The typical behaviour of my two critics

(They chose to call themselves 'WhatamIdoing 'and' Gordonofcartoon')


Wikipedia criticism 4


The Wicked Witch of the West challenged The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz calls on all champions of justice (the good guys) to help him defeat the Wicked Witch with her own methods See here

and here

According to another editor she has a history of joining personal attacks against new contributors here.


The strengths and weaknesses in the arguments used by my two critics

They exploited my weaknesses, but their own massive weaknesses have left them in the losing position


Their strengths: My two critics had been in Wikipedia for several years, and gained the advantage of knowing the rules and using the double meanings and loopholes in them.

They also rewrote or added more double meanings each time they lost arguments, so that they could win such losing arguments in the future.

They saved their last tactic, the 'ignore all rules' policy, to ambush and ban me when all else failed.


Their weaknesses: They told a massive number of lies about me, my theory, my version of the article, the references, previous discussions, and the rules. See more here.


The weakness in their personalities: They were both impulsive, impatient, temperamental, and easily frustrated. For example, they would use references in their arguments without bothering to read past the title of books or the first paragraph of research papers. e.g. here and here etc.

Whenever they lost their patience they would try to hide the fact by telling other editors that "the Wikipedia community was losing it's patience". Gordonofcartoon resorted to using foul language in his accusations about my manners here, and WhatamIdoing tried to hide her frustration against me in the edit text where she thanked the administrator for ignoring all the rules and banning me when she was on the verge of tearing her hair out here.

Note that a person who pulls their own hair out due to frustration is diagnosed with a mental illness called trichtillomania. See here

See many examples of their ill-mannered behaviour here

They lied and cheated to convince the other editors that they were honest, trustworthy, polite, and rule-abiding. See here.


Would they like me to teach them a lesson

I had been putting up with the snotty cheek of my 2 critics for a long time when one of them threatened me with the words "Do We Want to up the Ante". I decided it was time for me to stop being polite and just say, what anyone else would say . . "Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry". They responded predictably by flying into a temper tantrum of childish criticism.

They had been telling me for about a year how important it was to respect the rules of Wikipedia, so I didn't expect them to tell a massive number of lies and cheat in the most blatant ways in order to get me banned, but that it exactly what they did.

Their victory was hollow and pitiful. I will now teach them a lesson.

If they delete all the useful information that I provided, and replace it with lies and nonsense on every medical page which they control, then one day, they, or their children, or members of their family, or their parents will get sick, and they will go to Wikipedia to find an effective way of relieving the pain and it won't be there. All they will find is useless lies and nonsense.

If the administrators don't ban them, then their own children and families will suffer the same fate.

Now for a lesson from history. In the nineteenth century there were some people who acquired wealth through selfishness and greed. They didn't care about the majority of people who lived in mud flats and swamps, but the poor tended the farms, and distributed and cooked the food.

Mosquitoes lived in swamps, and transferred malaria to the poor farmers, which spread to the people who carried it to the castles in horses and carts, and then to the cooks and the wealthy castle owners who died. That is why nowadays we have town planning, and poor people live in houses and clean streets.


The score sheet for the ten main arguments in 12 months

The Wizard of Oz versus the Wicked Witch

1. My two critics lost their first argument against me when one of them said that a modern research paper was about the same type of "effort syndrome" as Da Costa, and the other said it wasn't. See here

2. They then lost their argument for moving the Da Costa's syndrome into a brand new page called 'Somatoform autonomic dysfunction', because article titles are supposed to be in plain English - not obscure jargon that the reader won't bother to read or understand. See here

3. They set up a discussion to get me blocked for 'conflict of interest' but lost because only one administrator entered the discussion so they didn't get enough interest for a consensus decision. here

4. They made a second attempts to get me blocked for 'conflict of interest', but they should have lost because one editor told them they were both liars, and only one administrator agreed with them, so his decision breaks the rules which require consensus. See here

5. They tried to argue that Da Costa's syndrome was not related to the modern condition called the chronic fatigue syndrome, but they lost because it is mentioned in their own version of the article, which they used to replace mine. See my report here.

6. They argued that Wikipedia policy 'demanded' that they put the name of a children's fiction novel at the top of the page, with a link to that novel, but they lost when one neutral editor deleted the top line, and a second neutral editor removed the link. See my report here

7. They set up a Wikiquettes Alert discussion to get my essay about their rule-breaking behaviour deleted, but they lost because none of the neutral editors would delete it, even when I gave them permission. here

8 They set up a "Miscellany for Deletion" discussion to get that essay removed but they lost the argument again when one of the 'neutral' editors closed the discussion with the consensus decision to 'keep' it. here

9. They set up an RFC discussion to get me blocked from the Da Costa's page, but they should have lost because the administrator who blocked me broke the rules by closing the discussion while it was still active, and while I was away writing a version of the article for the 'neutral' editors to assess. See the neutral editors comments in the third paragraph here (after I was wrongly blocked).

10. They set up an Arbitration page to get me blocked but they knew they were going to lose so they arranged for 'one' administrator to break 'all' the rules and ban me. See my report here.


In May 2008 my main critic mixed up a potion of plausible misrepresentations and lies, and told a group of editors that their attitude readjustment tools had failed to 'scathe' me because I lived too far away in Australia, and that it may be necessary to act like the Wicked Witch of the West to drive me out of Wikipedia. The words Wicked Witch of the West included a gratuitous link to the Wikipedia article with that title.

Here is a quote from that page . . . "The Wicked Witch of the West is a character and the main antagonist in the fictional land Oz created by American author L. Frank Baum in his children's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

Here is a second quote . . . "The Witch has often been used by editorial cartoonists to represent an evil force".


When I first encountered that individual I thought that they had some university training in public relations, and that they they were using their skills to create a false public image of lofty expertise versus an ignorant fool, so when I saw the comments above I was quietly amused because I thought that they had made the biggest mistake of all, from which they would never recover, by giving me the moral hight ground as the Wonderful Wizard, and themseves as the 'Wicked' Witch.


In February 2009 Gordonofcartoon told the same group that the 'cavalry' showed up to win their dispute.

In May 2009 WhatamIdoing gave the 'cavalry'? a reward for being the only admin who behaved like an outlaw, and acted as if he was above the law, and as someone who didn't have to obey the rules of Wikipedia. They have totally destroyed their own public image, and their credibility.

A summary of this page

(The next few essays on this page were added between January and February 2011, and since then, but many of the later items have been transferred from other webpages which became too large)

When I decided to join Wikipedia it appeared to be a friendly invitation for all members of the public to join an organisation which had the objective of providing all information from all sources to give the readers the broadest and most thorough encyclopedia possible.

However, when I started contributing to a page called 'Da Costa's syndrome' I was confronted by two editors who abused all of the basic principles and objectives by pedantically treating the large numbers of policies and guidelines as if they were rules carved in rock.

Each and every time that I added information they would find a policy reason for criticising or deleting it, and when I provided information which complied with one of their policy requirements they would immediately accuse me of violating another policy. In that process they set up several sections and pages with either a my real personal name, or links to locations where that can be found, and, or, the title "Requests for comment Posturwriter" where they subjected me to more criticism.

I joined to add useful information, but it is apparent that they joined to exercise control, so they learnt all of the rules, and used them to control everything, and ultimately ignored them to get me banned.

They had the advantage of being in Wikipedia for four years, so they knew hundreds of rules (and ways of interpreting or abusing them).

However, since I have been banned I have gradually learnt about Wikipedia's massive numbers of policies, and, how my two critics would try to influence, or actually change the rules to make it easier for them to win disputes in the future (by adding complications and exceptions to every rule).

I am therefore in a position to summaries their tactics by bringing some of the relevant items together on the page below.

In particular, how they imposed the rules on everyone else, but violated any policy any time it suited them. They were arrogant and offensive and used foul language, which is a violation of the Civility policy, and they worked as a team of two against me, which is a violation of the tag-team guidelines, and they used edit warring techniques, which is a violation of Disruptive and Tendentious editing policies, and they argued in favor of making the "ignore all rules" policy the major policy.


(Typically they would take turns criticising me, with Gordonofcartoon accusing me of violating a policy (or ten), followed by WhatamIdoing suggesting the deletion of something I added, and then Gordonofcartoon actually deleting it, and saying 'Yep, and "we" the entire Wikipedia agree, so I have deleted it - any objections - Nope - good then - done!!!)

My two critics acted as of they owned the Da Costa's article


Childishly Exaggerated language and Melodrama in Wikipedia

In normal discussions people usually find a way of settling any differences of opinion reasonably easily, but occasionally, especially if one or both parties is drunk, a minor dispute might escalate into a heated argument. However, while I was in Wikipedia I had the displeasure of dealing with two editors who saw it as being their opportunity to take on the starring roles as prima donnas in the melodramatic style of grand opera.

For example, if I did something reasonable, they would act as if I had committed a massive editing crime, and when they were discussing my ideas they had the opportunity of being polite, but they acted as if they were vastly superior creatures who could casually refer to them as my "pet" theories.

They would also refer to them as fringe ideas, but then exaggerate the insult by adding the word "y" to make it "fringy", and then to escalate the insult they would underline the word "y".

Almost everything they did was a childish exaggeration of anything you would expect or be likely to see in normal discussions.

As another example they didn't discuss their actions openly in fair discussions, but would think it was clever to set up secret discussions where they could tell lies about me to make groups of other editors hate me without me having the right of reply.

Also, instead of telling them that their discussions with me were not successfully resolving their dispute against me, they would flamboyantly and colorfully say that "their attitude readjustment tools had failed to scathe me". see here.

Even their language was more "Shakespearian" than normal.

When I complied with the rules and searched for and found evidence and proof that they were both ill-mannered liars before making the accusations, one of them responded by adding information about "strategic rudeness" being a sign of intelligence, and courtesy being the inferior behaviour of servants and slaves. See my report here.

As you can see they arrogantly snub the rules which say courtesy is required in a respectable encyclopedia, and rudeness will not be tolerated.

Another example can be seen in how they arranged for me to be banned. Instead of doing it honestly and properly within the rules, they told lies, and used the "ignore all rules" policy to do it before I had the final right of reply. See my report here

They didn't just ban me in that extremely childish way, but they also gave the admin who did it a barnstar called the "Outlaw Halo Award" as if he did something praiseworthy and heroic(see my report here), and then, instead of saying that I was banned, they glorified their achievement in an utterly ridiculous way by telling other editors that they were finally rescued by the "cavalry". e.g. See here.

Diva, or arrogant behaviour in Wikipedia

The word prima donna most commonly refers to an arrogant female opera singer and is often used as a synonym for diva. This is definition of prima donna from . . . "a temperamental person; a person who takes adulation and privileged treatment as a right and reacts with petulance to criticism or inconvenience." here.


I have recently found some essays which warn about editors who have been in Wikipedia for several years and made a few thousand edits, and start thinking and acting as if they own the place, and dish out orders as if the rules apply to everyone else except themselves. Those essays describe the type of arrogant and delusional behaviour seen in my two critics, but particularly the main one, who thinks of herself as the "prima donna" or "diva" of Wikipedia. She always puts a ridiculous spin on everything and has even edited the page about Divas, and will accuse other people of being divas. See the essay called "Don't feed the Divas". This is some quotes from that essay . . .

"A Wikipedia diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief" . . .

"divas use their productive contribution history as a weapon against other editors. For divas, positive contribution is not an end unto itself, but rather a means of gaining clout and power. This clout becomes like a currency in content disputes". See an earlier version of that essay, with another photo of a diva here.

Another essay is called "No Vested Contributors", This is quote from it . . .

"the tricky problem arises that some long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority over less prolific editors . . . the existence of vested contributors can often lead to grave problems that are detrimental to the community. Double standards of conduct may develop, disillusioning and demoralizing users.
Vested contributors may be backed by other members of the community, sometimes growing into a clique of affiliated editors who tend to mutually reinforce each other – the oft-maligned "cabal". (and, or, tag-team) See also here.

See also here, and another quote from an essay called "You don't own Wikipedia" . . .

"Narcissistic injury is the emotional damage that these power users incur when they discover, as they inevitably do, that their top place in the community's social hierarchy does not actually mean that they are in control of the website. The inescapable fact is that you don't own Wikipedia:"

My comment; Only an extremely arrogant "Diva" would delude themselves that they had a right to act like a Wicked witch, and use such things as strategic rudeness, and attitude readjustment tools in Wikipedia.


Evidence of their arrogant "prima donna" expectation of "privileges"

The tag-team of divas argue that I am not a valuable editor here.

My main critic is arrogant, sarcastic, ill-mannered, and deliberately insulting, but she told another editor that she found his lectures about the importance of good manners offensive and told him to stop using that policy as a bludgeon here.

When I quoted my main critic who claimed that she was not a healthcare professional and had no plans to become one (from here), her tag-team mate gave this petulant reply . . . "Did I say anything about being a healthcare professional? I said "medical editor" - one who routinely edits on medical topics here, and hence is thoroughly conversant with aspects such as WP:MEDRS" here.

For my reports on other examples of how she acts as if she owns Wikipedia see here . . . and . . . Control freaks, and for 2,000 articles, and anonymous editing here and 20,000 articles, and here, and their Sly tricks, and their value? and here, and policy control here, and war of words here, and here, and POV, and ownership.


My previous suggestions about how to stop control freaks from ruining Wikipedia is to restrict them to a watchlist size of no more than 100 pages, and to make all contributors take one year on, and one year off editing. However, it is unlikely that the editors who are currently in control will let that happen.


Diva Spin

The Pot who calls a thousand kettles black

Whenever I accused my main critic of breaking a rule etc, she would always put a spin on the comment to make it look as if I had done something wrong. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that when I or someone else provides evidence that she is arrogant, and acts as if she owns Wikipedia, that she will try to convince other editors that she is trying to stop that sort of behaviour.


The following quote is from another editor who discusses her behaviour on 26-6-2012 . . .

"Congratulations, WhatamIdoing! This was the most demoralizing essay I have ever read on Wikipedia!a . . . and your patronizing and self-righteous speech did its own part. Brought me one step closer to giving up contributing all together. Nageh (end of quote) 21:22, 2 June 2012 . . .

This was WhatamIdoing's reply . . .
I suppose that different people will find different ideas demoralizing. IMO the most demoralizing essay is probably one of the ones about how we treat subject-matter experts. WhatamIdoing (end of quote) 00:39, 3 June 2012 - Notice that she uses deliberate sarcasm to end her comments with these words . . . "It sounds like you might want to consider a wikibreak to recharge."


The following quote is from her comments to another editor on 26-6-2012 . . .

"My focus is on the WP:DIVAs and other drama-causing attitude problems that we encounter. This particular attitude problem—the overly entitled, narcissistic power user who believes that everything ought to be done his way . . . It has been documented on similar websites, such as Flickr, and the field of change management exists (in the web world) partly because of the problems this particular group of users causes. I doubt that its readers take it personally. I suspect, in fact, that altogether too many of them instead think, "Wow, she's nailed the description of my opponent perfectly". WhatamIdoing 15:10, 26 June 2012 (end of quote) here.


A summary of her pattern of behaviour: She is deliberately melodramatic and hyperbolic to give the false impression of how important she is, and whenever anyone provides proof that she is ill-mannered, she deliberately accuses them of being ill-mannered, and whenever someone provides proof that she is breaking the rules, she deliberately accuses them of breaking a different rule, or in many cases she accuses them of breaking at least ten rules. The other editors become so overwhelmed by her responses that they invariably believe her version, or come to the conclusion that it is easier to agree with her than argue. They also don't want her to turn on them as well, so essentially they cave in and let her "rule the roost".


The Drama Queens of Wikipedia

The following definition comes from the Farlex online dictionary . .

DRAMA QUEEN . . . "a person who tends to react to every situation in an overdramatic or exaggerated manner" here.


This next quote comes from Wikipedia's rules about good manners . . .

"THE CIVILITY POLICY is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." here.

Note how my two critics discussed things about me from the start, in the manner of utter contempt for me, and complete disregard for the rules about how they should conduct themselves in discussions.

Four examples of drama queen behaviour, including the main two

From a very early stage it became obvious that my main critic was exaggerating the nature of previous events to give other editors the false impression that I was a disruptive person, and to escalate arguments to create an impression of hostility which would get me banned.

For example, Gordonofcartoon told me that comments about my theory took up "undue space", so I abbreviated them and left an explanation on the discussion page to let them know.

WhatamIdoing then wrote 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 all that information again? . . . I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist , and I suspect that it's on several other editors' lists for the same reason. I think you can rely on me promptly noticing future attempts to use this article to promote your theory." WhatamIdoing 01:49, 14 January 2008. here.


I didn't need to have my ideas in Wikipedia so I quite casually accepted her request not to add it again, but several months later she tried to get me blocked again by giving other editors the false impression that I was trying to add it at every opportunity. She wrote these melodramatic words . . .

"He's (finally) mostly given up on getting his name and his website (with his expensive self-published book for sale) in the article." (end of quote).

Furthermore, instead of telling them that her attempts to discourage me from adding independent information to the article were not successful she wrote . . .

"Yes, of course all of this violates a variety of policies, guidelines, and cultural conventions -- notably WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and WP:COPYVIO, in this case. But my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed." (end of quote). See here.


Later, when two neutral editors suggested that I write an essay for them to consider, she started months of relentless lies and criticism beginning with these words . . .

"I tried marking things that need repaired, but it's basically a disaster." (end of quote) here.


In order to get me banned she criticised almost every word I wrote, by making comments like this on the arbitration page . . .

"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" See here.


Her constant companion, named Gordonofcartoon, would create the illusion that WhatamIdoing's opinions were shared by dozens of other editors by writing a list in which he accused me of doing 14 things wrong, and by accusing me of breaking 16 different rules. here.

He also wrote words like this . . .

"It's a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing, and I think the current editing pattern particularly fits WP:DE's description of conduct based on long-running low-grade WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches that operates "toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles". here.


Another example of drama queen performances was that of an editor named Arbiteroftruth, who joined Wikipedia as a teenager a year or two earlier and entered a discussion about me without properly reading it, and wrote these words . . .

"I personally think that at this point in time, what Posturewriter has done is so disruptive that the Wikipedia community should not tolerate that. Therefore, I am going to propose a much harsher solution: ACB blocking of his account, perhaps hardblocking as well . . . That is our mission: to create a reliable source for people around the world to come to for expanding knowledge. If we let this one go, what's the message we are sending to other vandals? We cannot let it go, and we have to show EVERYONE that sockpuppetry will only bring forward their end on Wikipedia.
Therefore, I am suggesting an indefinite, irreversible ban on Posturewriter, his accounts, and his IP addresses. " here.

(Note that he, or she, had to strike out those comments because he made the mistake of trying to get me punished for something that I accused my 2 critics of).


The final example is that of the administrator named Moreschi who banned me, and who only participated in one brief discussion months earlier, and who knew nothing about the topic. He wrote these words . . .

"I've banned Posturewriter, as I should have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. That will save you a case, I think. Moreschi 15:36, 28 January 2009.

He wrote the following word the next day . . .
"Actually, no, I meant an infinite 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 issue with the overturning of. 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. here.

As you can see Moreschi was the only administrator to ban me. He ignored consensus, and threatened to "take extreme issue" with any of the other12 administrators who argued with him.


A few days later Gordonofcartoon referred to Moreschi as the "cavalry" to give the false impression that dozens of administrators had made the final decision to ban me. This is a quote . . .

"The issue has been finally settled (I hope) by an indefinite block . . . The problem trundled on with continual griping (invariably lengthy) on Talk pages while the editor wrote a personal new draft of the article (critics unwelcome). Then he chose to put it back against consensus into mainspace. 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.". Gordonofcartoon 16:57, 3 February 2009. See here again.

See also another persons opinion about Moreschi in Encyclopedia Dramatica here.


My final comment is this. I am a sensible person, and have had discussions with sensible people, and they don't act like drama queens. By contrast the two editors who were constantly criticising me in Wikipedia were not sensible. They were ridiculous drama queens. If they acted like that in a real social setting everyone who was not involved would recognise that their behaviour was ill-mannered and unacceptable.


My main critic recently left a comment on a discussion page about a policy which advises all editors that they don't own articles, and should not act as if they do, and I could see a textbook perfect description of their pattern of behaviour which is considered to be unnacceptable conduct. The following words are an extract . . .


Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

"All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article . . .

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against all others . . .

The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors . . .


Examples of ownership behavior

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)
2. Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
3. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it
1."Are you qualified to edit this article?"
2. "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets."
3. "I/he/she/we created this article" (in a manner implying some kind of inappropriate right or status exists because of that).
4. "Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article. Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest to widgets. Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes. You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened. Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile. Toodles! :)"
On revert
1. "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
2. "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
3. "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."
4. "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
5. "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."
6. "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
7. "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."
8. "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work!"
9. "Please clear this with project X first."

(end of quote) See here


How my two critics were Owning, taking over, and dictating the Da Costa's syndrome page

instead of letting 'neutral editors' make the decisions

See also - the history of edits in Da Costa's syndrome here . . . and the Da Costa's discussions here . . . and a description of their tag teaming here.
An example of them tag-teaming on another Three Revert Rule here

See how one of them criticises my version of the article here, after a neutral editor has already told her that mine is "a lot better" than hers here.

Impression management

When I was about thirty years old a friend of mine suggested that I contact the head of the South Australian Fitness for Research and Training to discuss some of my ideas. I eventually had an interview with that person whose name was Tony Sedgewick. He was very interested in what I had to say, and invited me to organise a study aimed at solving one of the international research problems of not being able to get scientific data on patients who had chronic fatigue, because previously, they 'could not, or would not train'.

In order to conduct that study I needed to have a committee of top quality members who satisfied all of the official research and government requirements. He said that he would be on the committee, and that two of the research cardiologists on his staff would also, and that they could do the medicals, and that one of his experienced volunteer fitness trainers would be the field instructor. From what I can recall he then gave me the name of a professor of medicine who could give some suggestions about who else might be interested in being involved. I then arranged a meeting with him, and eventually contacted several people and the first one to join was a general practitioner, and the second was a psychiatrist, so I then had enough to complete the committee, with me being the research coordinator, the fitness programme designer, and the person who would record and report the results of the study. The whole process took about 2 years, during which time 80 volunteers were recruited, where some trained for up to 12 months. I then left the study, but it continued afterwards under someone else's supervision.

