individuals to become top authorities on the subject so that the public would believe their lies on the grounds that they were highly prestigious members of the scientific community.

In the case of Lance Armstrong the evidence is that he was a sophisticated liar in cycling, but his fund raising activities for cancer research would give him a very respectable image which would make the public tend to be skeptical about any accusations that he was a cheat.

Similarly my main critic could do thousands of routine edits on non-controversial topics to appear respectable, and then be in a position to tell as many lies and cheat etc to win disputes on controversial topics whenever she wanted to.

The Machiavellian Aspect

Text book perfect Machiavellian liars ?

1, They intend from the outset to tell lies and cheat to gain an advantage over others in life so that they can gain fame and wealth for their own selfish purposes.

2, They act superficially as if they are as innocent as new born lambs, and as pure as the driven snow, and highly respectable in every way.

3. If they are suspected or accused of cheating they will respond with lofty indignation as if they resent the mere suggestion of dishonesty, and will try to get their accuser condemned as a disreputable person for making the accusation.

4; If they are caught telling lies they will tell more lies, often many more lies to cover the first.

5. If more evidence of their lies is presented they have the policy of deny, deny, deny, and keep on cheating and acquiring fame and wealth.

6. If they are never caught they go through life bathing in their wealth and glory.

7. However if they get caught then their plan is to produce a plausible and soppy excuse to get sympathy from the dumb and gullible people who they duped and deceived, so that they retain their wealth and fame, and their victims remain deprived.

A recent review of the evidence against Lance Armstrong indicates that he applied all of the deceitful methods of Machiavellian strategy.

The end game

While listening to the radio on 16-1-12 I heard a comment on the news by Oprah Winfrey who had just interviewed Lance Armstrong. She said that she had asked him more than 200 questions and added that "he answered the questions in a way that he was ready"

I would suggest that he was ready for those questions ten years ago before he started his cheating strategy, and that such an interview was part of his "end game".

One of his many excuses was that he wasn't cheating because other riders were using the same drugs but he was giving himself an unfair advantage over honest cyclists. See my report here.

Another comment by ABC journalist Quentin McDermott was that his answers were probably pre-planned in discussions with teams of lawyers before he attended the interview.

In another 5AA radio program on 12-11-13 it was reported that Lance Armstrong was prepared to co-operate with the rug investigation authorities on condition that he was treated the same as all of the other drug cheats.

About 2 minutes later their was a discussion about Parliament having rules, and that the rules would be enforced????

 

 

Similarly my two critics acted as if they were applying text book Machiavellian tactics which they used to achieve status and power in Wikipedia, and involved having private moral and ethical standards which were opposite their publicly proclaimed attitudes.

They were unscrupulous, scheming, manipulative, conniving, lying and cheating individuals in reality, but spend a lot of their time developing the public image of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. See another of my reports here and here.

 

In that regard two anonymous editors who use the coded identities of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon have been telling lies and defaming my character, and ignoring all the rules to get me banned from Wikipedia.

Hence should WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon be known as the Lance Armstrong's of Wikipedia. See here and my report on the use of the ignore all rules policy here.

 

A Question from another website

"are there any lessons we can take from Lance's public admission to Oprah that he did indeed dope all those years he was denying it? Perhaps." See here

The only real lesson to be learned from Lance Armstrong is that Machiavellian liars are a dime a dozen, and like two of Wikipedia editors, they have the ability to fool the public for many years, because the people who know about it do nothing. e.g. See on example here, and an index to their lies here.

From the 4 Corners TV show 9-2-13

Lies, cheating, race fixing, and corruption in cycling reflects what happens in normal society anyway.

(My comment - Jimmy Wales said something very similar about Wikipedia, namely that there were liars and cheats in normal society and you can't expect Wikipedia to be any different - however Wikipedia promotes itself as having rules about reliability and being better than any previous publication, but it isn't. It is just larger).

Lance Armstrong has committed the greatest fraud in the history of sport.

Whole teams of people were involved in the scam.

Armstongs grand heist defrauded millions of fans.

He was a professional liar for 15 years.

The age of innocence has ended.

He was the ringleader in the drug cheating scam.

People were afraid to criticise him because of fear of repercussions.

He would tell lies about his accusers, but they were not allowed to tell the truth about him to the team.

He described people who dobbed him in as traitors.