While I was in Wikipedia an editor named SmokeyJoe made the following comment based on the quality of my contributions . . . "I am assuming that Posturewriter is a well qualified academic individual".

However, my main critic, named WhatamIdoing, who had obviously read my website, and probably my books etc, tried to give him the false impression that I was a fringy kook who was just a sports coach who sat on a fence and watched a few tired people run around in circles during one brief study that was organised by someone else. See here.

Ever since that comment SmokeyJoe started discussing the dispute with me as if I was a disobedient child, and continued in that manner until I was banned.

I initially thought that he was an intelligent and unbiased, and neutral administer who would make her comply with the rules, but after that I thought that he had been deceived by a manipulative shrew.


Many of my close friends have had academic qualifications, some with several degrees, and some have been university lecturers or professors, or have had academic parents or children. However, one friend who was not said that most people were gullible and stupid. If he told them that he was just an ordinary honest man they wouldn't trust him, but if he paid $20 for a certificate from the Cook Islands, or if he did a two week course and gained a certificate and then put them in frames and hung them on the wall behind his desk, the people who walked through the door would believe anything he told them.

I have also been on courses where other students didn't. They just paid $1000 for the certificate of attendance which helps them get promotions in their job. Many wealthy students do similar things for similar reasons. They pay poor students to do their homework and exams.

Unfortunately people who don't undestand something can't assess the facts for themselves, so they tend to believe who is telling them something, rather than the quality and accuracy of what they are told.

My main critic obviously went into Wikipedia with the plan of learning, writing, and changing the policies, and doing a lot of minor edits, so that she could convnce people that she was trustworthy because she had been there a long time, and knew all the rules. Many of the editors who agreed with her never bothered to check the facts.


More of their impression management

When I started contributing to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome two editors began a relentless year long series of criticism and deletions until they eventually managed to get me banned.

Their first comments on the discussion page were aimed at giving the impression that they were so knowledgeable that the topic was almost beneath their dignity to comment on, but I gained the impression that they were a couple of arrogant show ponies.

In an attempt to learn something about them I looked at their UserPages to find that "WhatamIdoing" claimed to have university qualifications and an 'annoyingly high IQ", so of course, I wondered why anyone would be proud of their ability to use their education for the purpose of annoying people?, and thought that perhaps they were intent on controlling information in Wikipedia by trolling, or deliberately annoying other editors until the became frustrated and left, or became uncivil and could be banned.

I also found that individual claimed to be a member of generation X which meant that they were at least ten years younger than me. See here

When they started arguments against me they lost, often by contradicting each other, which meant that I won without trying. However, instead of admitting that the were wrong, and moving on to another topic, they sought revenge by setting up discussions to get me blocked.

The plain facts were that my main critic was younger than me, and the other one was more of an assistant, and they were both inept in arguments, but they wanted to create the illusion that the opposite was true.

A typical example occurred after I told them that it was inappropriate for them to link an irrelevant childrens story to a medical topic. It essentially meant that they had been extremely childish, and wrong, because they actually hadn't bothered to read it, and therefore didn't know that it was irrelevant until I told them.

In order to offset the fact that I was older, and was easily winning the arguments, my main critic used a brainwashing technique called "Impression management", and the concept that people's perception is related to the first and last impression by writing a completely and utterly ridiculous comment and then archiving the page so that it was the last edit to be seen.

This is the last comment on that page. . .

"PW, 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. WhatamIdoing 03:06, 30 June 2008

see that full discussion here


This is a quote from the Wikipedia page called "Impression management" which is essentially a brainwashing technique designed to create false impressions in the mind of readers.

"In sociology and social psychology, impression management is a goal-directed conscious or unconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event; they do so by regulating and controlling information in social interaction (Piwinger & Ebert 2001, pp. 1–2). It is usually used synonymously with self-presentation, in which a person tries to influence the perception of their image." see here


My main critic wants you to believe that they are old and wise individuals trying protect me from harm, and that I am much younger than them, and am the type of person who gets upset when reading childrens stories???

It was obvious to me that they were using their comments to progressively build up a false impression of me, in much the same way as a child builds up a pile of lego blocks to create a specific object.

However, all I wanted to do was present about one paragraph of information per week, so I wasn't interested in some sort of silly contest with two editors who could write 5000 edits per year, or when one of them was capable of doing more than three hundred in one day, and when they often wrote three or four paragraphs of criticism for every paragraph I wrote.

I also thought that the other editors and administrators would be able to see through their utter nonsense.

WhatamIdoing is my main critics ID. It is also a question. Has that anonymous individual successfully brainwashed you. Can you still see through their drivel.

Perhaps I should give an example of the same mockery in response to show how easy it is to lower myself to their level . . . "WaWa's I know that reading that little ditty must have made you teary for weeks, even months, indeed many, many, many months, but you have no need to apologise to me because, unlike you, I am a mature adult, and I can't remember the last time I read a children's story, but none of them ever bothered me."

The gender issue


Introduction: From very early in the discussions with my main critic I gained the impression that she was a woman, but I couldn't verify it, so I avoided referring to that editor as "he" or "she". Consequently, in discussions with other editors I had to say . . . "WhatamIdoing did this or that".

Nevertheless I occasionally said "he" or "him" when referring to that person. However, she NEVER told me that she was a woman, and NEVER asked me rudely, or politely, to stop saying "he", and start calling her "She". She obviously thought that there was some advantage in having me think that she had the "authority" of a man, and wanted me to keep on thinking that.

You can see an example of me referring to WhatamIdoings' comments as . . . "He says", and . . . "his opinion", here.

Note that I was not told otherwise.


When I wanted to find the qualifications of my two critics, and who was paying them to edit Wikipedia, I checked their User pages. I was also curious to know if they were men or women, but nothing was mentioned as you can see here.

However, within a short time I gained the impression that my main critic was a woman, and as their ID was "WhatamIdoing" I considered the possibility that they were "doing" a human experiment aimed at determining if it was possible for a woman to "pretend" to be a man, by "acting" like a man, and fool other editors into 'believing' that she was a man. The idea would be that if you can't see or hear them that you shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

However, I couldn't prove anything one way or the other. Nevertheless, when that editor used the word "Oops" before correcting a mistake I thought 'that sounds like a woman', and later when they used the words "Aaarrrghh" to express anger, and *gasp* to feign exasperation, I was even more convinced. Subsequent discussions included words such as "much, much, much too much detail", and 'very, very, very serious', and 'many, many, many times' etc which reinforced my suspicion that she was a woman. (I would expect a man to be more forthright and say it's good, or it's very good, or it's bloody good", and a woman to say 'that flower is very, very, very pretty, and most, most, most precious) A more recent example is where that editor uses the words "it' really, really. really important" here

I therefore decided to go along with the nonsense by always using that persons ID and saying 'WhatamIdoing did this', or WhatamIoing doing did that', and avoided saying 'he' or 'she' did this or that.

However, several months passed, when in August 2008 a new editor named Avnjay came to the discussion for the first time and used the word "she" in reference to my main critic, so I was curious about how he (or she) knew that 'she' was a woman, because I couldn't find any clear proof of it myself.

Some time later, in January 2009, an administrator named Moreschi banned me, but he didn't just do it sensibly or objectively. He suddenly charged into an arbitration dicussion and acted like a heroic white knight on a mighty steed, coming to rescue a 'delicate damsel in distress' from an evil fire breathing dragon. (I had been described as one of the worst trolls in Wikipedia history, and a troll is also a big ugly hairy monster).

As soon as that decision was made several other editors rushed in and deleted the essay that I wrote about Da Costa's syndrome, and it's talk page, and the essay I wrote about the tactics of my two critics, and eventually my Userpage, and talk page. In effect they had deleted all evidence and proof of their harassment of me, and of their policy violations, and all evidence that I had been co-operating with a neutral editor who had described my version of Da Costa's syndrome as being a lot better than theirs. By deleting my version they also denied anyone else the opportunity of assessing it's merits.

They left a standard invitation for me to appeal the decision, but in that process I had to agree that, if they let me back into Wikipedia, I would be co-operative and respectful to my two critics, and was not allowed to criticise them. No self respecting person would go back to Wikipedia under those conditions.

I decided to be careful not to criticise Wikipedia itself, or any of the other editors, but to become a critic of my two critics.

About 18 months later I noticed some more evidence that my main critic was a woman, probably when another editor used the word "she" in a sentence, or because 'she' was editing a lot of topics about 'womens issues, so out of curiosity I decided to check that editors user page again, and I saw the words "This user is a female". see here.


I therefore went through the history of edits to find out when that information was added, and established that it had been put there at 16:15 on 15-4-08. See here


After the 14th April 2008 it is quite possible that I was the only editor who didn't "know" that she was a woman, because anyone who was new to the disputes, such as Avnjay, would have read the User pages to get information, and seen that she was a 'female'. Perhaps a femme fatal or a shrew, who was trying to get them to rescue her in disputes against me.(I actually predicted in February, that if she lost a lot of arguments against me that she would tell the other editors that she was a woman, to get help from them).

She had been in Wikipedia for four years before I started on the Da Costa's page, and five months later she revealed that she was a woman.

If the other editors knew that I was a man, and she was a woman, it would have been to her advantage in gaining support in the disputes that she was losing.


If "what" she had been "doing" for four and a half years in Wikipedia, was trying to prove that she could convince "all" of the other editors that "she" was man, her experiment failed.

I don't wish to offend or alienate other women or feminists because it is possible that some of them could succeed. In fact many women have established authority in business and politics. All I am saying is that 'she' failed. Also most women are respectable and sensible and wouldn't try such a stunt.


(On 28-5-11, while checking another matter I found this comment which had been added in small print at the end of my main critics response to another editor . . . "WhatamIdoing 18:06, 18 May 2009 (who, by the way, isn't a "Mr." anything" . . . Note that she made that comment three and a half months after I was banned). See here


She spent four and a half years trying to act like a man, without telling anyone she was a woman, and later tries to make other editors look stupid for mistaking her for a man. She is a ridiculous woman who spends her time casting judgments on the maturity and mental and behavioural status of other editors.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


The "concerted campaign" of the "particularly rude" "Wicked Witch" of Wikipedia, and her failed attempt to "scathe" the "Wonderful Wizard of Oz"

Shortly after completing the essay above I recalled another relevant fact.

As I mentioned, she added the fact that she was a female to her Userpage when anyone new to the dispute might find it, and she would have known that I had checked the page earlier and would not bother to read it again.

Similarly a month later, in May 2008 she set up a new discussion on a Civil/POV pushing page, which is a page about "civil" or "polite" editors, namely me. She told them that her "attitude readjustment tools" had failed, which is an admission that she had been deliberately acting like a "troll" to incite, provoke, and annoy me. She then forecast that she may have to start acting like "a particularly rude version of the Wicked Witch of the West" to succeed.

However, she didn't tell me about that discussion or invite me there to give my side of the story, so again, I wouldn't know that she was a female who was going to deliberately act like a witch. Obviously I wasn't meant to find out about that discussion or read it, so all of the other editors who were new to the dispute would know that she was a woman, but I wouldn't.

She even mentioned that the reason her "attitude readjustment tools" had failed was because I lived a long way away in Australia where they were unlikely to be seen as a threat. (I was supposed the think that she was a man who would hunt me down and physically assault me with a 2X4 block of wood, which is a LART tool?) She also had the audacity to exploit an innuendo by linking the words "Wicked Witch of the West" to a topic page in Wikipedia, and the following quote is from the first sentence . . .

"The Wicked Witch of the West is a character and the main antagonist in the fictional land of Oz created by American author L. Frank Baum in his children's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." see here


See the Civil POV pushing discussion here

See also my report on the definitions of Trolls here

The editor who banned me called me 'the worst type of troll" here

and my main critic gave him a barnstar for ignoring all the rules here

and she pompously gave other editors this advice "Name-calling against ''either'' "side" isn't helpful". See here


The Wave of the Wicked Witch's Cruft Wand

At one stage my two critics had been taking turns criticising me and deleting my edits, when, on 28th April 2008, Gordonofcartoon described my contributions as cruft here. On 9th May an anonymous editor vandalised the entire page here. It was automatically returned, and I added another edit on 12th May, and then WhatamIdoing deleted most of it again here.

They both claimed that the anonymous vandal was not one of them, or one of their associates acting as a sock puppet.

However, according to an essay in Wikipedia, the word Cruftcruft means junk and is often used in discussions about articles for deletion, where "a wave of the cruft wand" is used. See here. See my report about the sockpuppet vandalism here.


The manufacturers of false impressions
and how they fooled other editors

Shortly after I began contributing to the Da Costa's page two editors started 12 months of relentless insults and criticism against me. The first thing they did was to deliberately violate one of the major policies of Wikipedia which is "Never" mention a persons real name in the title or sub-section title of articles.

They set up the Da Costa's talk page (which hadn't been there before), and put my real personal Sir name in BOLD print as a section title at the top of the page.

The very first words they wrote were arrogant, patronising, and deliberately offensive.

When the editor named Gordonofcartoon presented his first insults he made a spelling error with the word "sugests" having only one "g".

My first thoughts were that people who make such basic mistakes should be very careful in how they go about criticing the value or intelligence of others. re. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

I decided to overlook those matters because there was a "Civility" policy which required all editors to try and pursue discussions courteously even if their opponents weren't, and I was hoping that continued reasonable discussions might result.

However they just kept on criticising and deleting everything I wrote in the most insulting and offensive way possible.

I continued to be courteous despite the worst of their insults until about eight months later because their offensive attitude was becoming contagious and other editors were taking the liberty of treating me in the same offensive manner.

One of the things that I decided to do was to give them both a hint about what I could do to them if they continued to criticise me, so I mentioned that their spelling error in their first sentence was not an indication of superior intelligence, and then of course, they were supposed to be bright enough to know that I could treat them with the same disrespect as they treated me, anytime I wished, and that there was a massive amount of evidence and proof of their mistakes and policy violations from day one.

When I made that comment, an editor named Avnjay, who was new to the discussions, wrote these words . . .


"Gordon, I can understand your frustration so please don't take offence at this but some of your replies are getting needlessly provocative and short tempered . . . and . . .

Posturewriter a paragraph attacking someone over a simple typo is ridiculous" signed Avnjay 14:23, 27 August 2008


My two critics had created such a negative attitude towards me that my eight months of politely overlooking their mistakes, in the face of deliberate provocation, was wasted.


The requirement for courteous editing was formally written into Wikipediia policies, but did not exist, or was not enforced in actual practice.


see here

and here

and here

&nbs p;

Childish Editing Behaviour

First of all my apologies go to any editor of Wikipedia who joined for constructive reasons who may mistakenly see my comments as inappropriate or personal.

However I will now give some suggestions about how to identify childish editing practices which need to be banned, as they are damaging the objectives of that organisation.

There needs to be a new Wikipedia page called "Childish Behaviour", which includes a section called "Childish Editing Practices".

That sections should include descriptions, and, or links to the following . . .

1. Rudeness, including the sinister form called "strategic rudeness", which is a ridiculous excuse for ill-mannered behaviour.

2. Disrespect for elders.

3. Disrespect for editors or members of the public who have "experience" in particular areas of knowledge.

4. Gaming the system, and request to "play the game" according to Wikpedia rules - It should not be treated as a game, seriously, or humorously. Wikilawyering. (the use of large numbers of policies against one person should be banned).

5. The use of "attitude readjustment tools" which includes reference the new contributor being the "Luser" and to "cluesticks" as metaphorical 2X4 blocks of wood which are used to hit them over the head so that they get some sort of unspecified " point.

6. Links to Wikipedia pages which have been designed to be Trojan horses of "insults" disguised as "humor", particularly against "new contributors". e.g. "Trouts", and "The Last Word".

7. The use of the "ignore all rules" policy in any form whatsoever. Rules are written to be complied with, not to be disregarded by immature people just because they are becoming frustrated and want to get their own way regardless.

7(a). Using a ridiculous argument that some sort of "unwritten rule" exists which another person has to "obey by instinct" as if they are supposed to be "gypsy mind readers" or "dogs".

7(b). Arguing that there is some sort of "invisible line" which a person is supposedly not allowed to step over. The lines should be clearly defined in the rules or they do not exist, and cannot be "inferred" to exist by arrogant editors who claim to "know the unknowable".

8. The inappropriate use of "barnstars" as an inducement or reward for banning other editors. Banning is a serious matter and not a childish opportunity for bragging or gloating.

9. Discrimination against other editors based on whether or not someone has some sort of qualification, such as a university degree, or not. The intellectual merits of the information is all that matters - not the intellectual merit, or lack of it in any person, qualified or otherwise. Discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, particularly where one groups vested interests conflict with anothers.

10. Setting up topic pages as "walled gardens" by surrounding them with multiple "Classifications" and "Categories" which link to hundreds of other relevant or irrelevant information, and topping the "Article page" with "hatnotes" to irrelevant material, and topping "Talk pages" with "Wiki Projects" consisting of "groups" of editors who have vested interests.


One of the editors acts as if she is the "Diva" or "Prima Donna" of Wikipedia, but is an extra-ordinary hypocrite

One of the most childish editors in Wikipedia has calls herself "WhatamIdoing". She acts like a spoilt and privileged prima donna, and yet tries to give the impression that she is mature and respectable, and that anyone who disagrees with her is some sort of "diva"

This is a quote from one of her edits . . .

"we have many highly productive editors who do not engage in self-agrandizement, are not narcissistic, do not cause needless drama whenever someone happens to have a different opinion, and do not act like little children who want to order around everyone else on the playground". WhatamIdoing 15:32, 1 March 2012 here.

A typical example of her narcissistic, self-aggrandizing and needless drama can be seen here. A report on her affect on another editor who joined Wikipedia as a 'self-agrandizing' narcissistic teenager engaging in needless drama can be seen here.

The "simple" tactic of that fool is to create the impression that she has the "right" to dish it out, and also has the right to insult anyone who shoves it back.

In fact, she has to comply with the rules like every other editor, but she doesn't obey any unless she wants to.

The two-faced diva

The editor named WhatamIdoing is the most arrogant, ill-mannered, immature, and manipulative liars I have ever come across. However, one of her tactics is to defend one of her lies with a bigger one, and another is to throw immature temper tantrums of criticism if you accuse her of breaking a rule, and to put on a melodramatic act of protecting the entire Wikipedia "community" from other people who she says is "damaging" it. As you would expect., she accuses other people of behaving exactly the way she does, when in fact, they don't.

This is a quote from one of her discussions . . .
"talking about divas who '''say''' they're going to retire, but never actually leave. It is, in short, talking about the damage done to the community by immature, manipulative liars. We have a problem with divas who essentially say things like, "If you don't do it my way, then I'm going to take my ball and go home, so there!", but who never actually leave, no matter how much we wish they would go away until they grow up.". WhatamIdoing 15:23, 1 March 2012. here.

For evidence that both of my critics were manipulative liars you can use the index here.

Courtesy policy enforcement for all, or courtesy for none

I complied with Wikipedia's "Civility" policy which required all editors to show courtesy and respect to all others at all times. on the basis that it was a good idea, and on the understanding that the policy would be enforced equally on all editors at all times.

However, I had two critics who thought that their ability to be rude to me was a sign of their 'intelligence' or 'cleverness', and 'power', and that my disregard for their 'rudeness' was due to weakness. e.g. see here

Nobody forced them to be courteous, so now that I have been banned, I don't think that anyone has a right to criticise my response to their behaviour.

When one of them wrote an essay about "deliberate" and "instrumental rudeness" being a part of "pragmatic competence" she demonstrated her failure to understand human nature, because such behaviour will lose her credibility, and influence, and she won't get any respect, and she won't have any power. Her essay was just a silly excuse for her own ill-mannered behaviour, and if she thinks that she can fool everybody else with a shallow stunt like that she is kidding herself.

To put it plainly - Only an idiot would be deliberately and openly rude in an organisation which required it's editors to be polite as part of it's official policy.



Their plan

My two critics would like you to think that they were "clever", but from my observations there was nothing intelligent about their simple tricks.

From early in their discussions they put together a co-ordinated plan to have me on their watchlists, and harass me until I responded "rudely". They then intended to put the rare instances of my "rude" responses onto another list, together with the time and date, so that they could later use it as evidence to get me banned on the basis of their trumped up accusation of me having a "long" "continued" "pattern" of "uncivil" "behaviour".

In fact, in May 2008, one of them told other editors that their attempt had failed, and then forecast that she would act like the "Wicked witch of the west" until she achieved her objective here.

By July 2008 I was getting fed up with their offensive nonsense, and came to the conclusion that it was not worth my while wasting any more time in Wikipedia while they were there, and that if they managed to get me banned, then so be it. That would be Wikipedia's loss.

Consequently when one of them wrote "Do we want to up the ante?", I just gave him the answer he had been "begging for" by asking him if he wanted me to teach him a lesson that he wouldn't forget in a hurry.

He responded immediately here

Soon after that he set up a new discussion and told a lot of lies, and added a long list of 14 accusations. In number 5 he referred to my response as an "Unspecified threat". He wanted to give other editors the false impression that it was an "unprovoked" and "undeserved" threat. here


How my main critic is sabotaging Wikipedia's good policies

The following words are a quote from one of Wikipedia's most important principles and policies - WP: CIVIL:

"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. This policy describes the standards of behavior expected of users when they interact, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians". See here


After I was banned on 29th Janurary 2009, by that editors manipulative policy behaviour and their friends use of the 'ignore their own rules' policy, I started documenting evidence of their rudeness, with links to provide evidence and proof of their disgusting arrogance, pomposity, prolific lies, and bad manners. e.g. See here. Typically that individual would rewrite the policies, or add information to other articles in Wikipedia to make their stupid and grubby behaviour sound intelligent and respectable.


This is a quote from that editor on 27th February 2010, which is now an established part of the description on the topic page called "Rudeness" . . .
"most rudeness serves functional or instrumental purposes in communication, and skillfully choosing when and how to be rude may indicate a person's pragmatic competence." See here


It doesn't matter what an arrogant, pompous, and ill-mannered person thinks is 'smart' about being rude - it is still a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, and it should be enforced in this instance.


I want all of the other editors and administrators to know how their well intentioned founding principles are being systematically undermined and sabotaged by that individual.


A policy to make pomposity a bannable offence WP:Pomposity

My main critic manipulates Wikipedia policies to win disputes so that when they do something wrong they interpret it as right, and whenever their opponent does something right they interpret it as wrong.

Whenever, despite such tactics, that editor still loses disputes, they rush off to the policy pages and rewrite them so that they can win by using the same losing arguments in the future. i.e. they manufacture catch 22's (no win situations for their opponenst), which is an unethical, but rather 'simple' tactic used by cheats.

However that individual has a character flaw which involves an overly inflated opinion of their own importance, so what I suggest, is that the civility policy is improved by making 'pomposity' a bannable offence, and includes, 'pretentiousness' 'airs and graces', 'snottiness', and writing in a manner or tone that is patronising or condescending to other adults.

Somebody has to protect new contributors from that type of ill-mannered behaviour. It is inconsistent with the requirement to treat all other editors with courtesy and respect at all times.

Wikipedia was set up to provide all information from all sources, and represent neutral point of view. It was not set up to become and elitits snotty rag.


You can see that editors contribution to a "Civil POV pushing" page. It is set up to criticise people like me who are civil (polite) so my critic has found a way to say I'm wrong anyway, by accusing me of pushing a point of view. However that editor then proceeds to be uncivil (by insulting me), and tell lies, and pushes their own point of view, in an attempt to get me blocked so that only their own point of view is left. (which is violating the neutral point of view policy). At the top of the page is a large picture of a bull indicating that editors offensive attitude towards other editors and readers (by artistically portraying them as PCCTL - PC cattle)

It is not appropriate for some editors to be the self-appointed 'toffee nosed snots' of Wikipedia who can refer to every editor who argues with them as the 'easily led' sheep and cattle of society. It is also totally opposite the policy which requires All editors to treat All other contributors with courtesy and respect. See here


My pompous critic

My main critic was an extremely arrogant individual who often wrote in a deliberately pompous manner, as if to give the impression of possessing lofty intelligence that was so far above everyone else that they were mere sheep and cattle by comparison. In particular that person would try to create the illusion that I was a fringy kook who had never read any formal research literature. That was evident from the first sentence they wrote about me at 1.08 pm 21st December 2007 on the Da Costa's syndrome discussion page. This is a quote from their remarks . . . "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." See here

Referring to a medical condition as 'garden variety' was deliberately offensive.

However, here are some facts . . .

Orthostatic intolerance is the name given to a type of faintness which occasionally occurs in some people when they stand up too quickly, and it is due to the fact that they have weak circulation where the blood tends to move down to the feet under the influence of gravity, and is slow in it's return the the heart and brain. The faintness usually only lasts for a few seconds, but it is associated with fatigue which has the same general basis. That symptom, and the problem with circulation has been known for more than 100 years, and during that time many researchers have tried to determine the cause, but none have produced a convincing answer. When I started reading the medical research literature thirty years ago there was no effective treatment, which I why I was trying to determine the cause myself. Eventually, about four years passed when I came to the conclusion that it was due to postural pressure on the air in the chest which simulated Valsalva's maneuver to produce weaknesses in the blood vessels below. There are several other theories, and some of the other researchers have made similar suggestions since then.

Hyperventilation syndrome is another label for Da Costa's syndrome, but it is actually somewhat different in it's symptoms, and it is based on a very old observation that the patients breathing is abnormal. There are various theories relating to the idea that anxiety causes abnormal breathing, and that if they are anxious for a period of many years their breathing pattern would have been different for so long that they continue to breath that way as the result of acquiring a habit, and that it is the breathing abnormality which causes the other symptoms such as chest pains and fatigue.

However Da Costa's syndrome is named after J.M.Da Costa who's research paper was published in 1841. After studying 300 soldiers with these symptoms he came to the conclusion that the typical patient was a soldier who had marched day and night, carrying a heavy knapsack strapped tightly to his chest, up and down hills, for several days or weeks, in the cold an wet, when he contracted a feverish illness, became faint, and collapsed. He then spent about two months in hospital where he recovered from the fever, but continued to have a set of symptoms which included the fatigue and breathlessness.

As you can appreciate, the typical cause reported was excessive and prolonged physical exertion, not 'anxiety', and the time of development was a few days or weeks, not 'many years', and it is not likely that anyone would develop a completely new way of breathing due to habit, because the time span is too short.


In summary, while there may have been some minor variations in those general themes, and the labels used, the ideas themselves are not 'new' and have not solved the problem. which is why I started reading medical literature thirty years ago. I spent the next five years trying to solve those problems because nobody else could, and afterwards I was invited by the head of the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training to design a research programme which would add to the knowledge of the topic, and that project was successful.

My main critic was trying to create the impression of knowing everything about this topic, and that I knew nothing. However, before I started on the article it had been in Wikipedia for more than a year, and that individual had edited it twice, yet It contained only four lines of text and no references. About six months later, at 22:05 on 15th May 2008, that editor admitted that I was 'probably' correct in relation to verifiable evidence that it was a physical disorder. However, they then used 'old' ideas, as if they were 'modern' to convince other editors that I was wrong, and acted like an authority on the effects of exercise by arguing that it helps by changing the breathing pattern. See here. It actually helps by improving measurable aerobic capacity without any change in the breathing pattern which distinguishes it from other disorders i.e. where the patient continues to occasionally feel the need to take deeper breaths. .

Twelve months later, in an attempt to get me banned that individual admitted to not knowing much about the topic until I began editing it. See here. That editors criticisms of me were ridiculous. M.B.

Some additional comments

When I was studying Da Costa's syndrome more than 30 years ago the most common research name for it was 'neurocirculatory asthenia', and the symptom of faintness was attributed to weak circulation (re: orthostatic intolerance - faintness generally, and when moving from the laying to standing position). One of the ideas about the cause of the weak circulation was that it was due to a disorder of the autonomic nervous system (re: dysautonomia).

One of the other symptoms was left-sided chest pain, which was found to be relieved by an intramuscular injection of 2ml. of novocaine (a painkiller) in that area.

The breathing disorder was described as involving an occasional feeling of not getting enough air, and the studies of respiration had some inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, the breathing at rest was almost normal but became more abnormal during exertion, and was abnormal in the immediate period afterwards. There was also an intolerance to inhaling CO2.

I concluded that whatever the nature of the breathing problem, it was due to postural compression on the lungs or breathing muscles, which resulted in respiratory dysfunction (an abnormal pattern of breathing where one of the features was 'suspiratory' respiration). Also, I later considered the possiblity that a contributing factor may be abnormalities in posture and smaller chest shape which disposes to shallow, or 'thoracic' breathing, where extra breaths would be required periodically to gain the normal intake per minute.

Various researchers had attributed the symptoms to genetic factors, thyroid or adrenal disorders, or viral infections, and some were attributing the symptoms to the fear of exercise, or general anxiety, which affected the autonomic nervous system, which regulates respiration, and was causing abnormal breathing. That in turn was supposedly putting strain on the breathing muscles, which strained the chest muscles to cause pain in the structure of the chest etc. However, not all patients were suffering from anxiety, and not all researchers agreed that the hyperventilation was the cause of all of the other symptoms in the syndrome. One prominent researcher named Paul Wood speculated that postural abnormalities may be causing the chest pains, but he didn't carry those ideas any further, and concluded that anxiety was the cause.. His ideas influenced a lot of other researchers.

I concluded that the postural pressure on the air in the chest caused the weakness in the blood vessels (vascular dystonia), and postural compression of the respiratory muscles was causing respiratory dysfunction and hence abnormal breathing, and postural compression of the chest was causing pain between the ribs on the lower left side. I called the combination of those, and other conclusions "The Posture Theory". I have since considered that there may be different causes for different syndrome sub-sets. M.B.

Direct and indirect attempts to discredit my ideas

When I designed an exercise programme for Da Costa's patient's in 1982 I knew that it would be successful, and that any other method would not. I therefore recognised that if I didn't get the idea published (and I didn't), that it would travel through the research grapevine, and that someone else would see the opportunity to copy it and claim it as their own. Of course, it is possible that someone else could develop a similar method based on their own conclusions. Nevertheless, the method which I developed has now come to be regarded as the most successful form of treatment for the condition and is generally referred to as PACING.

My main critic and others would try to trivialise and discredit me by writing this sort of comment . . .

"Hyperventilation Syndrome . . . HVS explains all the symptoms. It also explains why fitness training helps some patients, because when you exercise, you change (improve) your breathing patterns." (end of quote) See here

Here are some facts: Firstly, there are dozens of symptoms in Da Costa's syndrome and the HVS theory only explains a small number of them. Secondly, exercise improves aerobic capacity in some patients, but it does not change the breathing 'pattern' that distinguishes it from other disorders. M.B.




The violations of Discussion policy (foul language etc) used by my two critics - WP:Civil

Their extremely bad manners


Civil or uncivil 'images'

After I was banned from Wikipedia and began criticising my two critics, I received some offensive emails or comments telling me that I was at fault, and that I should 'drop it', because those individuals were 'respectable', and that my criticism of them was professionally irresponsible.

However, they had been in Wikipedia for four years, and had written or influenced many of the 200 policies and guidelines, and could use them for 'good' or 'bad' purposes. Within a few weeks of me starting on an article about Da Costa's syndrome they put me on a watchlist, and virtually threatened to follow me around, probably with several of their friends, to delete everything I wrote. It was obvious to me that they would find some excuse to explain their deletions to other editors.

When they told lies, I knew they were violating policy, but I didn't know which policy, and couldn't be bothered reading them all to find the 'obvious' one that stated 'you can't tell lies in Wikipedia'. Hence they were able to tell 100 deliberate lies and go un-noticed.

However they obviously set about putting together a list which contained the rare instances when I responded to their deliberately provocative insults, and then produced a sudden report of examples to create the impression that I was arguing with the entire Wikipedia community all day every day.

This is evidence of how that editor uses lists from a discussion with another editor . . .

"I included one link from 2009 because the three links from the last couple of months obviously wouldn't justify my statement that Damiens has a "long history of incivility". The three links from the last three months, by themselves, would demonstrate only a "recent history of incivility". WhatamIdoing 01:37, 29 May 2011 See here


The barnstar of civility?

I added some criticism about my main critic on 28 May 2011, and within 24 hours that individual added a link to list of all of their barnstars. However, I make two comments. Firstly, it doesn't matter how many awards are granted for good conduct, it still doesn't justify telling massive numbers of lies, or violating policies at wiil. It is also easy to get rewards from people who have been helped by that individual, or from people who share the same prejudices, and such a list hides (by omission) a much larger list of lies and policy violations. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether that individual is a paid public relations agent or a professional propagandist or not, because the fact remains that some people use the tactic of gaining respectability and trust so that they can do dastardly deeds. See my main critics barnstars, including the civility award here

See my report on that editors offensive attitude and behaviour by scrolling down to the heading of "WhatamIoing's Rudeness according to Wikipedia policy" here


That editors attitude can be described like this . . . If they were white they would treat all other white's with respect, and all blacks as human trash. If they were wealthy they would treat all wealthy people with courtesy, and all poor people as scum. The specific details are not as important as the general observation that some people are selectively polite, and can easily gain praise from the individuals who receive the courtesy. However, in Wikipedia the policy requires editors to treat all individuals with courtesy and respect at all times, regardless of whether they agree with them or not, so until some devious individual deletes that policy my main critics double standards are not appropriate, and that person should be banned for violating that policy.


My main critic was called "WhatamIdoing", and the other one was Gordonofcartoon. See examples of their actual arrogance, rudeness, sarcasm, and offensive attitude and behaviour in my report below.

The Wikipedia problems which are impossible to fix

On 28-5-11 I read the discussion on the Petition Against IAR Abuse in Wikipedia and noticed that the large volume of comments has been removed (by putting them into an archive), and that only two comments remain in view. One of the editors was complaining that the petition was a waste of time because no-one had given a single example of an editor or administrator who had abused that rule.
I therefore posted a comment at 7:02 with links to my report on the extreme IAR abuse by my two critics, and an administrator named Moreschi. I checked the page the following day and it was gone. See my comment here

Obviously there still isn't an example of anyone who has abused WP:IAR on that page.

Sensible people would take it for granted that you should remove a policy that gave one person, or a group of individuals the right to ignore all the policies. However no-one seems to know how to do that.

Also, the discussion policy says that you can only comment the topic and not the person. i.e. you can only comment on the 'ignore all rules' policy, and not the person who is violating it. There are others such as the 'No personal attacks' WP:NPA, and the 'Assume good faith WP:AGF' policies which means that you can be banned for criticising someone. Those policies make it impossible to name the administrators who are abusing that policy, which means that there will never be any individuals named, and all editors will be able to argue that nobody has ever abused the policy so it is not necessary to remove it.

Another issue is that when I was banned I had the opportunity to appeal the decision, but it would be necessary to refrain from criticising the editors who banned me, (and not bring up the fact that they were blatant cheats). Furthermore I was told that if I went back into Wikipedia I would have to show 'good faith' in the honesty and good judgemental of those individuals and co-operate with them and follow their instructions. In other words become a 'yes' man, regardless of how many lies they told etc.

There is a sort of double bind in those policies which makes it impossible for anyone to fix the problems, so i suppose there will always be an ignore all rules policy, and editors and administrators who will keep on using and abusing it.

The final problem is that while I was in Wikipedia I was complying with the policy which required me to be polite to others, even if they were arrogant and offensive.

However, the policies also state that the expereinced editors and administrators also have to set an example for everyone else to follow. The example has been set, so while it probably won't influence me in other situations, I will follow it in relation to my two critics. As they say, you can't just keep on turning the other cheek, because sooner or later your head will fall off.



This is a quote from a page called Wikipedia:Five Pillars which refers to the basis on which Wikipedia was meant to develop . . .

"Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks." See here


At 17:48 on 26-1-09 Gordonofcartoon had the cheek to tell the arbitrators that he tried to resolve the dispute with me by giving me "Advice on general editing etiquette and standards" ? His own lack of respect for etiquette policy can be seen below.



Are Wikipedia's rules of good manners just toothless tigers or window dressing

Most groups in society have a set of rules which distinguish them from other groups, and Wikipedia aims at having a very high standards of conduct, which includes the standard of interaction between it's members, and the status of it's organisation in society. Therefore it requires all editors to treat each other with courtesy and respect to attract individuals with high standards of good manners to their organisation for the purpose of developing a collaboration of intelligent people to produce a reliable source of top quality of information.

Anyone who breaks those rules should be banned if Wikipedia is serious about achieving it's publicly promoted objectives.

The fact that juvenile delinquents or street urchins have much lower standards, and the fact that many families use foul language at the dinner table in front of their children, and the fact that some TV shows have very low standards of manners is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.

i.e. the only thing that is relevant to Wikipedia manners, is Wikipedia's rules about good manners, and anyone who doens't wish to accept and abide by them should not join, or should be banned.

However, my two critics use brainwashing methods to divert attention away from scientific facts which are the only thing relevant to topics, but they also have the ability to divert the attention of other editors away from the rules of Wikipedia, and they talk other editors into making the following types of excuse for their disgusting manners


"Oh, these types of comments are common in normal social settings and Posturewriter is being a bit sensitive and needs to ignore the mildly offensive and patronising remarks and just focus on the content of articles" . . . and . . . "Oh, we are allowed to use foul language because we are losing our patience in a very frustrating situation" . . . and . . . "Oh, we are just acting like clever people who use 'strategic rudeness to achieve power over our inferiors".

Needless to say my two critics were being offensively arrogant, sarcastic, patronising, and rude, and were using deliberately ill-mannered tones in almost every discussion about me, and 95% of the time I was aware of Wikipedia's ambition of good standards of behaviour, and was responding to their disgusting remarks politely, or in a matter of fact manner.

If it was not for the rules of Wikipedia, and their ambitions to become an organisation with standards that were much higher than the general level seen in society, my responses would have been completely different. In particular I would have lowered myself the their level, and given them equal for equal.

Consequently, if Wikipedia wants the public to take them seriously, and not to regard their rules as public relations window dressing, or toothless tigers, then they should have a look at the standards of manners used by my 2 critics, as reported below, and ban them for breaking their rules of civility etc.


These are Gordonofcartoon's exact words in red

His choice of words to describe my response to criticism as . . . "continual griping".

He said that other editors were saying that my article was . . . "crap".

He changed the name of Guido den Broeder (a former chairman of the Netherlands CFS association)  to . . . Bilbo von Booger here(In Wikipedia booger means dried nasal mucus, or snot). here.

He swore with these words . . . "and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on".

Note: As an experienced editor he has got no excuse for using any type of foul language which is mentioned SPECIFIALLY, as an example, in the rules about how NOT to behave.



The words from WP:CIVIL policy that Gordonofcartoon knowingly, deliberately, flagrantly, and blatantly flouted and violated


"These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment . . . Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") here


Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. here


Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" here


Insults and name-calling here


"Abusive swearing - for abuse or intimidation or insulting of others (Example: You motherfucking son of a bitch! Fuck you)" here


My other critics extreme and offensive arrogance

A few months after I was banned I saw this discussion between an editor named Pernoctus and my main critic.

Pernoctus wrote this . . .

"I am sure that if you'd taken the trouble to document what was a barefaced assertion, in the first place, Mr. Smart-Ass, we would not have needed to have this exchange." Pernoctus 16:53, 18 May 2009


This was my main critics reply . . ."nor is it appropriate to call people names. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. WhatamIdoing 18:06, 18 May 2009.

Those words were amended at 01:07 on 9-6-09 here


Note that Pernoctus was independently referring to my main critics typically offensive arrogance by using the word Mr. Smart-Ass.

Note also the offensive double standards of my main critic who regularly makes personal insults about others, but quotes the "content only" and "no personal attacks" policies if someone directs any personal comments in their direction. See my report on that editors extreme violations of the "no personal attacks" policy here and here and here


Gordonofcartoons ill-mannered editing of other articles

"Beef Brained"

In giving advice to an editor involved in an apparent dispute with another individual or group Gordonofcartoon wrote these words . . . "Just stop pissing around and deal with this article in a neutral manner . . . And this war of single-purpose accounts and probably sockpuppets needs to stop. As I said at WP:COIN, if it were up to me, nobody would be allowed to edit this article if they haven't a long-term history of editing unrelated articles: people who are not involved in some dispute between equally stupid culty beef-brained exercise schemes". signed Gordonofcartoon 1:03, 14 February 2010 here

Other words used by Gordonofcartoon in the same conversation during the next few hours were "stupid propaganda" and "the multiple anonymous edits - both pro and anti - will be stamped on. So just drop ". . . and . . . "bilge".


He can't be Arsed

In commenting on the possible 3RR policy violation which recommends against reverting another persons edits more than three times in one day, Gordonofcartoon left these words . . . "Gonzinuc is up to 3RR now. It's late and I can't be arsed to report it this instant, but anyone feel free." signed Gordonofcartoon 4:18, 4 March 2010 here


"Dearodear" and tsk tsk tsky wooskys to U2

Gordonofcartoon has had an ongoing interest in an article about Gibraltar, and has recently objected to other editors deleting information from it and hence "Rewriting history". These were his words "Dearodear . . . And 'just after the majority of the Spanish population left in 1704. They just left? They thought one day, here

It is a typical example of his ill-mannered method of subjecting another persons editing to mockery, which is a violation of WP:Civil.


Gordonofcartoons Dicatatorial Arrogance toward another editors

On 14-7-2009 Gordonofcartoon gave the following advice to another editor named Dolfrog. . . . "If you can/will function within Wikipedia policies and guidlines, good. If you can't/won't, you know where the door is"" Gordonofcartoon 23:52, 14 July 2009 here


Gordonofcartoon's Rudeness according to Wikipedia policy

After two neutral editors had suggested that the dispute over content could be resolved if each of the three involved editors wrote their own version of the article to be merged later, Gordonofcartoon responded arrogantly and stubbornly at 16:30, 8 August 2008 with these words . . . "No, I'm fed up with this, We deal with it now".

When I agreed to provide such an essay, and that I would be happy for neutral editors to merge them Gordonofcartoon responded at 15:30 on 15 August 2008 with these words . . . "Discussions over: no-one's intrested in seeing further essays from you here".

Here are two quotes from the Wikipedia guidelines which give examples of rudeness . . . "Discouraging a person's participation in a conversation with rude phrases, such as 'shut up' or excluding someone from a conversation . . . and . . . interrupting a speaker or indicating that the speaker is not worth listening to".

Gordonofcartoon was characteristically impulsive, impatient, ill-tempered, and foul mouthed toward me and other editors, but his tag-team mate was quite happy about that and never accused him of violating civility policy etc. However, the following words give the impression that WhatamIdoing is prim and proper in seeking the co-operation of 'calm' and 'reasonable editors???? in a section that was set up at 21:06 on 10 April 2010, with the title "Calm editors sought". Here are some words from that section "Thank you, and thanks also to 2/0, whose comments are also calm, reasonable, and helpful. It's great to work with people who are willing to show up, even on tense pages. WhatamIdoing 17:01, 13 April 2010 here

Here is a quote from another editor about ignoring other editors behaviour . . . "Not a personal attack, Pmanderson, but it is certainly incivil. Saying the MOS should be ignored is one thing. Saying other editors should be ignored is another". --RA07:53, 22 April 2010


Gordonofcartoons self-defeating Uncivil Accusations

Gordonofcartoon was always trying to annoy me to get an uncivil response so that he could use it as an excuse to ban me.

For example, he made the following accusations of incivility against me . . . "he had openly flouted WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL with an extended userspace attack on two editors called The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics, and inflammatory language like editor X's "web of deceit" and "juvenile duplicity" and editor Y"swinging through the wiki trees beating his breast and yelling his typical bark". signed Gordonofcartoon 16:57 3rd February 2009.