Greg LeMond was a three time winner of the Tour de France cycling events, and an anti-doping advocate. Lance Armstrong threatened to get other cyclists to falsely claim that he was using drugs to discredit him, and his goal was to punish him by destroying him financially.

Armstrong gave money to the anti-doping agency.

The objective of the anti-doping agency was not to catch dopers, but to protect their sport from scandal, and they did it by their failure to deal with the culture of cheating.

Lance Armstrong said "don't cheat - that's what we teach children".

(My comment; Lance Armstrong, like my two Wikipedia critics, is an expert at telling lies with a straight face, and making people believe them. See my report here).

 

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

 

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 generalismshould 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.

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? for "single purpose accounts"

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

Larry Sanger was one of the two founders of Wikipedia, but has since left the organisation and become one of it's main critics. This is what he says on his website about anonymous editors who make the decisions about what to include and not to include in their encyclopedia.

"No other journalistic or scholarly enterprise would tolerate such unaccountability." See here.

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

 

Publish or perish

Students who do well in high school will generally go to university to get advanced education for the main purpose of gaining a good job which pays a much higher salary than normal. If they complete their degree they may go on to achieve a Master's degree, and may be set research projects as their assignments, and if the results are published in a reputable journal, then they are more likely top pass, or get distinctions or honors. They can then apply for a highly paid job as a research assistant, and if they get good results which are published they are more likely to be promoted to a higher salary. The general principle of people who want to do research as a career is "publish or perish". It refers to the obvious fact that a person who has had fifty research papers published in top quality research journals is much more likely to get work or funding than someone who has had none published, or only one or two.

By contrast my motives for doing research were that I had health problems which no-one else could solve, and I published my observations to assist other people, and researchers to understand those problems. I was not particularly fussy about where they were published, so when a Nurses Journal published my essays at the rate of one every three months in their monthly publication, I kept sending them there, simply because it was easier and more efficient that sending it to other journals who may or may not publish them. I later published my own ideas in my own books for similar reasons. In particular, I could ensure that all of my observations and findings could be published, rather than just one in three of my essays.

However, when I joined Wikipedia about 30 years later I had to deal with 2 editors who were arguing that my items had to be deleted because I had a conflict of interest, and was the author of a self-published book, and that the scientists who publish in research journals are not being paid, are not doing it for profit, and don't have a conflict of interest.

Nevertheless I have read many research papers, and have seen entire projects stop because the funding ceases, and the scientists find something else to do which makes them money. Furthermore it should be obvious to any intelligent person than almost all research is funded by someone who has a conflict of interest, such as the tobacco industry, or the chemical industry etc.

When I study medicine I have to stick to the facts otherwise I would not be able to solve my own health problems, whereas the motive of people who fund research project is to make or save money, and the people who they employ to do the research know that.

The point to be made here is that some of the worlds top researchers are honest and disciplined, but some are not. Nevertheless, the assumption that all scientists who have their essays published in research journals, and that all of their findings are objective, is childish, naive, gullible, and ridiculous, and deserves to be subjected to mockery.

 

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.

 

Quotes from other websites

"Lots of chatter around PR, Lobbyists and Wikipedia this week. The CIPR has put out guidance that the PR community should not directly edit Wikipedia pages they have an affiliation with but rather work with the Wikipedia community. So how will that work in practice for those who see tangible value in their Wikipedia pages? . . . Let's face it there are always creative ways around such edicts . . . All said and done it only costs about $150 to get an article placed on Wikipedia apparently – bit of a kick to the neutrality argument the "(end of quote) here.

and

"An analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for The Independent has found that MPs and staff working at the House of Commons have been responsible for making nearly 10,000 changes to pages of the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Nearlytone in six MP's have had their online Wikipedia entries changed from Parliament and dozens of the alterations appear to be attempts to erase embarrassing or disputed allegations made during the 2009 expenses scandal." (end of quote) here

 

A quote from a TV show about conflict of interest in Newspaper reporting

Newspapers have a conflict between journalistic integrity and advertising dollars from large companies who have vested interests: reference - The best of Landline ABC TV 2-12-12

 

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

Public relations companies editing Wikipedia?

Public relations agents are typically referred to as spin doctors, and everyone knows that they are involved in such campains as advertising where they add information which is favorable to their clients products, and delete negatives.

Similarly when they work for political parties they will recommend what the candidates should tell the public if they want to get elected, and what they should not tell the public if they don't want to lose votes.

Therefore the principle of public relations is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's original objectives which required that all articles present a neutral point of view.