However he didn't tell the other editors that editors x and y were himself and his tag team mate, who had always being criticising and insulting me, and he didn't tell the other editors that he repeatedly made similar comments about me, such as six months earlier, at 11:31 on 4th August 2008, when he wrote these words about me . . . "Does this recent edit look like someone prepared to buckle to and adapt to how things are done here, or someone still thumping the same polemical tub while professing neutrality" (end of quote). see here


Gordonofcartoons childish attempts at Insulting mockery

At one stage Gordonofcartoon provided a link to a novel with the title of 'Soldier's Heart' which is an alternate label for Da Costa's syndrome. I wondered why any intelligent adult would link a 'story' to a serious medical topic that required references from top quality scientific or medical journals, so I read it, and found it to be a children's fiction story. I knew that the Wikipedia civility policy required me to be polite even when dealing with foolish or deliberately annoying people, so I politely asked him to delete it and received a flood of absurd arguments including the following, insulting and offensive response . . .
"Posturewriter OTOH is arguing that a hatnoted article forms part of the information sourcing of the article that links to it - i.e. that disambiguation to Soldier's Heart (novel) will take readers somewhere where they'll be misinformed about "soldier's heart" the syndrome.
This seems to me at the level of arguing that the hatnote at Dunwich to Dunwich (Lovecraft) might make people think the real Dunwich is a decrepit place full of Cthulhu-worshipping inbred mutants." Gordonofcartoon 15:36, 3 July 2008 Just before I was banned an editor named El Imp deleted the hatnote, and just after I was banned another editor named Paul Barlow deleted the link to the children's story on the grounds that it was 'unrelated' to the topic see here
and here
and here

My two critics were so hopeless that they even lost one of their best arguments after I was banned, when I wasn't even there.They also just kept on critising me while they thought that I wouldn't be able to defend myself, and Gordonofcartoon continued to shamelessly violate the civility policy by using the same profanity repeatedly i.e. this one . . ."and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on". . . He was fond of filling topic pages with as many psychiatric labels as possible so it is consistent with his own personal manual of style (GOPMOS) to mention this one . . . Coprolalia - See here
See also the end of the edit at
16:15 on 3 2-10 here


An eye for an eye is a crap argument?

Gordonofcartoon essentially lost every argument against me for a year, including arguments about 'civility' policy (which requires all editors to be polite and not use foul language etc), and he stubbornly, and unreasonably, refused to admit that he was losing fifty times, and then he thought that because he eventually won only one discussion by cheating, that it should all end then, and that any continuance would be unreasonable. The following words are a quote from one of his discussions with another editor . . .
"The phrase "An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind" <!--Do not alter this to match a variant you saw on some "Crap quotation website" (end of quote) signed Gordonofcartoon 00:46 14 July 2010
See here


For all Gordonofcartoon cares?

A flowering plant can go on top of a medical page?

At 23:41 on 29-6-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote these words . . . "For the purposes of the hatnote, it doesn't matter what the book says; for all I care, it could say soldier's heart is a kind of small flowering plant. A hatnote is not a reference. It is purely for disambiguation of topics with the same name, and conveys no implication of relative importance or 'framing'.
If you interested yourself in other articles on Wikipedia, you might develop some better knowledge of the conventions here. Do you believe that The Vampire Bat is a reference for Vampire bat or, as cited in WP:HATNOTE#Examples of proper use, Dunwich (Lovecraft) is a reference for Dunwich?" (end of quote) Scroll down to the end of the discussion here.


Gordonofcartoon's devious insults and CRUFT

My two critics were claiming to be polite and respectful editors, but they actually had very devious ways of being deliberately insulting and offensive as can be seen in the following example

In his 1871 study, J.M. Costa reported that . . . "Undoubtedly the waistbelt but particularly the knapsack" were aggravating the symptoms in infantrymen, but he saw the same symptoms in the cavalry so he concluded that it couldn't be the only cause. My two critics argued that I was deliberately ignoring the studies which disputed the suggestion., but I wasn't. However, I did supply evidence that similar symptoms affected women who wore 19th century corsets, which could be relieved by unlacing the corset, and that there were many medical, scientific, and public debates outside of the military which showed a cause and effect on health, which resulted in the corset going out of fashion. I therefore linked to a page in Wikipedia which showed varieties of corsets, and how tight they were, and to another page called "The Corset" in WikiSource. It contained the text of a detailed scientific study of the measurements of pressure on the cavities inside the chest and abdomen of women who wore corsets.(Dickinson RL November 5 1887. "The Corset: Questions of Pressure and Displacement". New York Medical Journal). I then linked to a Wikipedia page about fainting rooms which briefly described how tight corsets compressed the waist and squeezed the ribs and internal organs, which could "lead to many health problems, the most common being dizziness and fainting" See here and here.

Within an hour, at 00:54 on 29-12-07, Gordonofcartoon deleted all mention of my own research, and all three links to the three corset pages with this explanation . . . "After 1950, remove exposition of NN Banfield material" (NN means non-notable) here. I then abbreviated that section but it was deleted again in January 2008 so I didn't put it back, and started writing other aspects of the history.

Here were the exact words used by Gordonofcartoon to insult me six months later, by misrepresenting those references in an attempt to provoke me, and to mislead other readers of my Usertalk page into thinking that I used unreliable sources of information . . .

"As I've told you several times, we are writing an encyclopedia for the general reader, and it needs to cut to the chase: we don't need stuff at the level of lists of what color corsets each of the 79 participants in the 1893 study were wearing" signed Gordonofcartoon 14:19 on 25th June 2008.

Note that Gordonofcartoon was still complaining about my use of corset references and scientific studies which measured the pressure in the chest?????. I only used three links, and they had all been deleted six months earlier???? He is also making an indirect comment about my use of Wheelers 20 year follow up study of 173 DCS patients that was published in JAMA in 1950 - one of their many excuses for deleting information was that it was cruft - which has the dual meaning for "too much detail", and, "rubbish that needs to be swept away".

See here

Note also that their version of the article kept the information about "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", and it is still in Wikipedia more than a year after I was banned, as of 6-1-10 See here


WhatamIdoing described my contributions as "cruft" that "crawls in"

This is what my main critic wrote on the arbitration page to get me banned . . . Posturewriters "text is full of statements like "In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie chaired a major medical conference aimed at gaining a better understanding of the condition", when in fact it wasn't a "major" medical conference, and it wasn't "aimed at" anything in particular . . . An enormous amount of cruft crawls into his writing this way." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009

However, my two critics kept the same MacKenzie meeting as one of the references for their small version of the article.

See here and here

Note also that whenever one of my critics wanted to set up a page against me the other one would come 'crawling in" and say - 'by the way, I just noticed this dispute, does anyone mind if I add my two cents worth'. e.g. at 19:20 on 15-5-2008 here


Don't call things cruft

This is a quote from the Wikipedia guideline which says "Don't call things cruft . . . use of the word can cause offence as it is "needlessly aggressive and needlessly insults the contributors ... It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes WP:Civil discussion." Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be "cruft", should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed here


Another quote about the cruft wand, the cruft police, and cruftspeak from Wikipedia

"Cruft, originated in hackerdom where it was used to mean "something which [is] badly designed, poorly implemented, or redundant." It was picked up in popular culture, where it has been defined as "useless junk or excess materials".

"Unfortunately, this complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in.
"Having turned up their nose at a topic, the article must be deleted, and must be disposed of without any meaningful discussion. A wave of the cruft wand is all that is necessary to pass off one's subjective ennui into a delete vote on an AFD. Other members of the cruft police are drawn to the scent and toss their own nonsensical cruftspeak into the mix." see here


Gordonofcartoon "whinging" is not an offensive word???

When Gordonofcartoon argued about my use of Rosen's research paper, i provided evidence that he had not read the second paragraph of that article which proved him wrong, but he would act as if he was in the right and rush off and tell other editors that he wanted me blocked. When WhatamIdoing told me that I was violating the sourcing policy by using references from the 1950's I provided quotes from that policy to prove that editor was telling lies, and then they would tag team to set up a further discussion and accuse me of violating another policy. When they lost their next arguments they would set up more discussions and occasionally managed to get someone to agree with them. They would then try to give the impression that they had won every argument and that the entire Wikipedia community was against me by using the words "we keep telling you this" and "we have told you not to do that". When other editors suggested that the three of us write versions of the article and then step back and let uninvolved editors merge them to get an article that complied with the "neutral point of view" policy, i agreed, but both of them bluntly and rudely refused, and went on to tell another group of editors that I was uncivil and uncooperative.

The following words are extracts from a discussion in which I agreed to co-operate with neutral editors named Avnjay and SmokeyJoe, and Gordonofcartoon made some comments two days later. As you can see his comments are full of lies, misrepresentations, and serious violations of the civility policy. My two critics treat the Wikipedia policies as if they have no more value than garbage.


I wrote these words . . . "Avnjay; In response to your suggested solution to this dispute, I would like you to set up a sub-page for the placement of the full range of reliably sourced NPOV information about Da Costa syndrome, and would be happy for you to edit it to ensure that the page complies with wikipedia policy and guidelines. I would be agreeable for Smokeyjoe providing some additional constructive input as NPOV" Posturewriter 01:43, 23 August 2008

see here

Gordonofcartoon wrote this two days later. . . "Though this is not a promise, the chances are that we will, since nobody's ever going to let you near the DCS page until you demonstrate an ability to edit unproblematically on other articles, and you appear unwilling/unable to do the latter. I'd advise freeing up some time and using that spent composing your tri-weekly whinge here more productively. Now go and edit some articles". 08:34, 25 August 2008 (end of quotes)

See by scrolling down here


When my two critics wrote massive numbers of lies I would casually sift though them and find some examples where it was easy to find evidence and prove they were lies, and make one comment on Sundays, or occasionally on Wednesdays, or some other day, because it is my right and my responsibility to report disruptive behaviour, but as you can see Gordonofcartoon twisted that around to being a "tri-weekly whinge".

See here

This would be an appropriate response . . . 'Gordonofcartoon, when I provide evidence of you telling lies, and that you are violating the Wikipedia policies, and you complain about it - I am doing what I am supposed to do and YOU are the whinger'.


The ill-mannered behaviour of the editor called "WhatamIdoing"

and how she gained support despite her bad manners


Ad hominem arguments

The ad hominem arguments which my 2 critics used to win disputes in Wikipedia are intellectually inferior and utterly useless compared to the scientific methods which I use to solve health problems.


This is a quote from Wikipedia's first sentence on the topic of Ad hominem as of 12th September 2012 . . .

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it." (end of quote). See here.


However, in essence it is an argument which focuses on the other person instead of the subject of the dispute.

For example, when discussing the height of a mountain the dispute should focus on such things as the scientific measurements, and whether or not it was 1000 metres, or 1100 metres etc.

In an ad hominem argument the first person would argue that the other person wouldn't know because he was stupid.


While I was editing the Wikipedia page about Da Costa's syndrome I was presenting scientific evidence properly, whereas my two critics were trying to get it deleted by arguing that I was an unco-operative and disruptive person who didn't understand the rules etc.


Their insulting and offensive remarks were aimed at making other editors block me personally, without bothering to check the scientific evidence.


The person who uses ad hominem tactics is trying to convince the observers that their own statements can be trusted and that their opponents can't.


My report on the arrogant, insulting, and ill-mannered and ad hominem editing style of my main critic can be seen below.



If anyone wanted to study the conduct of my main critic closely you would be able to see patterns of behaviour that were consistently offensive. However she manages to create the illusion of respectability by selectively treating people who agree with her with respect, and those who disagree with her with contempt. She does the latter by choosing her words carefully to be deliberately arrogant, deliberately ill-mannered, deliberately condescending, deliberately patronising, and deliberately sarcastic.

In my case she described the topic of Da Costa's syndrome as garden variety orthostatic intolerance, and The Posture Theory as my pet theory, and her replacement for my version of Da Costa's syndrome as "a little gem of an article". All of her comments were sewn with that sort of tone.

She ended her year of criticism by adding this sort of comment about me . . . "He doesn't seem to comply with Wikipedia's basic rules even if he understands them" . . . and . . . "He means well but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of nonsense" . . . and . . . "He should be blocked from every subject that he is even slightly interested in."

Typically she will harass other editors with arguments and then say this sort of thing . . . "You seem to be having difficulties in the Wikipedia environment, perhaps you should consider leaving and finding yourself another little hobby".

I always found her comments to be so ridicuious that they were amusing, but some people would see it as a form of intimidation called cyberbullying.

The following quote comes from a Wikipedia page about that topic. . . "Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another . . . A cyberbully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target." (end of quote) here.

You can see some more specific examples, with exact quotes in my reports below.


(The rules of Wikipedia required me to set a good example by not lowering myself to the level of the ill-mannered editorsß, but to maintain good standards anyway, so I did. However, outside of Wikipedia I referred to the two nitwits as "Ladybug" and "Loony", and sometimes as "Wa Wa"s and Goofy").


My main critic has ways of making other editors believe that she represents "respectable" people, so that those who are actually "respectable" will support her, and that she represents Wikipedia itself, so that anyone who thinks of themselves as a defender of Wikipedia will support her. See here.
Similarly, after losing disputes against me for six months she told everyone she was a woman to infer that she represented womanhood, so that anonymous women in Wikipedia would come to her rescue.

She wanted to create the impression that she was an "experienced" editor arguing against a new person who was breaking the rules, so that other "experienced" editors, who developed the rules, would support her against an "outsider". She wanted other editors to think that she was older and wiser than me, when, in fact I am older, and much more experienced in the topics I edited, and she tried to hide that fact.

She wanted other editors to believe that she was polite and that I was ill-mannered, when, in fact, she was being deliberately rude to harass and provoke a rude response from me. She even complained when several neutral editors actually told her that I was polite under the circumstances.

She also wanted to create the impression that she represented all of the rule abiding editors, and all of Wikipedia, and that she was a person of authority who was giving instructions to as disobedient person. She achieved that illusion by writing like this . . . "We" have been telling him this, and "we" have been giving him instructions about that, but he continues to ignore "us" and he is "exhausting the patience" of "our" "community" so "we" need your help in getting him blocked."

However, what she didn't tell them was that she had been telling lies, misrepresenting facts, making mistakes, failing to get proper consensus, and losing arguments.


When other editors accuse WhatamIdoing of breaking the rules she calls it "whinging"

As you can see in the evidence below, my main critic, WhatamIdoing, is an extremely "immature" middle aged adult who has the most arrogant, "rude" and childish ways of expressing herself. However, she has the cheek to describe new contributors as "Newbies" and their comments as "complaining" and "pointless whinging", and says that they "waste everyone's time" here. Somebody needs to wash her grubby mouth out with soap and teach her some manners.


Some history about

"The Golden Rule"

A quote from the Wikipedia page about that common saying

"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:
(Positive form):

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
(Negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule):

One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.
This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally . . .
This concept can be studied from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc . . .

a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group. As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" . . .

it has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard way that different cultures use to resolve conflicts." See more details and the sources for those statements here



Is courtesy respected in Wikipedia???

I am the author of The Posture Theory, and when I joined Wikipedia I was quite happy to comply with all of their rules.

I found out that it is preferred (but not prohibited) that you don't write about you own ideas or you run the risk of someone accusing you of conflict of interest or bias etc.

However, soon after joining a woman sent me an email praising my theory and explaining how helpful it had been to her in understanding her ailments. In the next few weeks I considered asking her to write an account of my theory with the suggestion that I summarise it to ensure it's accuracy, for her to rewrite in her own words if she agreed with the aspects mentioned.

I also knew the basic policy of not being concerned too much about the rules, because they were not as rigid as if they were 'carved in rock', and were actually quite flexible, and that I wouldn't be 'prosecuted' like a criminal if i made a mistake.

I also became aware of the rule which required all editors to treat everyone else with courtesy and respect at all times.

I thought that all of those rules were sensible and proceeded. My email correspondent added a page about my theory but it was soon deleted.

Soon afterwards I found a page about Da Costa's syndrome with an invitation to help improve it so I started that process because I knew a lot about the topic, and I included a smaller amount of information about my own research because it was 100% relevant.

However, I was almost immediately confronted by two editors who were extremely arrogant and dictatorial, and they started being unreasonable, pedantic, and inflexible, as if I needed to be harshly punished for 'breaking the rules'?

They deleted everything about my research in the first month so I began adding more information from independent sources.

Nevertheless, they continued behaving as if they had the manners of ill-bred pigs, and I knew that I would have to be courteous or else I could be banned.

However, I was naturally curious about why the administrators did not criticise them for their rude behaviour, but had to accept the fact that none of them did.

I eventually became fed up with their extremely offensive and deliberately insulting behaviour, and responded the way they wanted me to, by telling them to stop acting like a couple of apes beating their chests as they swung through the wiki trees, and naturally they responded with 'fake' indignation until I was banned for being 'rude' etc.

I then started commenting on their behaviour on my own website, and while I was writing about the topic of their unpunished 'rude behaviour', one of them added a section to the Wikipedia page called "Rudeness" which stated that their was a type called 'strategic rudeness' which was used by 'intelligent' people to achieve power over others?

It was obviously just that editors childish way of justifying her grubby manners.

She and her constant tag-teaming mate were trying to insult and rubbish me and my theory about the physical causes of poor posture and health problems by describing it as nonsense etc.

After they deleted almost everything I wrote from all sources I noticed that another editor had added a new page called "Posture (psychology), which had a section containing these words . . .

"The same body position in different contexts may carry other information. It was found, for example, that the greater the enslavement of a social group, the stronger the tendency of its members to express courtesy." here


My main critic was always rude to me, but I was mostly courteous and matter of fact in my replies.

I was being courteous out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia, not because i was a slave to it.

If the administrators do not respect me for that, then i don't think that any member of the public should have any respect for Wikipedia whatsoever.

The administrators need to make their position clear: Is their organisation a place where intelligent people can discuss things politely, or is it a slave colony of dictators and drones.


Words from the Wikipedia page about Rudeness, which WhatamIdoing has edited

1. "Rude behavior is a violation of human dignity or of the respect due to others." here


2. "Sometimes people deliberately employ rude behaviours to achieve a goal . . . most rudeness serves functional or instrumental purposes in communication, and skillfully choosing when and how to be rude may indicate a person's pragmatic competence" here


If you watch the way that person edits you could see her putting on pompous displays of indignation and telling anyone who is even slightly rude to her that they are committing a "most, most, most" serious "violation" of the "civility policy" which "can and will" get them "banned".

However, when she is deliberately and offensively rude to someone who disagrees with her she will put on a big 'act' of words and imply that intelligent people always use 'instrumental rudeness" to achieve power over their opponents.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter what she or any policy says, because she is just a typical arrogant and ill-mannered individual who wants one rule for herself, and another for everyone else.

She is also demonstrating a pattern of attitude and behaviour that, according to policy, should get her banned.

This is the section of the policy which she is deliberately violating with her "instrumental rudeness" . . .

"a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks" (end of quote) here

Another example of her arrogant and flagrant violation of the civility policy is her use of "attitude readjustment tools" here


A quote from an editor called Mastcell . . . "If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it." here


Her extremely offensive double standards about the civility policy

My main critic is extremely arrogant, rude, disrespectful, and insulting (as can be seen in my report below), but she often has the cheek to ask if the administrators are ever going to do anything to block editors who are "repeatedly" engaging in "uncivil conduct".

However, nobody did anything to stop her, when she was "repeatedly" insulting me at every opportunity for 12 months???

She recently asked another editor what is the preferred method of dealing with "continued" bad mannered behaviour with these words on 25-2-12 . . .


"How'd that go again? Didn't ArbCom say something remarkably like "5) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct." just a couple of days ago? Perhaps someone should inquire with ArbCom whether these sorts of mean spirited and wholly superfluous comments are the sort of thing that they had in mind, and whether they have a preferred notion of how to respond to their continued appearance." signed by WhatamIdoing, 03:29, 25 February 2012 See here




Courtesy and conflict of interest in Wikipedia

I will be giving you a quote from two sub-sections of my main critics UserTalk page

It deals with the subject of Da Costa's syndrome which my main critic was trying to control by blocking me, and an editor named Guido den Broeder (GDB), who came to it for a week. The main symptom is 'chronic fatigue', and the other topic in the quote below is 'The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". Guido was the founder of the Dutch Chronic Fatigue Association. One of the editors is named WLU, and he addresses his comments to WAID which is an abbreviation for the individual named WhatamIdoing, who is my main critic. WLU mentions JIMBO HIMSELF, which refers to Jimmy Wales who is the founder of Wikipedia. WLU is also asking for help from my other critic named Gordonofcartoon. Notice that WLU's comments are followed by his signature and then by the words "WIKIPEDIA RULES:simple/complex? - is that an indication that some editors can control content by exploiting the simple/complex contradictions of the policies i.e. by 'GAMING THE SYSTEM"?

I don't wish to comment of the merit of any of the arguments, but merely point out that WLU is committing a very serious violation of the Civility policy which requires all editors to treat each other with courtesy and respect at all times, and to focus on the content rather than the person.

Notice also that my main critic claims to be an impartial editor who has no conflict of interest in relation to Da Costa's syndrome, and yet she is described as holding the "medicine trophy" for an article called "FATIGUE" (normal fatigue due to working for too many hours etc). However that editor is extremely arrogant for a person who has written an article about such a 'simple' problem, and was trying to dictate the information on the page about Da Costa's syndrome, where the main symptom is very complicated 'chronic fatigue', and she was co-operating with the requests from an editor of the page about the chronic fatigue syndrome.

She described my theory about posture and chronic fatigue as my "pet" theory and said that I was pushing my point of view. However, you can see that her essay on 'ordinary' fatigue is her 'little favorite' theory, and her 'little prize' would make her 'fancy' that she knew more about her 'favorite' subjects than anyone else and delete anything she disagreed with and try to ban the editors who put it there.

You may of course see my response as being a little 'melodramatic' but of course, my main critic is "THE" 'show pony' of opinions.


This is the quote from the two sections of conversation . . .

"Guido and Da Costa's syndrome

"Hi WAID, If you've the time, I'm putting together a evidence for an AN posting on GDB; based on comments from several contributors and JIMBO HIMSELF (BUM-BUM-BUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!) I am urged to hurry; as a result, I don't have time to do the analysis I'd like to on User_talk:WLU/RFC#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome. May of this year, Guido was working on the page. I don't have time to see if a similar, unsupported POV-push against consensus was happening there that happened on the CFS/ME pages, but you were working on the page at the time. Is there any chance you've got the time to put together an analysis for me? Post it in the section or the bottom of the RFC if you'd like (again, if you have the time). I'll also be e-mailing Gordonofcartoon and leaving a note on his talk page 'cause he'll also have the experience.
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I added some information. Please feel free to add, delete, edit, rearrange -- anything you'd like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on fatigue you wrote and for which you now hold the medicine trophy is not categorized in the medicine project. It would be great if you did it. Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not at all certain about that. The major point behind creating Fatigue (safety) was to have a home for non-medical information that was being inappropriately dumped in Fatigue (medical). Normal physiology (e.g., sleep-deprived people might fall asleep while driving) isn't really within the "diseases and their treatments" scope of WPMED. I've added several transport-related banners instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2008" (end o quote)

That quote can be verified here



She didn't bother to read her own references but she criticised others

At one stage WhatamIdoing moved a link to a novel from the "See also" section at the bottom of the page, all the way up to the top line, to give the title of the book a prominent position. The title was "Soldier's heart" which was one of the earlier alternative labels used for Da Costa's syndrome before it came to be regarded as inappropriate because it was common in civilian practice. When I read it and found that it didn't mention any of the symptoms I asked them to prove to me that it was relevant by giving me a page number where the symptoms were supposed to be. When she and Gordonofcartoon ignored the question and gave excuses for not giving me the page numbers I knew that neither of them had bothered to read past the title of the book. See here

Recently she got herself into another argument and this was her two-faced, ill-mannered, and short tempered reply . . .

"And before we go through this for a fourth time: it doesn't make any bloody difference whether you read half a paragraph through creative use of text search or through what Google calls "Snippet View". Kmhkmh's comments apply to any form of extracting tiny bits of a source. If you can't read the source"---meaning at least a whole page in a book.—then you don't actually know enough about its contents to be citing it. For all you know, some of those deep-searched sentences are introduced with words to the effect of "Here is an example of a particularly stupid idea that no serious scholar gives any credence to any longer, but was popular among the ill-informed two decades ago:" signed WhatamIdoing 02:01, 4 December 2011 See here


See also a previous discussion where it was obvious to me that she herself hadn't even bothered to read past the title or the introduction of a book which she used to illustrate the subject involved here.

Another example can be seen where her tag-team mate started an argument about a research paper, where he didn't even bother to read past the first paragraph, here.


WhatamIdoing's Rudeness according to Wikipedia policy

and the obvious double talk

My main critic is an extremely arrogant and ill-mannered individual who acts as if she has a right to insult other people any time she wants. However, she is also a hypocrite, and in a previous discussion she wrote these words to another editor . . .

"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." signed WhatamIdoing 23:10, 28 May 2008 here

Some of the many examples of her ill-mannered attitude and comments can be seen below.



My two-faced critic tells lies about the Civility policy


The actual policy

This is a quote from the official policy about Civility called WP:Civil . . .

"Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect . . . editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates . . . It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia" (end of quote) here

This is another quote

"Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies" (end of quote) here

This is another quote

"It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user" here


The advice my main critic gave about the Civility policy

In giving advice to another editor about Wikipedia civility policy, she mentions what she calls an "excellent book on the subject of civility" and which she considers her source of advice. She uses that book as an excuse to argue that . . .

"Civility is not friendliness or cooperativeness. It would be nice if all of us were friendly, cooperative people, but we don't actually require that . . . The "cut direct"—the act of directly, to the person's face, refusing to acknowledge the person's existence-is civil behaviour. It's considered civil largely because it doesn't require anyone to try to get blood out of the carpet afterwards, which was the typical result of the previous version of what gentlemen did when they accidentally encountered a scoundrel." (end of quote) here


Wikipedia policy does actually require friendliness and cooperativeness

As you can see my main critic is so arrogant that she thinks that her opinions about civility are superior to the actual Wikipedia policy, but her attitude and actions are actually a violation of that policy, and when she gave that advice she was telling lies about it.

She has an attitude problem which can be summed up like this . . . She treats people who agree with her with courtesy, and people who disagree with her without any regard for good manners at all.

Here is another quote from the same individual

"I'd like to believe that we are all good people here." See here

She is the type of person who is called "two-faced", and she violates all of the policies any time it suits her, and just invents excuses for her bad mannered behaviour or anything else she does wrong.


Badges of shame

She has participated in a discussion about an unacceptable and disruptive type of behaviours which involves adding "badges of shame" to pages. She gave the example where another editor, named Guido den Broeder, added four windows to the top of the page about Da Costa's syndrome, which she was dominating, where the first one stated . . . "This article may contain original research", and the second stated, "This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text.", and the third said "The neutrality of this article is disputed", and the fourth "This article's factual accuracy is disputed". (See here) She also gave examples where the words "citation needed" are added at the end of statements in the text. She concluded with these words . . .

"I want an item that specifically addresses template abuse involving any and all clean up templates, not just {{fact}} and {{unref}}" WhatamIdoing 06:57, 10 January 2009. See here

Other editors referred to the use of many templates as tag bombing.

However, while she is criticising other editors and changing the rules, she deliberately does exactly the same thing herself. For example by adding more than 20 windows of criticism to a version of the article that I wrote. She also added more than 70 comments such as "citation needed" etc, sometimes two at a time after single statements in the text, even when the references were actually there. I called her her style Blitz Krieger editing here. She was misusing those items by using them as badges of shame to discredit me, instead of writing a version of the article herself, and letting neutral editors decide which one was biased, or which bits and pieces need to be merged to make one neutral article.

The only version that is left in Wikipedia is the one which she was controlling as a little dictator herself for the previous 12 months.

She hounded and harassed one of the neutral editors until he stopped co-operating with me, and no changes were made.

She is a thoroughly disgusting person who should not be allowed to edit anything, she certainly does not have the right to put anyone else to shame because she is the most shameful person I have ever encountered. She should have a badge of shame tattooed onto her face.


Her arrogant impudence

WhatamIdoing returned the following words to the Wikipedia page about rudeness at 4:09 on 28 April 2010 . . . "Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is the disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people's social laws or etiquette. These laws have already unspokenly been established as the essential boundaries of normally accepted behavior. To be unable or unwilling to align one's behavior with these laws known to the general population of what is socially acceptable is to be rude.
Similar terms include: impoliteness, making a faux pas, insensitivity, offensiveness, obscenity, profanity, violating taboos, and deviancy. In some cases, criminal behavior can also be an act of rudeness." (end of quote) here

While that editor tries to give the impression of being an authority on good manners she actually does not set a good example. For example, in polite company it is appropriate to treat everyone as equals regardless of their education, but WhatmIdoing often makes remarks about newbies who don't need to be taken seriously because they don't have university qualifications. Of course, WhatamIdoing does, but using that as a devise to claim status is a well known form of rudeness called arrogance. If she wants to establish superiority she needs to provide superior information, not just a piece of paper.

That same editor is self-described as 'generation X' which means 35-45 years old, and knows that I did research 30 years ago when I was an adult, so obviously I am older, and any form of disrespect for people older than yourself is called 'rude'. I explained that yet that editor ignored me, which is rude, and then tried to excuse their 'disrespectful behaviour' by telling other editors that they were middle-aged.

Also, it may be appropriate for a middle-aged school teacher to discuss the 'behaviour' of a small child, but when a teenager, or a younger edtor tries to discuss the behaviour of a an adult who is old enough to be their father, it is called 'disrespectful', and more generally 'rude', or 'ill-mannered'.



A John Cleese comedy skit about the act of deliberately arguing for the sake of arguing can be seen in the YouTube video below . . .




Note: a strategically rude editor is just an arrogant description of ill-

mannered snob, a strategically deceitful editor is a calculated liar, and a strategically devious editor who aids and abets copyright thieves is an internet criminal.


Strategic or instrumental rudeness in Wikipedia - the response


Wikipedia's objective is to create a friendly and welcoming environment where intelligent people are invited, and expected to discuss content in a manner that is courteous and respectful to all contributors. Consequently anyone who uses any form of ill-mannered tactics is breaking those rules. Furthermore, a situation in which one person is allowed to be rude and another is not, puts the second person in a situation of disadvantage.

If those rules are not enforced equally, then the way to correct that imbalance is for the second person to apply instrumental, or strategic rudeness, or any form of ill-mannered rudeness in return.

As they say, leave the civilised approach and go down to their gutter level, and drown them in their own bullshit.


In courtrooms shysters use instrumental rudeness to create the illusion of insanity in genuinely injured patients, to swindle them out of financial entitlements such as insurance claims or compensation. As a basic example they devise a self-fullfiling prophesy where they typically harrass uneducated patients with false accusations of malingering or insanity until they react in a hostile manner, and then described as emotionally disturbed and out-of-control mental cases.


The people who swindle patients in courtrooms are highly educated, highly paid, and highly organised, and the patients are usually alone, weakened and poor because of their illness, isolated, ignorant, uneductated, and waiting for an honest person to help them.


The editor who criticised me in an arrogantly offensive manner acts as if she thinks of herself as the prima donna of Wikipedia who has the right to use "strategic rudeness" on other editors, and treats courtesy as if it is only for servants, slaves, and the lower classes.

. . . and would like administrators to believe that when she calls someone a Luser she isn't being rude???

The main strategy used by both of my critics to defame and discredit me was simply this ' If you throw enough shit some of it will stick'.



My two critics were incompetent in their ability to argue, and in their attempt to get me banned they had to resort to cheating by using the 'ignore all rules' policy WP:IAR here. In that process they were often openly insulting, or more often using indirect insults or innuendo to provoke me into an uncivil response so that they could ban me on the grounds of incivility. For example, they may not have said that I was stupid, but they did tell other editors that my suggestions were stupid, and they were using "Lusers attitude readjustment tools' (LART) or deliberately provocative remarks in their failed attempt to annoy me. See here.

More recently, at 2:17 on 27 February 2010, WhatamIdoing has written a 1571 word essay on Rudeness and supported it with 16 references. The essence is that rudeness is not simply a "communication failure" but is sometimes a strategy that is deliberately used to "vent negative feelings", and/or "to get power", and that therefore "instrumental rudeness should be viewed as part of pragmatic competency". (end of quote) See here

However, it does not matter how competent or incompetent those arguments are, or how many references were used to support them, the fact remains that Wikipedia already has it's own policies on civility where, in some instances, a single act of rudeness can result in blocks. That policy states that "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely" . . . (and rudeness involves) . . . "insults, name calling, gross profanity . . . personal attacks . . . belittling a fellow editor . . . taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility . . . trying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information . . . and . . . quoting another editor out of context" etc.

The obvious practical consequence of the 'ignore all rules' and the 'ignore all manners' policies will be this . . . Gordonofcartoon would have an excuse to say "Don't do what we f...king, f....king do", and WhatamIdoing will add . . . "Do what we tell you to do". e.g. See here.

I recommend that the other editors add a comment to their civility policy which prohibits any form of "rudeness", including "strategic rudeness", and if my two critics tag-team in an attempt to revert it with technical violations of WP:3RR, then politely, but clearly, tell them that you require them to "assume good faith" in your good sense. I also recommend that excuses for ill-mannered behaviour will not be accepted. here.


I noticed that another editor had added a new page called "Posture (psychology), which had a section containing these words which reflect the same attitude. . . "The same body position in different contexts may carry other information. It was found, for example, that the greater the enslavement of a social group, the stronger the tendency of its members to express courtesy." here.


She takes pride in being rude like a grubby shyster

My main critic takes actual pride in her ability to be rude, in much the same way as she takes pride in her ability to break any rule in Wikipedia any time she wants and get away with it. For example when I provided evidence about her ill-mannered behaviour on my website, she amended the Wikipedia page about rudeness to make it look as if it was sometimes 'respectable' behaviour.

She adds a comparison with other people by making the following statement.

"'strategic rudeness, 'a style of communication used by prosecutors and therapists to force their interlocutors (a courtroom defendant or patient) to talk or react in a certain way." See here

However, what she is not telling you is that prosecutors who harass defendants with insults are generally regarded by the public as contemptible 'shysters', and many TV shows and movies have exposed them and mocked them for their disgusting tactics, where it is obvious that they are hoping to make the individual so nervous and distraught that he stops making his claim for justice. One example is portrayed in the movie "Class Action" starring Gene Hackman.

Similarly, a psychotherapist who harasses a patient in that manner is guilty of 'unethical behaviour', and 'professional misconduct', and is liable to have his licence to practice medicine taken away.

In fact one of the common (standard) ways of swindling genuine patients out of their entitlements in court rooms, is for an insurance company to hire shysters to harass patients so that they become nervous wrecks, and then to have them medically examined by an unethical psychiatrists who will diagnose ''mental illness' in the person. The shyster will then argue that the patients illness is "all in the mind", not physical, and therefore is not entitled to a claim. Alternatively an angry reaction will be used to support the false argument that he has an 'anti-social personality' and is the type of greedy person who would fake pain to get money.

The strategy of those unethical people is to add shame and guilt to their recipe of deceit, and then to pretend that they would like to help the person, but that there is nothing physically wrong with them.


Her violations of the rules about Wikilawyering and disruptive behaviour

Her Wikilawyering

She added the following edit to Wikipedia which reflect her ridiculous attitude towards the rules which ban Wikilawyering here.

"Robin Lakoff (1989) addressed what she named 'strategic rudeness,' a style of communication used by prosecutors and therapists to force their interlocutors (a courtroom defendant or patient) to talk or react in a certain way."


Is she deluding herself that she has the right to use Wikipedia as a platform for her to act like an amateur lawyer or psychiatrist in Wikipedia, and have her behaviour accepted as 'normal' by the other editors and readers????

Are the founders of Wikipedia willing to warn new contributors to expect that sort of behaviour from an organisation which claims to be proud of itself, and inviting and friendly toward new people.


Her Excuse for her Deliberately Confrontational Behaviour

She added the following quote which actually describes her own behaviour . . .

"Kasper (1990) defines rudeness as speech that is "constituted by deviation from whatever counts as politic in a given social context, is inherently confrontational and disruptive to social equilibrium". here

Her confrontational behaviour includes telling other editors that they are not valuable, or not competent, or asking them dumb questions, and to find references for obvious facts, or using LART tools, etc etc.


They were pests trying their hardest to annoy me

with a very old form of trolling - "Setting up to fail"

At 15:25 on 11th October 2010, an editor named Penbat started a brand new topic page in Wikipedia called "Setting up to fail".

Essentially, it describes an old form of bullying where a new member of a group is asked to do something impossible so that they are guaranteed to fail and can then be humiliated. For example, asking a new apprentice carpenter to get a left-handed screw driver, when there is no such thing.


My two critics are incompetent strategists but they tried that on me in several ways. I will describe one time frame.


1. Firstly my main critic checked the research indexing systems and found that there hadn't been many articles written about Da Costa's syndrome in the recent literature, and then wrote these words in May 2008. . .

"PubMed lists only 12 papers since 1951 that actually mention 'Da Costa's syndrome' by name - and some of those merely mention it in passing" signed WhatamIdoing 19:30, 15th May 2008.


2. Since then that editor told dozens of other editors on many different discussion pages that all of my references were old and out-of-date, and accused me of violating the policies which said that all references must be from top quality medical journals that have been published in the most recent few years.

This is one of many examples from October 2008 . . . "Avnjay, I realize that you're not competent in the subject matter . . . he (Posturewriter) lists the same thoroughly outdated (1951!) textbook eighteen separate times. The most recent source is eleven years old) (see WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence) WhatamIdoing 16:15, 5 October 2008 here


3. That neutral editor, named Avnjay, replied the next day with these words . . . "A large part of his article is on the history of the syndrome, hence all the old sources (an exception in WP:MEDERS#Use_up-to-date-evidence). Avnjay 15:26, 6 October 2008


4. On January 11th 2009, my main critic wrote these words . . . "Posturewriter, the place to convince people that a 1951 book conforms with WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence for current medical and scientific information . . . is at WP:RSN, not here." WhatamIdoing 23:04, 11 January 2009 (


5. On January 12th I told my main critic this . . . WhatamIdoing; Avnjay is already aware that Paul Dudley White's book is relevant here[17], so I don't have to convince him of anything. This page is about disruptive editing". Posturewriter 07:01, 12 January 2009


6. I can now explain that when my two critics deleted everything about my own theory in January 2008 I didn't particularly care, but they said that my other comments were appreciated. The other information was in the history section, and included a summary of chapter 22 in the 1951 reference book, so I decided to write the complete history, and leave the modern era for them to do. However, they didn't, and then told another lie, and said that I was neglecting the modern era, so I wrote it for them.


7. In January 2009, on the arbitration page, my main critic wrote the following words to get me banned . . .

"Posturewriter . . . 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 . . . I am running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues because I no longer have any hope that he is willing to apply Wikipedia's core principles, even if he understands them, because the actual scientific views disagree with his personal POV. His interactions with anyone that doesn't agree with him rapidly devolve into hostile sniping." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009


The reason that my two critics were foolish is because I was the person with thirty years of experience in the topic, and they were 'new', and they thought that they were asking me questions which were difficult from their perspective, without knowing that they were easy for me to answer. Consequently, when they asked me a question which they thought was impossible to answer, and I provided a simple and factual, evidence based answer, they became frustrated and accused me of being argumentative, and disruptive? They also described my matter-of-fact answers as examples of hostility?

They didn't have enough sense to respect experience. For example, I don't have to rely on simple indexing systems to trace history, and I don't have to restrict myself to such a very limited source of information where everything is put into neat and easy alphabetical order, and everything is directly associated with the topic. I am also aware of more than 100 different labels for the same condition, and I can easily assess if an article is about Da Costa's syndrome or it's many symptoms, regardless of what any particular author decides to call it.


See the new topic 'Setting up to fail' here

See my main critics comments on the arbitration page here

See other examples of trying to set me up to fail in the "Moving the goalposts" reports here


Setting up to fail by social engineering

One of the observations that I made about the two nitwits is that they were incompetent on their own, as if they were lacking in some sort of natural drive to persist and prevail. They would put on a big "act" of domination but then whimpishly rush off to get help in the slightest signs of difficulty? Even from the start they showed that the were lacking in personal confidence by always working together as a team of two, as if they needed support from each other. I noticed from early in their bickering that they had been instilling themselves in Wikipedia for several years so that anyone who criticised them would essentially be criticising all of the other individuals who identified themselves as Wikipedia editors, and they tried to get a "medical assessment' from the WikiProject Medicine editors for a page name change (that ridiculous idea failed), and then set up about a dozen discussions one after another to get help from other editors, and they kept inventing new discussions to set up until they managed to get one individual named Moreschi to ban me. Since I have been banned they want to get help for the article from project psychology.

It was obvious to me from the start that when arguing with the two nitwits I would have to be careful not to criticise any of the relatively uninterested by-standers and fly-by-nighters who they were trying to suck into their scheme to get me blocked. As one editor insightfully noted "I know I am sticking my foot in it". In other words he knew that if he tried to defend me from the two nitwits that they would make trouble for him. An administrator who was overwhelmed by their constant flood of lies and bullshit was EdJonston, and an editor who supported me named Guido den Broeder, was banned, and neutral editors were barraged with lies and criticism until they turned against me, or left me to deal with the situation unaided.

Those two fools were provoking me and waiting for me to criticise Wikipedia, the medical profession, or psychologists, in the hope that they could send a flood of emails to such people and get them all to come rushing in to block me. They wanted someone else to do their dirty deed.

They were troll makers

My two critics had been in Wikipedia for four years when I joined, and had a lot of experience with all of the policies, and knew how to misuse them. They knew how to get rid of new contributors who disagreed with them by using 'attitude readjustment tools' (see here). When they use those tools they invite other editors to act as' flamers' to annoy someone to 'inflame their temper' so that they respond with angry and hostile words. They will then get them branded as trouble makers called trolls in order to get them banned.

As you can see they were the worst type of trolls of them all for being deliberately annoying pests who were trying to turn respectable editors into trolls.

The police will say that the best way to control the drug problem in society is to put the drug lords in jail, rather than the drug sellers, and similarly the best way to reduce the incidence of trolling in Wikipedia is to ban the edit war lords (the troll makers) rather than the trolls, and of course, to ban the use of the methods of creating trolls, such as "LART tools". See the sixth paragraph here, and a description of "Lusers attitude readjustment tools" here

Incidentally, my two critics thought that their four years of experience in Wikipedia, and the ability to become "instant experts" puts them in a position to portray me as the Luser. However, compared to my thirty years of experience in the topic they are just a couple of idiots.

Trolling, as a form of mental illness

I recently found an internet page from 2001 which describes trolling as a type of mental illness.

"FPD, the Flamer Personality Disorder?!! Internet Troll as a form of mental illness", by W. Beaty, 2001 See here


What do you expect if you join Wikipedia?

When I joined Wikipedia to help improve it's articles I read the rules which appeared to be quite reasonable, and gave the impression that it's members would have the same general standards of conduct which you would expect from the boy scouts, a Lions club, or Rotary.

However, when I started adding to a page about Da Costa's syndrome I was soon confronted by two arrogant individuals who acted more like disrespectful foul mouthed hoodlums. They put my real Sir name in bold print at the top of the main discussion page and began insulting me relentlessy for a year until they had me banned. It is against the rules to use someones real name as a page or section heading, and to be disrespectful, but they didn't give a dam about good manners, or any of the other rules. See here.

Some examples of the attitude and conduct of my main critic can be seen below.


She eventually lost an arguments against me about her use of a children's fiction story on a medical topic, but in the meantime she tried to get help by rushing off to another group of editors and writing the following words . . .