If public relations agents are allowed to edit articles it is therefore guaranteed that some very factual, scientifically proven, and reliable information will be deleted to present a biased an misleading understanding of the topics.

For example, if the tobacco industry paid public relations agents to edit Wikipedia then cigarettes would be presented as high status items for strong athletes and sportsmen, and all scientific evidence of the cancer causing hazards would be very slyly, carefully and systematically deleted.

Furthermore, if any honest editor tried to add the scientific truth about cigarettes and cancer, the public relations agents would be paid to describe them as fringy kooks and get them banned for unco-operative and disruptive behaviour.

A further example could be future oil spills like the Exon Valdez disiiuaster which killed countless number of fish, dolphins and birds and ruined shore lines, and the lives of fishermen and their villages.

Previous investigations have revealed the facts to the public, but in future public relations agents will edit Wikipedia and could describe such events as minor coastal incidents and any editors who try to add the truth will be called immature teenage university students, and malcontents, and be told that if they are not prepared to play the game, and if they don't understand or accept the way things are done in Wikipedia, that they should get out and find themselves something better to do with their time, or be banned.

If Wikipedia is edited by PR agents then it will simply become a PR view of the world, rather than a "neutral point of view". i.e A squeaky clean view instead of a realistic source of information.

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.

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 Walled Gardens of Wikipedia

At one stage my two critics started a page to criticise me called "Request for comment: Posturewriter" here. To their great annoyance two neutral editors joined the discussion and each of them suggested independently that the dispute about the 'neutrality' of the article could be settled if each participant produced separate essays outside of Wikipedia, and submitted them to them when they were finished, and let them merge all three into one good 'neutral' article.

I agreed that it was a good idea, but WhatamIdoing ignored the question (as usual), and Gordonofcartoon rudely refused by saying that he was 'fed up' with attempts to solve the problem. here

One of the neutral editors then set up a blank sub-page for me, and I proceeded to write the article without the constant interference by the 2 critics, and a few weeks later, when I finished the essay, I posted it there.

After reading it that person told my 2 critics that it was a lot better tha the previous version (which was theirs). He then began co-operating with me to improve the article. See here

As you would expect, my 2 critics became furious and started more criticism in fits of hysterical and temperamental ranting and raving.

For example, Gordonofcartoon described my sub-page discussions with the neutral editor as a "walled garden", to imply that he had been excluded from the opportunity to make it neutral, and WhatamIdoing told the neutral editor that he was incompetent and then cut a pasted my essay and subjected it to 80 nitpicking remarks.

Those 2 individuals continued to argue until they managed to get an administrator to barge in on an arbitration page and "ignore all the rules" and ban me.

Their version of the article (which was described as being a lot worse, and a lot less neutral than mine), is the one that remained in Wikipedia.
They were both in the habit of falsely accusing me of doing things that they were actually doing themselves.

For example, they called my discussions with the neutral editor a walled garden. However, they previously arranged for me to be blocked from editing the page about Da Costa's syndrome, which made it their 'walled garden'. Their version of the article has links to classifications at the top, and categories at the bottom, which is going to influence what people think, and since I have been banned the discussion page has been topped by windows called WikiProject Psychology, and WikiProject Medicine.

Those control mechanism make the article and any discussion about it a 'walled garden ', and completely impossible for it to ever represent neutral point of view. Doctors and psychologists are entitled to put their own opinions in their own journals, but Wikipedia was (supposed to be) set up to provide information from all sections of society.

 

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

A quote from Wikipedia

"We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge . That is our commitment—and we need your help." here.

 

Four minutes to prove notability

When a group of about six editors suddenly appeared together to recommend the deletion of a Wikipedia page about my theory, one of them said that all they needed was dates and titles etc, to prove that I had actually written a book. I gave them the names of newspapers, and dates of publication so that they could easily verify the information, but then another editor, not previously involved in the discussions, deleted the page without giving a reason.

When I mentioned my theory and research in another page about Da Costa's syndrome, two editors argued that it had to be deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. However, I didn't bother to argue about it, because I did not particularly care about it being there or not.

They deleted the information but kept on giving other editors the false impression that I had been trying my hardest to use Wikipedia to promote my theory by mentioning it every week. They gave that false impression months later, by saying, on 18th May 2008, that I had finally given up mentioning it here, They continued to do so for 12 months until they managed to get me banned.