"Aaargh: An editor with very limited experience outside of his single topic area has been giving me fits over an issue of accessibility . He's unhappy that there's a disambiguation link at the top of Da Costa's syndrome." (end of quote) here.

I wasn't unhappy about anything. In fact i was laughing at her silly nonsense i.e. she was using letters to imitate the growling of an angry dog and telling them that she was having "fits" over me???

She was also telling other editors that I had very little experience outside of a single topic area, when in fact, she just invented that silly idea to discredit me.


She "lurked" about on discussions about Wikipedia "etiquette"

There is a page in Wikipedia called Wikipedia Etiquette (WQA) which is referred to as a behavioral guideline. If someone wants to accuse another editor of violating that guideline they can set up a discussion on a page called "Wikiquette Alerts" which is abbreviated as a "WQA'. This is a quote from the Wikipedia page about etiquette . . . "Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia".


At one stage my two critics arranged for a Wikiquettes page to be set up so that they could complain about me!!! e.g. here.

I had written an essay to describe all of their tactics, and how they were breaking the rules of Wikipedia, and they called it an "attack essay" and accused me of making personal attacks against them

However this is what my main critic has since said about such discussions . . .

"About WQA: I've tried to help there, and I've lurked there, and a good number of the "wikiquette" problems and accusations of "personal attacks" amount to "Waah, he disagreed with me!" . . . Wikipedia is attractive to teenagers and other immature people; we will always have some of this." signed WhatamIdoing 01:09, 22 January 2011. See here




I knew that the editor named WhatamIdoing had been using Wikipedia "watchlists" to lurk over all of my contributions every day for 12 months because she would sometimes delete them within a few minutes, and I knew that she was "lurking" over my website to see what information she could get her copyright thieving associates to steal, because it would appear on other Wikipedia pages where it was falsely attributed to other authors. I also knew that she would continue to "lurk" over my webpage after I was banned, so six months later I baited her with some controversial comments, and she swallowed it hook line and sinker as can be seen in this response . . .

"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. See also here.

That editor was still lurking over my website 2 years later, as evident by these words 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. (Note that she was trying to give the impression that I started my website because of Wikipedia, when in fact I started it more than a decade before Wikipedia in 1994. She is also choosing her words convince other editors that I was harming Wikipedia, when in fact, if Wikipedia banned liars and cheats like her, I wouldn't have any reason to criticise them.

I have also seen evidence to show that editor uses watchlists to lurk over 2000 articles, and has done more then 69,000 edits, many of which would involve the hounding add harassment of anyone who challenges her ridiculous opinions.

You would have to be completely thoughtless and stupid to believe that Wikipedia represents neutral point of view with content control freaks like that essentially dictating what can or can't be included in Wikipedia.

A limit of 20 articles on any one editors watchlist would be excessive, but allowing one person to control 2000 is utterly ridiculous.


An example of WhatamIdoing's uncivil style

WhatamIdoing tried to start an argument about the correct name or page for the Da Costa's syndrome article. I responded by suggesting that the current one was the best and that moving it into another one with a different title would not be appropriate, but added that I had no objection to someone else establishing separate pages for the synonyms of their choice and making articles about them if they wished. (there have been many different opinions about the nature of the condition, and therefore many different labels which each have evidence for and against).

However, WhatamIdoing was not interested in doing anything constructive, and violated the Wikipedia policy on Civility by saying that my suggestion was STUPID. To make the insult more obvious the word STUPID was linked to a Wikipedia page about low levels of intelligence. Unfortunately for WhatamIdoing my IQ is at the high level.

Here is a quote from WhatamIdoing's ill-mannered description of my suggestion . . .

"It would be stupid to create three identical articles, except changing the name at the top. We could create redirects for them WhatamIdoing" 21:33, 15 May 2008 . . . that quote is from the end of the discussion section here

This is a quote from the page about the word "stupid" being used as an insult . . . "It is frequently used as a pejorative and consequently has a negative connotation" here

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page on "Rudeness" that WhatamIdoing edited at 7:04 on 16-11-09 . . . "Using derogatory terms to describe a person (e.g. saying that a person is stupid or ugly)," (i.e. my main critic is fully aware that it is a violation of normal social conduct, and Wikipedia's civility policy to describe a person or their suggestions as stupid, but just treats all of those policies with utter contempt.)

When a neutral editor named Avnjay said that the essay that I provided was "a lot better" than the existing one that they controlled WhatamIdoing responded at 16:15 on 5-10-08 with these words "Avnjay, I realize that you are not competent in the subject "etc.

Here is another example of WhatamIdoing 'rudely' and 'offensively' giving advice about good manners? . . . "Being civil doesn't mean agreeing to nonsense, even if the nonsense is sincerely believed or based on honest mistakes." WhatamIdoing 02:21, 1 January 2009 here

(note that it is also uncivil to tell lies and twist the truth, and then to describe someone else's evidence based comments as nonsense that they 'believe' due to an 'honest mistake').

WhatamIdoing called my theory "made up"

When I was 25 years old nobody could explain or relieve any of my health problems so I had no realistic choice but to try and study them myself. It took me five years of detailed observations to draw the conclusion that most of the symptoms had one thing in common, and then I wrote "The Posture Theory". Two years later the head of a medical research institute asked me to design a program to study one of the symptoms, namely, the fatigue. It proceeded for 2 years and achieved it's objectives.

I occasionally sent letters or essays to newspapers or journals and some of the editors asked me to write them, and many of them were published, but some were not, and some editors sent me the standard polite reply . . . "thanks for sending it but we don't require such essays at this time".

Eight years later I started writing a book about posture and health and filled it with information from all types of current sources, as well as antique and history books, to provide useful information which has long since been forgotten. That book became 1005 pages within eight years.

I also started a website which has been on the top ten list of the Google search engine for "posture", and often number 1.


However, in order to be deliberately offensive "WhatamIdoing" described a topic as "garden variety" orthostatic intolerance. The other one said that there was nothing in the "real" medical literature about my research. During the early discussions my main critic also tried to create the impression that I was a fringy kook who "made up" a silly idea in five minutes. This is a quote . . . "Max, I apologize if my previous comments weren't clear. I don't want your made-up theory shortened; I want it removed entirely from this article . . . your pet theory is not notable enough to justify even half a sentence on Wikipedia." See here.

(Note that editors are breaking the rules if they act as if they "own" Wikipedia, or any of it's articles, and they are not allowed to use the real names of contributors, and are not allowed to be rude or offensive,)


Also note that since the time I started writing about my ideas it became evident to me that other people around the world were using them to help patients who had the same ailments as mine. i.e. Although nobody acknowledged me as the source, the methods are the same, and are regarded as the best. My main critic knows that but this is one of dozens of ridiculous misrepresentations and lies that she wrote to get me banned . . .

"I understand: he believes that his theory or posture and exercise has practically saved his life. But it's not appropriate for Wikipedia." here

She knew that I would read it, and that she was going to get other editors to cheat to get me banned before I had time to reply.

Her intention was to annoy me, but I knew what she was doing, so I just thought she was being childish and stupid.

She does not have enough brains to solve such problem herself, and never will, so she has nothing but pest value to me.

The treatment section in Wikipedia was written by me, and is still there, much the same, three years later. It was based on my personal observations and conclusions, and verified by the evidence in modern and past medical literature. No other research articles provide that diversity of information in such a concise way. See here and these current words as brief extracts . . .

"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 . . . improving physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping . . . and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness." (end of quote) here. See The Posture Theory here, and my research here.



She did something extremely stupid by using a childrens fiction story to push her own point of view about Da Costa's syndrome, and tried to make it look as if I was doing something stupid. In that process she described my theory as fringey, and she typed the letters F R I N G and E in bold print to highlight "fringe", and the word "y" in small print so that it would be more noticeable by comparison, and make it clear that she was insulting me. She did the same thing on several occasions such as in her following words . . .

"the disambiguation page links to a novel (as in, a work of fiction) that doesn't agree with his WP:FRINGEy POV about the medical condition, so he wants it buried." See here.

Note also that I had been criticising her for moving the novel from the bottom of the page to the top line to give emphasis to her biased point of view (POV), and I wanted it moved back to it's original position. However she was trying to give the other group of editors the false impression that "I wanted it moved" down the bottom to "bury it".


An example of WhatamIdoing's ill-mannered lies

In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie chaired a meeting that was specifically aimed at determining the future course of research into "Soldier's Heart"at a time when that term was one of many labels for Da Costa's syndrome. I therefore mentioned it in my description of the history of the topic.

However, my main critic told the following lie about that meeting to a neutral editor named Avnjay . . .

"it wasn't "aimed at" anything in particular. It was just another normal meeting."

That editor then used the following deliberately offensive words to convince Avnjay that I was not providing a good quality article . . .

"Posturewriter's entire statement could and IMO should be handled in the footnote. An enormous amount of cruft crawls into his writing this way." WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009" here

Note that an objective editor would state their opinion properly, by simply stating whatever policy I was supposed to have been violating, and leaving it up to sensible editors to decide if the criticism was valid or not, but instead, my main critic chose the incite contempt against me by using the word "cruft" which has the dual meaning of "too much detail" and "rubbish". You can see that in the diagram of a broom on the cruft template, which is meant to refer to removing rubbish. However in order to ensure contempt that editor then said that the rubbish was "crawling" in.

I had to be polite because of the civility policy that my main critic was obviously ignoring, but if I had responded by telling that ill-mannered individual to crawl back into their kennel it would have been met with furious indignation and my immediate banning. Their double standards were grotesque.

WhatamIdoing's sarcastic denial of sarcasm

A typical example of WhatamIdoing's sarcasm can be seen with that editors response to the accusation of being sarcastic. . .

Posturewriter . . . "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. I also disagree with your demand that my question be moved to the DCS talk page: I'm asking for your personal opinion as a relevant expert in this area, which is original research. Original research is fundamentally irrelevant to the the development of any Wikipedia article and therefore inappropriate for any article's talk page." signed WhatamIdoing 18:44, 15 July 2008


Note that my main critic had been telling other editors that I was an ignorant and worthless fool, and yet was asking for my opinion as a 'relevant expert', and expecting me to waste my time by giving an opinion that was never going to be used on the topic.


Note also that the same editor had been deliberately unco-operative for the purpose of making my time so difficult that I would leave, and had the cheek to post this 'sarcastic' remark . . .

Posturewriter . . . "Let me say, though it has seemed to me that in the past month or two that Wikipedia has quit being fun or interesting to you. Not everybody is ideally suited to collaborative writing. So I'd like to point out that nobody is forcing you, to edit Wikipedia You are welcome here as long as you try to 'play the game' according to the established (and admittedly complex) rules." signed WhatamIdoing 18:44, 15 July 2007


WhatamIdoing's sarcasm according to another editor on another topic

My main critic also used the same style of sarcasm when arguing about other topics with editors such as Pernoctus who gave the following response . . . " I 'blame' you solely for making a sarcastic and snotty remark to me in reply to my perfectly valid challenge to the information provided in the article. As I indicate in my reply, by the way, the information is not "trivially verifiable" . . . As for "name-calling", if you want to avoid future unpleasantness, then, to start, try not to make sarcastic, throwaway responses to serious comments. I am sure that I can find a Wikipedia policy that disallows such comments as yours, as well, but I really cannot be bothered, right now. P.S. My "Mr." reference was solely in response to your remark about "Mr. Google". You could be a hermaphrodite, for all I creeper 00:44, 9 June 2009

In another discussion on that topic Pernicious also wrote this . . . "The entire section needs re-writing, so far as I am concerned, but I lack the patience to fight over these edits, especially when dealing with individuals who somehow think that sarcasm and condescension enhance levels of discussion and debate." Pernoctus 16:53, 18 May 2009. See here and here


How she makes herself look important when she is ignorant and stupid

Whenever she did something which revealed her ignorance and complete and utter stupidity she would put a spin on it to make herself look like an authority on the subject. . . For example, after telling lies to get me blocked from the topic, and then acting as if she was the self-appointed dictator of the discussion page, she would make comments like this . . . "thankyou obedient Posturewriter, you have said something correct, so we will fix our mistake. is there anything more you can find to 'help us'"?, or she would say "Oh, we don't think that is important enough so we won't mention it, is there anything else that you can think of?'. e.g. here and here

To an outsider it looks like she was being helpful, but she was just being ridiculous.

When she made the comment about the information not being important she was referring to the difference between rapid and pounding heart beat, and Da Costa's syndrome. To say that difference isn't important is rididulous.See here and here


WhatamIdoing's argument: telling another person that their ideas are nonsense isn't disrespectful

"I refuse to pretend away verifiable facts under the guise of 'being civil'. Being civil doesn't mean agreeing to nonsense, even if the nonsense is sincerely believed or based on honest mistakes" WhatamIdoiong 02:21, 1st January 2009 here


WhatamIdoing "complained" about me having "good manners"

At one stage, after losing arguments against me for six months, she set up a new discussion called Civil POV Pushing which is a deliberately offensive way of saying that I had been complying with policy by politely presenting a version of the article. If you have a close look at the text she was complaining because I wasn't particularly rude to her, and that her attempts to be rude to me had failed to upset me because her attitude readjustment tools, which are used to annoy and provoke people, didn't have any effect because I lived a long distance away in Australia. She was also complaining because the other editors and administrators who had read all of the discussions had told her to stop acting like a dictator, and obey the policies which require her to focus on the content, not the person, and get consensus for her opinions. She just kept on ignoring everyone else's advice, and set up page after page of disputes until she got her way. See here


She uses "Attitude readjustment tools" ?

"Another use of "instrumentsl rudeness", and a description of how my main critic uses it is . . . 'a deliberate incitement and provocation of direct rudeness in others'. i.e. just plain trolling."

See her admitting that she had been using "attitude readjustment tools" against me, and then complaining, or is that "whinging" about the fact that her attempts to annoy me "failed" here.

She FAILED because I was following the rules by continuing to be polite despite the fact that she was behaving as if she had the ethics of a rattlesnake, and the manners of an ill-bred pig. She was a liar who was hell bent on defaming my character by putting a negative spin on everything I did.


Her use of the word "bloody"

She has a history of using criude language and joining personal attacks against other editors

She thinks she is being clever by using instrumental or 'strategic rudeness.

However she is actually just a very silly and naive middle-aged woman who hasn't had enough experience in life, or enough sense to know that if she is rude to others, they will see it as a licence to be rude in return 'to put her in her place', by lowering themselves to her gutter level. Recently she showed her immaturity by losing control of her temper and using the expletive word "bloody".

It doesn't matter what snotty excuse she uses, the rules of Wikipedia advise against using swear words. See here

She often discusses the rules about "page titles" and gives me the impression that she is adding loopholes so that one day she will use it as an excuse to delete the Da Costa's topic, or merge it with another title to hide the history of edits which are evidence of her disgusting behaviour in the past.

When criticising her for using the word "bloody", another editor named Unscintillating described her as having a history of joining in "personal attacks" on editors she considered to be newbies. He told her to stop using crude language and making personal attacks on newbies but she always ignores the criticism, and carries on regardless. See here.



A word that WhatamIdoing uses to describe the contributions of other editors and researchers who disagree with her.

I wrote a summary of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul's review of the history of Da Costa's syndrome that was published in a highly respected medical journal, and my main critic wrote this offensive comment about me and him. . . "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 summarised about ten theories from that review, and then my two critics deleted nine of them and commented on one, as if it was the only one was mentioned, and then had the cheek to say that I was 'cherrypicking', and that Oblesby Paul wrote a bunch of garbage, and that the editors of the British Heart Journal would publish 'garbage ." (the follow up letter in that journal did not contain the offensive words 'bunch of garbage')

Another insulting remark about me can be seen with these offensive words "I've even given up on him figuring out simple things" here

In another example WhatamIdoing's arrogant and ill-mannered behaviour is evident is a discussion with a different editor who had dyslexia. That individual was adding information about that topic, and complained about the fact that it appeared as if some editors did not want dyslexics contributing to their own articles. It was quite obvious to an intelligent and objective person that he meant to say that "some editors did not want dyslexics contributing to pages about dyslexia". However, at 3:31 on 25-11-09, WhatamIdoing chose to deliberately, rudely, and offensively misrepresent the comment by saying that people with dyslexia do not "own" any article, and then went on to say "Anyone who is unable to work productively in Wikipedia's environment should stop editing". Needless to say that WhatamIdoing will not be able to work productively with other editors by deliberately misrepresenting their words, and by being deliberately ill-mannered.

The other editor then clarified that he knew he did not own any article, and never meant to imply that, and then made a remark about WhatamIdoings misplaced, self-opinionated sense of being vastly superior. WhatamIdoing's manners are actually at the vastly lower level.

This is a quote from the page about Consensus that WhatamIdoing edited at 03:33 on 28 Augutst 2010 . . .

"When editors maintain a degree of detachment and civility, they can usually talk through issues to reach some sort of consensus. See here


That individual frequently refers to such policies when accusing other editors of being uncivil, but has extreme double standards, and resents it when anyone else makes the accusation. For example, on 28th May 2008 Guido den Broeder advised WhatamIdoing to follow the WP:CIVIL guidelnes and this was the response . . .

"I find your lectures about civility offensive and suggest that you stop using policy as a bludgeon in your ongoing efforts to thwart my efforts to make this article accurate." signed WhatamIdoing 23:10, May 28th, 2008. here

Note also that WhatamIdoing was not making the article more accurate, but was deliberately removing detail to make it a biased and 'sweeping' overview, which would generally be described as a whitewash.


WhatamIdoing is offensively ill-mannered to anyone who holds a different view to their own, and yet acts prim and proper by giving a "Civility Award" to an editor named Carltonjim with these words "Thanks for your positive, pleasant, and understanding response at User talk:XlinkBot about these links. If every editor were as thoughtful and kind as you are, then Wikipedia would be a better and happier place". signed WhatamIdoing 4:25, 9th February 2010

However this is what that same editor self-righteous individual considered to be polite and appropriate when writing about me? . . .
"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." WhatamIdoing 02:42, 11 January 2009


This is a quote from part of a discussion between WhatamIdoing another editor named Wolfkeeper. . .

WhatamIdoing wrote this . . . "While you are permitted to continue these fruitless efforts, I think you might prefer finding something more productive to do with your time and energy. WhatamIdoing 16:14, 7 July 2010

Wolfkeeper replied with these words . . . "You think you speak for everyone in 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" arrogaant of you?' signed Wolfkeeper' 06:40, 27 July 2010 here.

On 4-11-11 WhatamIdoing also describes some other editors as being "determined" to "dump" illegible, incomprehensible "garbage" onto pages. See here.

You may note that she often deliberately uses "incomprehensible jargon" to deceive other editors and administrators, and yet has the cheek to describe other people as writing "incomprehensible garbage".


WhatamIdoing's general arrogance

In one of her discussions with another editor she starts her second paragraph by giving her personal opinion about Da Costa's syndrome, and then says that she agrees with one of the researchers who has one of the theories of cause, and then she gives her opinion about why exercise improves symptoms, as if her reason is 'fact'? She continues to give her opinion and she describes doctors as under diagnosing, misdiagnosing, or making sloppy diagnoses of the problem, and then she gives her opinion about why the label of Da Costa's syndrome has gone out of use, and then says that it is because "we" better understand the situations.

The question is this. who does she think she is, by giving instructions to everyone else. She thinks she is superior to patients, she thinks she is superior to doctors, and she thinks she is superior to you, the readers, and the other editors and administrators, and she thinks she is a member of some anonymous class of intellectual elites when she says 'we' understand this better than before. See her comments on the 15th May 2008 here

However, she has admitted to a dozen arbitrators that when I started contributing to the Wikipedia article six months earlier, in December 2007, that she "didn't know much about Da Costa's syndrome".

She deliberately deceived the Arbitration editors

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.

The arbcom made the decision to ban me on the basis of her lies, which she told them because she knew that most of them would know nothing about the topic of Da Costa's syndrome. Their biggest mistake was to trust her.

Most of the statements she made were lies here. See my report about one of her 'sets' of lies here, and an index to here lies here


In her opinion only 1% of her contributions are mistakes???

She doesn't mention her massive number of Lies here

My main critic creates the illusion about her own superiority by the deliberate way she writes. For example, she explains that people such as herself get things correct 99% of the time, but only make mistakes 1% of the time. See here. However, she often lost arguments against me because she often got her facts wrong, or interpreted the policies the wrong way, or told lies.


You don't have to look past the very first line at the top of the page, which she put there to include the label of Soldier's heart. I told her it was wrong to put it there, but she argued about it for months. Another editor named Napoliroma told her it was wrong, and a further editor named ElImp told her it was inappropriate and deleted it, and later another editor named Paul Barlow said that it was inappropriate and deleted her link to the irrelevant childrens fiction novel in the first sentence. e.g. See the 29th May 2008 where she moved the label from the end of the page to the top line here, and 22nd December where El Imp deleted the top line here, and on 2nd February 2009 Paul Barlow deleted the link to the novel with that label here,

However, during that time, on the 27th January 2009 , she had the cheek to tell more than a dozen arbitrators that she won the argument by arguing that she was correct and I was wrong???? here

See my report on more of her nonsense here


Courtesy according to my main critic

All who agree are excellent and wonderful, and all who disagree are stupid and evil pests???

During the week ending 28-11-10 I posted an article about my two critics telling lies, and within a few hours of including it as a news item on 29-11-10 my main critic posted a comment to another editor, and was pretending to be honest, respectable, and above board, but was being extremely offensive in the attitude toward any individual or administrator who disagreed with them


This was part of that editors response to another editor named WeijiBaikeBianji . . .

"After a brief look, my overall assessment is that you're being hassled for writing the encyclopedia by people who would (apparently) prefer that you promoted their pet views and/or under-informed opinions. I'm sorry to say that there is no simple solution, because we can't compel the other people to read and think about the sources, no matter how much good it would do us or the world. You must keep on doing what is good and right, and being as polite as (in)humanly possible. Eventually, your current opponents will exhaust the (very, very large) patience of the community, and make pests of themselves enough to overcome the (very, very large) inertia of admins, and they will end up blocked (or perhaps get disgusted and leave of their own volition [but see also What Goodbye Means)." WhatamIdoing 03:19, 29 November 2010

See here


The process of describing other "people" as "making pests of themselves" is called dehumanising and the objective is to have them treated as inanimate objects or lower life forms that don't deserve the same consideration as other humans.

You could call that editors style of writing - instrumental rudeness - rudeness to achieve an objective - turning the truth upside down.

Discussing the maturity of others is courteous?

My main critic likes to think of herself as a respectable and mature adult, but in many of her discussion her lack of respect for other individuals is obvious. For example, she will write by choosing words which give the impression that everyone who agrees with her is a sensible adult, and that all editors who disagree with her are immature, teenagers, juveniles, unemployed, mentally disturbed, disabled, or childish. You can see her general attitude in her ranting argument here.

However, typically, what she doesn't want you to notice is that she is just a middle-aged woman who doesn't have the courage or maturity to give her real identity, and that she spends almost all day ever day doing up to 300 edits on some occasions. At one stage she had completed 18000 edits in a four year period and currently claims to have 2000 pages on her watchlist, and yet says that she is just a volunteer who is not being paid to do it. She is therefore, by her own definition, a very childish person who has got nothing better to do with her time than make a pest of herself in Wikipedia.

She also claims to have university qualifications, but won't tell anyone what they are, and she mainly edits and 'controls' medical topics but says that she is not a doctor and has no intention of becoming one. She has also been asked to become an administrator but refused, so she is a very childish, irresponsible, and immature adult.


Her own extreme immaturity

She is an extremely immature middle-aged adult who thinks that it is clever to be rude, and to tell lies, and cheat by ignoring all the rules in order to get her way, and yet at the same time she expects other people to treat her politely, and to trust her, and to mindlessly obey her instructions.

She also treats Wikipedia as if it is a child's internet game, and she set up a secret discussion where she claimed that she had used 'attitude readjustment tools'. They are the standard methods for starting edit wars, and at one stage she identified me as her target and recruited the help of other editors to deliberately annoy me until I found Wikipedia so unpleasant that I left voluntarily. She failed because I didn't know about edit wars and thought that her arguments were childish and stupid. She later had the cheek to tell other editors that i had been blocked for edit warring, when in fact, I had been there for more than a year, and neither her, nor her assistant, nor any other individual had accused me of edit warring, or blocked me for that reason.

I find it difficult to understand how someone like herself can be so contemptibly childish, but hasn't been banned by the administrators.

WhatamIdoing's arrogant childishness

WhatamIdoing is by far the most arrogant person I have ever encountered. She is also extremely childish in the way she conducts herself, and in particular in the way she tries to justify her lies, her rule violations, and her extreme rudeness toward others. She is also a very deviouis and calculating shrew who tries to give other editors the false impression that anyone who disagrees with her is childish, immature, and self-aggrandizing etc.

Her is a quote from her ridiculous hypocricy . . .

"here at the English Wikipedia, we have many highly productive editors who do not engage in self-aggrandizement, are not narcissistic, do not cause needless drama whenever someone happens to have a different opiniont, and do not act like little children who want to order around everyone else on the playground". WhatamIdoing 15:32, 1 March 2012


Pathological rudeness

You would have to question the personality and morality, or even the common sense or sanity of someone who defends themselves from accusations and proof of being ill-mannered, by searching for and finding 16 references to support and write a 1572 word argument that "instrumental rudeness should be viewed as part of pragmatic competency", or that it is intelligent to use rudeness to gain power. It is essentially an invitation and a license for every other intelligent person to be rude in order to overpower them.

See that individuals 1572 word gobsmacking attempt at justifying the unjustifiable here

Essentially all that person is doing is making excuses for bad manners that will give other ill-mannered civility violators a means of evading their responsibility to edit Wikipedia properly.


What is Rudeness? Why ask when it is obvious?

You don't need to do lessons, or learn about what good manners are in most cases, because it is obvious when someone is being deliberately offensive with their gestures, or their tone of voice, or their words, and you know that they are being "ill-mannered", or "rude".

However, WhatamIdoing tries to write exceptions to everything in Wikipedia policies, so that any action can 'seem' to be 'innocent', 'polite', or 'justifiable. Here is an example that was added to the Wikipedia page about Rudeness . . . "What constitutes rude speech depends on the culture, the setting, and the speaker's social position in the culture . . . However, there is no universal rule about which terms are considered derogatory and which questions are inappropriate under what circumstances etc." signed WhatamIdoing 20:48, 31 March 2010 here

It sounds very 'prim and proper' to write such instructions until you see how WhatamIdoing uses it in practice, and it is something like this; WhatamIdoing will be condescending and sarcastic to make me look stupid, and I will say 'please stop being sarcastic', and WhatamIdoing would reply 'please tell me where I have been sarcastic, I'm not a sarcastic person, you shouldn't accuse me of things like that, please read the 'rudeness' policy which you are too stupid to know about, so you don't know about the many, many, yes many, many, many ways that something might be interpreted as rude to one person, but is just an innocent 'off-the-cuff" remark by another'. etc.

Needless to say, people like that editor, who play dumb, often are dumb, because they think that they can be rude and get away with it.

It is also relevant to say that when the policies have so many exceptions in them, WhatamIdoing can be rude and claim to be polite, and can accuse someone else of being rude when they are using good manners.

The other editors were therefore saying things like this . . . 'What are you complaining about, we've read all of the discussions and Posturewriter seems to be polite, so why don't you just concentrate on the content, and not on the contributor.'


WhatamIdoing's continuing incivility

WhatamIdoing claims to be a polite editor but is often deliberately offensive, ill-mannered, and abrasive, as can be seen in the following comments and responses . . .

"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.

Reisio wrote this about WhatamIdoing . . . "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 here. Nice . . . You are right about one thing, though: my edits are not vandalism". Reisio 16:07, 2 April 2010 here

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 here

WhatamIdoing wrote these offensive words about Reisio. . . "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 here


A lesson in good manners

At one stage Gordonofcartoon made this threat "Do we want to up the ante?", and I finally became fed up with his disrespectful nonsense, so I replied "Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry?

He reacted by starting to ban me and was successful, so here is one of the lessons, which applies to both of my critics

My main critic is always writing or influencing the policies of Wikipedia and telling everyone else how to interpret them.

However, this is what a mature and intelligent administrator should tell her . . .

1. You are not the founder, or owner of Wikipedia, and it is not your personal dictatorship.

2. You will treat every editor with courtesy and respect at all times, regardless of your personal opinion about whether you should or not. Also you must not encourage other editors to be ill-mannered as you are by writing essays about instrumental rudeness.

3. You will obey all the rules of Wikipedia, just like everyone else, whether you like it or not. Also you must not encourage other editors to ignore all the rules, and must will not reward them for ignoring the rules.

4. If you don't like that then get out, and set up your own encyclopedia.

See also the threat made by her assistant, and my response here

See an example of how she is controlling the policies and their interpretarion here


They betrayed the trust of other editors

My main critic argued that all information about the history of Da Cost's syndrome must only be taken from top quality references published in the past five years, according to MEDRS policy, and that one of the most reliable sources was Dorland's medical dictionary. Here is a quote . . .

"Dorland's medical dictionary is used by students and professors at every single English-language medical school in the world. Thousands of physicians reference it. As a flagship publication from the world's largest scientific publishing house, Elsevier, it clearly meets the WP:V description of "books published by respected publishing houses," and in fact it is used as a reference in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.". WhatamIdoing 13:55, 25 May 2008


The latest (31st edition) of Dorland's redirects Da Costa's syndrome to 'neurocirculatory asthenia', making it the most widely accepted term, and mentions 'Soldier's heart' as one of three alternatives.

However, my two critics lied to the other editors by arguing that 'Soldier's heart' was the main label which deserved the most prominence which is a clear case of advocacy for biased focus in the entire article. One of the other editors, named WLU, admitted to not having done much research on the topic, but trusted them and believed their lie. This was their conversation . . .


Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I've altered the intro to focus on the main synonym. We've got so obsessed with the multiple possibilities that the chief one has become buried". Gordonofcartoon 01:15, 7 June 2008
WhatamIdoing responded with these words . . . "that looks good to me . . . 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. WhatamIdoing 05:33, 7 June 2008

WhatamIdoing 05:33, 7 June 2008
WLU believed their lie and agreed with these words . . . "I like WAID's ideas, I don't know about putting the civil war reference in the first and second paragraphs in the lead. That being said, I've done little research on the matter so it could be propos. WLU 21:04, 7 June 2008

See here

and my report on their attempts to push their point of view about the label of Soldier's heart, and their disruptive behavior and recidivistic edit warring against consensus here


When they tell lies to get the support of one other person, and progressively exaggerate their support and tell other editors that they have the agreement of 'the entire Wikipedia community', other readers can see that 'one' extra person has been 'used' to create an illusion of large numbers.


My report on their massive number of lies can be seen here

My report on their lies about the reliablity of my references can be seen here


My two critics also told many lies to the arbitration editors, which is the equivalent of perjury, and said for example, that Sir James MacKenzie was an ordinary doctor, and that they had won the debate about their hatnote policy, when in fact - they lost.

One of the arbitrators, named MastCell, who did not recognise that the two editors told a lot of lies, was obviously influenced by them, as can be seen here


This is my recommendation to WLU and Mastcell - you should not get involved in arguments unless you are familiar with the topic because people like my two critics will tell you a pack of lies and blur your good judgment. They told you lies about me, and they will just as readily tell you lies about anyone else, or any other topic, if they think can get away with it.

They have betrayed your trust in the past and they will do it again if they get the opportunity.


One of them is now flattering you so don't be decieved into trusting them again.

The following words of praise were made by the editor who deceived you . . .

"You might like to read DefendEachOther at the Meatball Wiki. For myself, when I'm feeling unsupported and discouraged, I usually go read User talk:MastCell to regain some perspective, since he's a truly excellent editor who is usually under more stress than I am. If you haven't already encountered him, I suggest making friends with User:WLU as well, since he's also not afraid of controversial topics." WhatamIdoing 03:19, 29 November 2010

See here


This is my suggestion to my two critics - when you betray the trust of the people who you need for support your behavior is called 'strategic incompetence'. You can claim to have all sorts of prowess but you cannot claim to have common sense.


What is a straw man

It is reasonably common knowledge that everything can have a double meaning, and that some people will think that it is clever to put a negative spin on everything. For example, if you do something that is good for one reason, someone will say that it is bad for another.

My main critic used those simple methods. For example, if I was polite out of respect for Wikipedias Civility policy, she would treat me as if I was a weak and subordinate editor. If I agreeably complied with a rule because I thought it was perfectly reasonable, she would tell other editors that I was deliberately disobeying another one. She spent 12 months telling lies and putting a negative spin on almost everything I wrote until she got me banned by convincing other editors that I was the worst, most uncooperative, disruptive troll in Wikipedia history.


When she was unable to beat me in an argument she would typically use "the straw man" tactics to get decisions made against me.

For example, if she told the other editors the truth about me being the type of person who provided good references to support my statements in an article, she would not be able to get me banned. She therefore told them that I was the type of person who provided poor quality references. She was then able to convince them to ban me. i.e. she couldn't ban me, so she invented a straw man image, and had the image banned. When the image was banned, I was banned.

I will give three examples.

1. The rules of Wikipedia state that anyone can add any information, however, they also say, that if you mention your own research, it could be perfectly acceptable, but if any other editor objects to it on the grounds of conflict of interest, you may be required to remove it.

I thought that was a perfectly reasonable rule, so when I was contributing to an article about Da Costa's syndrome I mentioned my own theory because it was relevant and useful.

Two editors then set up a discussion page about it and broke the rules by mentioning my real name as a section heading, and proceeded to arrogantly criticise me.

One of their criticisms was that the information about my own research took up too much space.

I thought that was reasonable enough, given what I knew about the rules, so I told them I would reduce the amount I wrote about it.

I then got an "immediate" "bossy" & "hostile" reaction, which was obviously out of proportion, and intended to give other editors the false impression that I had done something horribly wrong. My main critic wrote something like this . . ."Posturewriter; We have told you once, and we don't want to tell you again. Do not mention anything at all about your own silly ideas; I have put you on my watchlist, and if you dare to disobey our orders again we will immediately get you blocked."

I am older than both of them so their 'bossy' attitude seemed to me to be just childish, because I am an intelligent adult, and if they had said that politely, I would have followed their instructions, just to keep the peace. Despite their arrogance, I simply let them delete the information, in January 2008, and never made any further attempts to put it back. However, they spent the next 12 months trying to get me banned by convincing other editors that I was putting up a mighty resistance and "struggling" to put it back every week.

2. They made it clear that they were ordinary anonymous editors who were going to continue acting as if they had the authority of people who "owned" Wikipedia, and they gave me instructions that I must only add information from top quality medical journals and books. I had already added information from Da Costa (1871), and Lewis (1919) etc., so added more, including one from the top authorities in the history of the subject, who was Paul Dudley White ( 1951). They then started arguing like this . . . "We have told Posturewriter over and over again that he must use top quality references from good sources but despite our instructions he keeps giving us "old" sources that were "out-of-date", "obsolete", , and "from before most editors were born". The entire Wikipedia community of rule-abiding-editors is becoming disgusted with his behaviour, and we are losing our patients giving him instructions, because even if he knows the rules, he just ignores them, so we want him banned." (The rules actually state that when you are writing the history section of articles, which I was, you are allowed to use older references for obvious reasons).

3. Some months earlier, a group of six editors had deleted a page about my theory after arguing that it wasn't "notable" enough. However, one of them eventually said that all they needed to prove notability was to provide the dates and places of publication, and make it easy for them to verify by putting it online. I gave them all of that information, but I didn't want to rush around finding newspaper clippings that were 30 years old, just to get my ideas in Wikipedia, or just to make things easy for six anonymous people? I just let them delete it, and thought that one day, in the next few weeks or months, I might find it and put it on my website, and let them know where they could find it.

Eventually I did find the newspaper clippings, and I did take a photocopy of one, and converted it to a jpeg and added it to my website.

My critics assistant then said something like this . . . "Look at Posturewriter again. This is disgusting. He has previously linked his own website to Wikipedia to promote his own silly ideas despite being told not to. We have told him repeatedly not to do it, and look, he has even put a copy of a newspaper article onto his website, which proves what we have been saying over and over again, that he has to be banned for the most serious violations of our "conflict of interest" rules.

They just kept arguing like that for a year, until they got me banned.


Their straw man insults - a typical example

After several months contributing to the article about Da Costa's syndrome, two neutral editors suggested that my two critics and I prepare an entirely new article using top quality references for them to merge into one neutral article later. One of them ignored the offer, and the other one bluntly refused the suggestion, but I spent several weeks writing an essay whcih inlcuded all points of view from more than a dozen different theories. In my introduction I referred to the other labels of the ailment which included neurocirculatory asthenia, soldier's heart, effort syndrome and anxiety neurosis. In the 1939 section I mentioned Caugheys views about cardiovascular neurosis, and in the 1950 section I referred to Wheelers follow up study of 173 patients in which he concluded that anxiety was not the cause, and in the 1951 section I gave Paul Dudley White's comment that the general causes appeared to include strains over business, social or emotional stress, physical strains, or viral infections. In the 1987 section I referred to Oglesby Paul's summary of the 100 year history of Da Costa's syndrome in which he concluded that for every theory on the topic there was evidence for and against. I also mentioned the anxiety concepts in the section about causes, alternative labels, and differential diagnosis, and in several other sections. You can check those facts here

However, my main critic didn't want other editors to know that I was an intelligent person who had written a good article. Therefore, in order to beat me in disputes that individual developed a straw man tactic. Essentially, she couldn't beat me in any argument if she told the truth about my, so she described me in a way that would make other editors think I was stupid, so that they would ban me.

You have just read how much I know about the anxiety theories, and how much top quality information that I included about that aspect, but this is what my main critic told a neutral editor about me . . . "he's having trouble remembering that anxiety disorder is a functional disease of the nervous system, not a character flaw"(end of quote) see here

That editor is implying that I am so stupid that I would forget something about a subject that I have been studying for thirty years, and that I said in the article that anxiety was a character flaw, when I didn't say any such thing. Her arguments were full of ridiculous lies and misrepresentations of facts.


Veiled Insults - Findagrave

While I was in Wikipedia and since then, I noticed some comments that were obvious personal insults but were sufficiently indirect as to be 'deniable' or circumstantial.

For example, during a discussion about the reliability of my 61 top quality references, my main critic grossly misrepresented the facts by picking fault with one of them in an attempt to create the illusion that all of them were unreliable sources of information.

At the conclusion of that lengthy discussion a brand new section was set up with a bold heading "Findagrave" which was obviously intended to be offensive and was also a ridiculous attempt to intimidate me. It was started by an editor named Tom, and my main critic was the only one to respond.


The first comments by Tom were . . ."Is Findagrave an appropriate link for External links? If this is not the appropriate place for this question, could somebody direct me? Thanks in advance, --Tom 22:19, 26 January 2009

The reply by my main critic was . . . If you're talking about listing it an the end of an article (not being used to support a specific piece of information in the article), you might ask at the talk page for the external links guideline. WhatamIdoing 03:54, 27 January 2009

Tom's response the next day was . . . Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! --Tom 14:25, 27 January 2009

Those words can be seen by scrolling down from the Da Costa's topic to the Findagrave heading here

It was also obvious that a lot of other 'juvenile' editors would use the link to the page with the word "Findagrave" in it's title, as a tactic in an edit war to indirectly insult or threaten anyone who they wanted to drive out of Wikipedia.


This is a quote from Tom's User page . . . "Articles I have created:Taunt".

It contains a link to the Wikipedia page about "Taunting" which has these words

"A taunt is a battle cry, a method in hand-to-hand combat, sarcastic remark, or insult intended to make demoralize the recipient, or to anger them and encourage reactionary behaviours without thinking.[citation needed] Taunting can exist as a form of social competition to gain control of the target's social captial (i.e. status) .[citation needed] In sociological theory, the control of the three social capitals is used to produce an advantage in the social hierarchy as to enforce one's own position in relation to others. Taunting is committed by either directly bullying, or indirectly encouraging others to bully the target. It is also possible to give a response of the same kind, to ensure one's own status. It can be compared to trash-talk" (end of quote).

See here

and here

Note also that since then the editor named Tom, who is very experienced, and a prolific contributor of 1000's of edits, has changed his name to Threeafterthree.


Eighteen months after I was banned my two-faced critic made some revealing comments in a response to an editor named Resolute . . .

Resolute wrote these words . . . "I'm not sure about anyone else, but I remove those links as a matter of routine when I come across them. Frankly, I find that Findagrave adds nothing to most articles. Resolute 00:04, 17 October 2010
WhatamIdoing replied with these words . . . I've never looked into it, but I have an impression from other editors' comments that the volume of links might partly be due to a handful of editors who really, really like the website. WhatamIdoing 00:06, 17 October 2010

See here


It would be more appropriate to say that it was a very popular site to link to because a lot of editors can see the title of "Findagrave" as a Trojan horse for their army of insults.


Here are a couple of relevant quotes from the Wikipedia policy about Civility - WP:Civil . . .

"A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern."

and "uncivil behaviors . . . (a)Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves"

See here

and here


(I am willing to give the editor named Tom the benefit of the doubt, but he and everone else who looks at the evidence will agree that it looks as if my main critic has sent him a pivate email and asked him to come and assist in discouraging my contributions).


They use links to Wikipedia essays as an insult

My main critic argued relentlessly about an essay in which I described about a dozen factual, and evidence based assessments of their tactics, and demanded that it be deleted on the grounds that it was an uncivil attack essay?

Stupid - However, that editor routinely insulted me by linking to other pages in Wikipedia which were extremely offensive. For example, on one occasion that individual indirectly described one of my suggestions as stupid, and put a link on the word stupid which led to a page about 'intelligence' that covered such things as low intelligence levels. There is also another page called WP:stupid, which could be linked to for the purpose of insulting someone's contributions.

WP:Findagrave - As another example an editor left a comment at the end of a discussion where I was defending myself from my main critics offensive assertion that all of my references were unreliable. That comment was 'Findagrave' which was a clear message for me to give up and go away.

If it was used in a sentence directly addressed to me I could have had that editor banned for violating the civility policy, nevertheless, despite it's indirectness, it was an obviously offensive remark.


WP:TROUT - A recent example is where my main critic left this comment in a discussion with another editor. . ."No matter how well-deserved it is, trout delivery takes time and energy. I'd been hoping we could figure out a way to put this explicitly into the policy, so that I could just point them at a sentence. Typing'"WP:YOURWRONG' seems so much easier than dealing with the trouts" (end of quote by WhatamIdoing 04:44, 22 October 2010)

In Wikipedia the word trout is used as an indirect insult as you can see in WP:TROUT which is an essay that has the picture of a trout fish at the top, and refers to whacking another editor with a wet trout to make them understand something. It claims to be a subtle message but it compares it with a clue, and the word clue is linked to a page which refers to it as a baseball bat which is one of the LART tools which means Lusers Attitude Readjustment Tools which includes a cluestick which is a 2 X 4 block of wood that you hit your opponents over the head with.

That message is as 'subtle' as being hit over the head with a brick.

However my two critics were saying that I was being uncivil for accusing them of being rude, and that they are not being rude now because all they do to their opponents is link to established pages that have been in Wikipedia for many years.


See my main critics comment on trouting at 4:44 on 22-10-10 here

See an example of her using the word "Trout" here

See WP:trout here

See cluebat here

See where may main critic admitted that their "attitude readjustment tools" failed to scathe me, and where the words had a link to LART Tools for "Lusers" here


I looked for a page in Wikipedia that I could use to make the same type of subtle and indirect and officially acceptable insult against my two critics but there simply isn't one called WP:NITWITS


Indirect rudeness and Guilt by association

My main critic knew that I had Da Costa's syndrome, and she also knew that it was obvious that I am not afraid, or even slightly anxious about health problems. She also knows that I had cancer for 8 years which involved several operations, different types of chemotherapy, and side-effects for several years. She can't argue that I am the type of person to complain of trivial illness, but she tries. She also tried to imply that I had other psychological problems by deliberately referring to my editing as 'behaviour', and added the word 'disruptive' to imply some sort of anti-social aspect. In order to create that false impression she was always deliberately insulting and uncooperative so that I would ignore her, and then she could accuse me of being 'disruptive' and incapable of 'co-operative behaviour'. However, if unbiased people wish to have a proper look at the discussions you can easily find that the only two editors that I was unwilling to co-operate with were my two deliberately uncooperative critics. She was very busy filling the reference section with words which implied, depression, mental illness, and cowardice.