After I was banned, I started compiling evidence of their massive lies, and eventually reported on the issue of Notability, starting with one or two examples, below, and gradually adding to them over a year or two.

As you can see, my ideas and books have met a lot more requirements for notability than tens of thousands of other topics in Wikipedia, including one about a base ball player who hit one home run about a century ago. However, each time I added information one of my critics would make comments in various discussions about notability requiring knowledge of the items outside of a local areas, and then interstate, and then they would argue that an item was not notable enough unless it had been published internationally etc. (My main critic won't admit is but is extremely jealous of my ideas and achievements, and as of 22-11-12, was equal 7th highest editor making changes to the rules about "Notability", many of which are attempts to argue that my ideas are not good enough for Wikipedia. That type of behaviour is utterly ridiculous. See here).

As I said, one of the earliest requirements was that all they needed was dates and titles to verify the publications, and they wanted me to make it easy for them by supplying the information online. I gave them the dates of publication of newspaper reports from October 1982 to August 1983 (there were many more earlier), and offered more details if requested. Furthermore, the existence of my book could have been easily confirmed by any intelligent editor who took the time to check by phoning the Adelaide State Library, and the National library, where a copy of all publications must be given to them at no cost and kept in archives.

When I eventually made things easy for them to verify online, by placing a copy of one of the newspaper articles on my own website, my other critic threw a temper tantrum, and told other editors that it was evidence and proof that I had a conflict of interest and was using links to my website to promote my own research.

They were massive and disgusting liars.

However, if you are an intelligent person and want to check the newspapers, or phone the State library of South Australia to verify what I said, you are welcome to do so. The phone number of the Sydney Morning Herald was given in the discussion here, and the phone number of the State Library of South Australia is +61 08 8207 7250. I phoned them myself recently, at 6:15 on 20-8-12, and found all of the details of the 11 editions of my book called The Posture Theory, and my other publications in 4 minutes, finishing at 6:19 p.m.

Any editor who tells me that they could not do the same thing themselves is not competent enough to be judging anyone's

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 see the numbers 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.

 

A baseballer who played 2 games in 1920 met Wikipedia's notability guidelines

There is a biography of an American baseball player named George Wilson Scott who is considered notable enough to have a separate pagei 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".

According to a more recent edit by my main critic on 31-7-2013 . . . "There were more than one million biographies in the English Wikipedia". See here.

 

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

See more information about my journal articles and other publications here.

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

In 2013 Simon Wessely was knighted for his contributions to medicine. His biographies show that he started research into the subject of medically unexplained symptoms and chronic fatigue syndrome in 1987 (e.g. see here) However, that was seven years after I wrote my theory on the physical cause of undetectable illness, and four years after I completed my project about exercise and chronic fatigue at the South Australian Institute for Fitness research and training.

Many of his ideas, including Graded Exercise Therapy are based on my ideas, and the success of my program, but he has not acknowledged me as the source. See more here.

 

Extracts from some of the articles

Volunteers were needed to start the project, and as each 12 week period was completed, new articles were written to report the success and to recruit more volunteers. Most of them were written by medical journalist Diane Beer in Adelaide's afternoon paper called the "News". At one stage I received a phone call from the producer of an ABC talk back radio show hosted by Philip Satchell, who told me that she had seen one of the reports and asked me if I would do an interview with Philip. It was arranged a few days later (probably in 1982). Tens of thousands of people would have heard or read about the project.

 

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.

See more about the journal articles, newspaper reports and other publications relating to this research here.

Translation of a Russian Study

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

Note that the Russians were able to measure the condition, but only on the one occasion, and the project which I designed was the first which some patients could and would participate in reliably, which made it possible to measure the aerobic capacity for chronic fatigue patients before starting an exercise program, and after three, six, and nine months of training, to show the effects.

 

*******

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

While I was in Wikipedia I thought that I could easily win arguments by providing facts and evidence to prove that my two critics were liars, but I was relying on administrators to check and confirm the evidence, and do something about it, and ban them.

However those two liars managed to convince them that I was writing nonsense and get me banned.

That is quite a curious and amusing outcome because I have always used facts, evidence, logic, sense, science, and proof to present my arguments

if you, as a member of the public, don't like being lied to, then I would like you to check the evidence that my main critic is a liar here, and the evidence against both of my critics here, and then assist me by getting them banned. Thank you.

 

How I win 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 a n 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 it was their won money 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 fgforum 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 childrens ficiton 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 impu