Part of her stupid and failed objective was to make me leave the topic for fear that other editors would brand me with those labels, but what she doesn't understand is that I don't' give a dam about such ridiculous tactics. I was just thinking that she was a grubby fool who didn't have any self-respect, and who didn't care how low her standards of behaviour were. See her edits to a page with similar features to 'indirect rudeness' called called 'Guilt by association' here



Another suggestion for a new page that other editors can link to is WP:LIAR - A LOSER who uses the "ignore all rules" policy (WP:IAR), as a last resort to win disputes in Wikipedia.


Orthorexia Nervosa

To give you another example of the devious nature of my critics insults I first need to explain that I wrote a script for a public talk on how I cured angina with a vegetarian diet - and also lost weight, and later posted it on my website and published it as a CD. Some years later, former U.S. president, Bill Clinton, said that he recently underwent surgery for heart disease and was now using a type of protein enhanced vegetarian diet to gradually remove cholesterol from his arteries. It was almost exactly the same as I recommended, so I added a comment about that on my website. Within a day or two of me making that change, my main critic twaddled off and did a minor edit on the discussion page for the topic of 'Orthorexia Nervosa". The word Orthorexia is derived from the ancient Greek language where 'ortho' means correct and 'orexia' means appetite, and together means 'correct diet.' Although that page mentions proper diet, it focusses on the idea that it is often taken to extremes where it has an adverse effect on healh, and reports that it is not an official diagnosis, but is considered to be a mental disorder involving 'a maniacal obsession for healthy foods'. Another quote from that page is that "emaciation is common among followers of certain health food diets, such as rawfoodism."

That particular individual knows that I am watching and reporting on their pattern of edits and made that gratuitous edit so that I would see the page and get the veiled 'message' that everything I do can be interpreted as having something wrong with it.

This is my comment. Most people do not have sufficient knowledge to be able to make decisions about their own health, and they don't have sufficient self-discipline to stick to a diet, but it is better to be a live vegetarian than a dead junk food eater.

My main critic needs to 'stop being too clever for their own good' and grow up.


See my comment about Bill Clintons diet on my website on 25-9-10 here

See an anonymous edit and the Wikipedia topic page three days later at 14:20 on 28-9-10 here

and my main critics edit at 18:29 on 28-9-10 on that talk page here


WhatamIdoing: The worst troll in Wikipedia history

Evidence and proof that my main critic had been deliberately conducting an editing 'flame war' against me can be seen with the use of their "attitude readjustment tools", and then admitting that they failed, and then forecasting the intention of continuing an edit war by acting like the "Wicked Witch of the West" can be seen here
and LART here

This was WhatamIdoings description of a troll . . . "A troll is a mythical creature (a sort of evil, violent, or stupid giant) whose name has been given to people who start flame wars and other emotional or offensive, but ultimately fruitless, conversations online (Internet trolls). A common piece of advice is please don't feed the trolls, because ignoring the inflammatory messages discourages future disruptive messages." WhatamIdoing 20:37, 10 July 2010 see here


Wikipedia Civility Policy WP:Civil

This is a quote from Wikipedia's Civility policy that gives examples of: "uncivil behaviors . . . "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information" see here

One of the things that astonished me about my two critics was they way they would try to defend a series of their lies with more lies.
For example, I noted that Paul Dudley White described the condition as a type of fatigue syndrome that was chronic, and my two critics said that it wasn't, and that the 1951 reference was out-of-date. I then told them that someone else had added 'chronic fatigue syndrome' to the 'Related' section at the end of the page (It was put there by an editor named Michael Dart, on the day the page was started at 21:12 on 15 May 2006, before I joined Wikipedia). My main critic argued that just because someone else put it in the 'Related' section doesn't mean that it is actually related?? The title of that section was later changed to 'See also'. I also showed that Sir James MacKenzie had attributed the fatigue to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins, which is now called 'orthostatic intolerance', as seen in the chronic fatigue syndrome, and these are the words used in my critics version of the article at 18:57 on 26 January 2009
"The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome".

As you can appreciate, I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything, but was simply stating obvious facts, and making direct quotes from other authors and editors, but this is what my main critic told other editors the next day to get me banned . . . "Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards. For example . . . at one time, Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was listed in the See also section. Posturewriter has recently argued that the inclusion of the CFS article in See also proves that DCS is a type of CFS".

As you can see, I quoted an author who said DCS was a type of chronic fatigue syndrome, but my critic said it wasn't. I said that another editor had linked to it in the 'Related' section, and they said it didn't mean they were related. I described the 'pooling of blood' in 1916 references as the same as 'orthostatic intolerance' in 2009 and my critics deleted it. They told the other editors that I was writing nonsense, but the version of the article that they wrote contains exactly the same information, and it is still there a year later.

See here and here and here


Gordonofcartoon's hypothetical advice to WhatamIdoing and the result

I will "quote" from the type of words, expressions, and phrases that my two critics have used against me and other editors in the past . . . (words that were deliberately chosen for the "effect"

Gordonofcartoon would write something like this about WhatamIdoing's editing style. . . "WhatamIdoing, you need to clearly understand that you cannot go around breaking all of the rules of Wikipedia ANY TIME IT SUITS YOU, and that it is totally "UNACCEPTABLE" for you to be encouraging other editors to break the rules by rewarding them with "OUTLAW" barnstars. "WE" respectable members of the "RULE-ABIDING" "COMMUNITY" are thoroughly "DISGUSTED" with your "BEHAVIOR" and we will be bringing your misconduct to the notice of the arbitrators . . . in the meantime . . ."if you can/will function within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good. If you can't/won't, you know where the door is". . .

However, of course, that would result in SWIFT retaliation by WhatamIdoing making a counter threat to block Gordonofcartoon for VIOLATION of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. etc. and a comment like this . . . "I wonder if we will ever manage to convince User:Gordonofcartoon that this is not acceptable? He's done this to several articles, always with strong objections whenever it's noticed, and he seems to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about it".

The net result, as usual, is that they would defeat each other without anyone else needing to get involved in their RIDICULOUS, ILL-MANNERED , FOUL-MOUTHED "NONSENSE" and"CRAP"

see here

and here>Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=312818665

and here

An anonymous editors idea of Civility

"At 19:55 on 11 Dec 2008 an anonymous editor wrote this on a Da Costa's syndrome edit . . . "Blah blah blah so what if people had "de costa's syndrom" or whatever it is called. theyre just wierdos that are scared of blood". See here

You can tell from that edit that ignorance is the cause of prejudice.


Foul language in Wikipedia

I have had a lot of experience in disputes and know that using foul language is not a good idea, because, for example, it would give my two critics the opportunity to go into a frenzy of protest and grossly exaggerate it as evidence of bad manners, and such a showy display of self-righteous indignation would give them the illusion of coming from the moral high ground. It would also make me lose credibility, which is what they wanted.

You will note that the editors who initially accused me of being uncivil were my two ill-mannered critics, and that most of the uninvolved editors would say that they couldn't see any evidence of it, and that, in their opinion, I had remained calm and polite, and that they had seen a lot worse in other Wikipedia disputes. Their general advice to my critics was to stop complaining about nothing and just get on with the task of dealing with content issues.

That made me wonder what happened in other disputes, so, if I came across any, I would make a note of them.

It turns out that edit wars are very common, and are routinely discussed by admins who try to resolve them. Extreme verbal hostility, and gross foul language was also so common that editors would often argue that it was silly to ban a contributor just because of a few swear words. Some of them would argue that they are justified in being ill-mannered because it is normal to swear when you are being repeatedly annoyed by ignorant fools.

An example: This was the edit lead . . . "You are so fucking stupid it hurts, the lot of you. Go choke on a bag of dicks, delete my userspace."
The following words appeared on that persons talk page . . .

"You need to kiss my ass, you fucking moron. Your blocks are so fucking stupid it's not even funny.The last time, you cited as justification for the block a comment ''that even the user it was directed at understood was sheer humour'' and you did not. Christ, you exemplify exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia. Delete my entire fucking userspace, coming back here was a goddamn mistake." Roux 19:13, 25 February 2010 here

An editor named Thumperward described that as "burnout rage" and another editor name SmokeyJoe responded to a request to unblock that person with these words . . . "Productive. Passionate. Had a tendency to get pissed off when confronted/taunted, and he intended to work on this". See here


"As you can appreciate, my response to the deliberate baiting by my two critics was mild compared to those words, and my comments on their policy violations were also mild compared to their incessant criticism of me. In essence, they were attacking me, and I eventually decided to defend myself by attacking back. As Gordonofcartoon said "Do we want to up the ante", and as I replied "Do you want me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry." See my essay on that comment here


Their uncivil attitude toward new contributors

On the 8th of May 2012 WhatamIdoing "welcomed" a new contributor to Wikipedia here. There is no way of knowing if that "anonymous" person is her sock puppet, her wooden headed puppet, or her meathead, friend or paid associate. However, if that person is not, and they try to add information that she doesn't like "tomorrow" or in the future she will add her "strategic rudeness" and "attitude readjustment tools" to her "welcome tactics".

The following comments describe her "real" attitude toward new contributors to Wikipedia . . .

At 00:53 on 11 September 2010, WhatamIdoing made several edits on a page called "The Last Word" where new contributorsare referred to as 'newbies', 'bastards', 'jerks', 'little shits', and 'easy prey'.

Their aim is to treat any disputes as 'boxing matches', and to 'play dumb', 'cheat', get their friends to masquerade as 'uninvolved editors', and win with a 'final blow', and then 'rub it in his face' on every discussion page possible. See her "final blow" here

The 'recommended' advice is intended to show a serious opinion about editorial concepts — by means of a style that may or may not be described as humorous'

My two critics acted as if that advice was their instruction sheet but they were not trying to be humorous. They were deliberately gaming the system in a hostile and vindictive manner.
That page can be seen by scrolling up and down here

The editors who contributed to it can be see here

The term 'The Last Word', and the abbreviation TLW appears to include a trade mark symbol that was added by my critic, so I have acknowledged that fact and the source.

My main critic uses psychiatric jargon as a weapon in arguments

The study of psychology aims at helping people with troubled minds but it can also be used by unscrupulous individuals to control peoples minds or opinions, and to do harm.

In that respect my main critic boasts about having an "annoyingly high IQ" (here), and university qualifications, and uses psychiatric jargon as weapons in her arguments against anyone who she perceives as opponents.

For example, instead of describing them as young and inexperienced she will refer to their "immature behaviour", and instead of talking about the breaking of a rule she will refer to their "disruptive behaviour", and she expresses the fact that she doesn't give a dam about how much harm she does to her opponents emotionally by arguing that "Wikipedia is not therapy". She makes it clear and obvious that, in her opinion, she doesn't have to treat people politely, diplomatically, or carefully, because if she destroys them emotionally they will just have to go and see a psychiatrist after - outside of Wikipedia.

I am sure that she has caused a lot of harm to her opponents, and she boasts about it, but fortunately I have studied psychology myself, and am thick skinned, and have seen all of her grubby tricks before, and she has admitted, that despite her best efforts . . . "her attitude readjustment tools" failed to " scathe me". See some of her insults and her admission of failure here.

See also my report on how she shoved her bias into the page about Da Costa's Syndrome by saturating it with links to hundreds of psychiatric labels here. You can count the massive flood of other insults against me here.


Psychobabble to insult, discredit, or oppress

In observing normal interactions between people it can often be seen that one will become frustrated in a dispute and call the other an "idiot", or, a "fool", or, in impolite company, an "arsehole" etc..

In the Wikipedia's essay called "The Last Word" opponents are referred to as "newbies", "jerks", "bastards", or "prey".

However there is also a tendency to use, or more often slyly imply that the opponent has some sort of mental disorder.

For example, it may be implied that an older person is 'senile' or 'demented', and a calm and polite person may be insulted with the term "Civil/POVpushing" or "passive-aggressive behaviour", and a person who provides information that another editor doesn't like may be described as exhibiting 'disruptive behaviour', and a person who responds to criticism and harassment may be described as having an 'anti-social personality disorder', and it may be implied that they are displaying the 'Dunning-Kruger" effect etc. The accuser can also be patronising, sarcastic, and play dumb, and deny that such inferences were intended.

Nevertheless the Wikipedia policies are reasonably clear in stating that the only thing that matters is the quality of the content, and not the person.

it is therefore not appropriate for anyone in Wikipedia to be tossing about insults or innuendo's of any sort as if they are as plentiful as grains of wheat being thrown at a barn door.

A person who uses insults of any sort in Wikipedia is a 'policy violator', and is committing a bannable offense.

One of the MAJOR problems in Wikipedia is that it does not enforce it's policy on civility consistently, and that DOES and WILL give other editors the RIGHT to be as insulting and offensive as they wish while they are inside of Wikipedia, or after they have been banned.

It also gives banned editors the ETHICAL and MORAL HiGH GROUND.

As the popular saying goes - if either of the two flea brained nitwits of Wikipedia decide to argue with me now - they will be pushing their own shit up hill.

Wikipedia is not therapy

There is a page in Wikipedia called WP:NOTTHERAPY which WhatamIdoing has contributed to, and refers to when discussing or implying aspects of the supposed intellectual, behavioral, social, or mental disabilities of other contributors, such as at 18:42 on 6 -9-2010 here

There is also a page called "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" that is abbreviated WP:NOT, which the same editor has also contributed to.

I would therefore like to make some suggestions . . . Wikipedia is not a nineteenth century lunatic asylum where unqualified individuals who have not given their real names can anonymously PLAY the role of amateur psychiatrist, and dish out offensive and insulting opinions as if they have some value.

It is also not a psychiatric clinic where the person in charge is required by law to keep every conversation, and every diagnostic opinion private. It is a public forum that five billion people can see, and such discussions are unethical, immoral, irresponsible, 'grubby', and uncivilised. Such conversations are, or should be violations of the Wikipedia policies that relate to civility WP:Civil, etiquette WP:ETIQ, assuming good faith in others WP:AGF, and not making personal attacks WP:NPA.

Those discussions are also violations of the principle of commenting on CONTENT, and NOT the PERSON

In general arguments they would be referred to as gutter tactics, or a cheats strategy called 'ad hominem'. See here

In normal social situations those conversations would be frowned upon as being unnecessary, extremely ill-mannered, and very offensive.

If my two critics do not have sufficient social skills to discuss content only, then they haven't earned the right, and do not deserve the right to pass judgment about the social competence of other individuals. They should also learn the importance of having good manners.



There is a topic page in Wikipedia called Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. In order to lighten the gravity of the serious subject there is a comment at the top which I quote "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous".

The first sentence states this "A Wikipediholic, wikiholic, Wikipediaholic, or wikiaddict suffers from Wikipediholism, or obsession (addiction in some cases) with Wikipedia other wikis. It is often considered an obscure form of OCD. One of the most common characteristics of the condition is the victim having a web browser window constantly open to the Recent Changes section of Wikipedia and/or other wikis (or in the condition's slightly milder form, one's Whatchlist)" (end of quotes) See here

Note that the abbreviation OCD refers to a mental illness called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

At one stage I read that my main critic had made 18,000 edits in only four years, and the other one made 4,000 in that time, making the total of 22,000. While I was in Wikipedia contributing to the Da Costa's page for 12 months they tag-teamed against me. I saw one occasion when my main critic made more than 300 edits in one day over a period of 16 hours, and many occasions where the sum exceeded 100 per day.

Within five weeks of me starting on the Da Costa page my main critic wrote these words "I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect that it's on several other editors' lists."WhatamIdoing 01:49, 14 January 2008

See here

That editor then went to every page where I added a sentence or paragraph and invented policy reasons as an excuse for deleting every word I wrote that hadn't been deleted by someone else. See my description of that here'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#DeletionOfEverythingIWrote

To view some statistics on how they dominated every argument with massive and numerically greater arguments see here

To view where Gordonofcartoon added fourteen edits in six hours to set up an RFC page against me you can scroll to the end of the list here

To read other evidence of my main critics obsession for criticisng me see here

To view that editors obsessively hostile attituded to my article with more than 80 items of criticism see here


Unfortunately that editor has a way of twisting everything around and making it look as if I am at fault, so you will need to use your own judgement about what actually happened in the twelve months of evidence when it was me dealing with those two and their massive combined edits several days every week against my contributions which were generally only on Sunday, and occasionally on Wednesday.

The way to cure Wikipedia addiction, or whatever you want to call it seriously or humorously, is to limit all editors to 1000 contributions per year.

Anyone who voluntarily exceeds that limit should be compulsorily restricted to 500 edits the following year.

However, bear in mind that the existing editors who make the largest number of contributions are, in effect, in control of policy and content, and are unlikely to introduce that practical and sensible method of preventing Wikipedia addiction.

A sensible person would ask 'why would anyone need to do more than 1000 edits per year. Haven't they got anything better to do?'

And of course that suggestion might make me very unpopular, but it is just a perfectly reasonable solution, and it is not for me to decide - it is entirely up to the majority consensus.

I suspect my main critic will see this and rush of and try to get all of the experienced editors against me by telling them about it, especially those who do thousands of edits per year.

Here is some forewarning of the type of spin to expect . . . I would say politely . . . 'Will somebody please give me a timeframe for preparing a reply to the question. Do you mind if I give my reply at the end of the week on Sunday, or can I have two weeks?'

My two critics would reply like this 'See - we told you that Posturewriter was ignorant - he doesn't even know our discussion conventions of having normal internet conversations by making comments every fifteen minutes - he is an ill-mannered manipulator who is being deliberately disruptive by using delaying tactics - we are fed up with this and want him banned for his constantly griping arguments about every single point, and for edit warring.' e.g. See here

and here

Here are some examples of my main critic doing large numbers of edits per day as 'an anonymous volunteer'?

Several hundred edits in a few days starting at 18:18 on 2 April 2010 here

Starting at 00:05 on 28 September 2010 here

Starting at 18:09 on 7 October 2010 here

Starting at 17:37 on 10 Novermber 2010 here

Starting at 29 November 2010 here

Starting at 18:09 on 7 October 2010 here


Question - How do you argue with someone who can do hundreds of edits per day in Wikipedia.

Answer - By using the same methods that you would use against any other person who has a lot of shallow knowledge - you focus on something where you have the advantage of depth and watch them make fools of themelves.


This is what those two nitwits expected me to do - They wanted me to go to a link called 'random articles', which I did, and found a topic which, from what I can remember, was about an extremely rare Asian moth, with an invitation to help improve it. Their real objective was to dupe me into wasting my time, or to argue on topics where other editors had the advantage of experience. In the meantime my two critics could control the Da Costa's page because all of the other editors who had enough knowledge to challenge them, were either banned or gone.

They may have enough brains to fool some people, but to me they are, and always will be ridiculous.


Wikipedia is not an internet gossip rag

Here is another suggestion: Wikipedia is not an internet gossip rag. If the editors want to create the impression of being a welcoming collegial environment it should not be a place where one group of individuals can request or demand that a person discloses their real identity, and then proceed to have a grubby free-for-all gossip session where they discuss that individuals personal or private lives or motives. While it may be necessary to gain copyright verification etc. it should not be used as an excuse for juvenile guttersniping or puerile invasions of privacy.

Cheap and silly gossip merchants should be banned, and their petty nittering and nattering should be deleted from an encyclopedia where the only thing that matters is that all information is accurate, and verifiable from "independent, published sources".

If they have an uncontrollable urge to gossip they should join a petty society of pompous nitwits.


Wikipedia should not be a vigilante gang of privacy invaders

Wikipedia should not suck people into their encyclopedia with a welcome template, and then demand that they reveal their real life identities by blackmailing them with a threat that if they don't their contributions will be deleted. It is not a place where you can put a persons real name, or links to their real name, or their Wikipedia ID's at the top of ten or more discussion pages, and then insult and ridicule them in front of other editors, and talk about their ideas as if the are pets, favorite's, quaint, fringy, nonsense or crap. It is not a place where you can put people on watchlists and follow them around like crazed and vengeful bloodhounds, and it should not be a place where you can use geolocator tools to hunt people down to the state and city and suburb or their computers IP address or invade and read their personal computers. It should not be a place where individuals can take on the amateur role of page patroller to identify who is editing what. If the existing Wikipedia editors want to welcome people they should stop prying into other peoples real life and mind their own business. It definitely should not be a place where anonymous editors can demand that other people reveal their real ID's.


Other things that Wikipedia is not

Ii is not a reality TV show, or a children's video game, or a prison where attitude readjustment tools and other forms of punishment can be administered by editors or administrators.

It is not a mushroom farm where editors can feed their readers on bullshit and keep them in the dark.


The ill-mannered Two-faced editor who banned me

(Moreschi was the administrator who interrupted the discussion between 15 other editors on the arbitration page and banned me. He appears to have known absolutely nothing about medicine, and should not have been deciding the case, because he wouldn't have known if my two critics were telling the truth or not)


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 endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect".


Here is a comment which Moreschi made when criticising another editor on an arbitration page . . . "Professionalism . . . Wikipedia editors participate in the project expecting to be treated with courtesy. High standards of decorum appropriate to an intellectual project must be maintained. Attacks, smears, and threats directed against Wikipedian not tolerated."


Moreschi's attitude toward the arbitration editors

However, at 12:28 on 6-11-09 Moreschi wrote these words on another editors talk page about the Arbitration Committee. . . "this does not mean that the arbcom corps is not the right body to deal with the problem. It means a arbcom-directed boot up the arse, with the comment that 'come on, guys, it's your problem. Deal with it." here


At 20:41 on 22 May 2009 Moreschi made this response to a discussion with another editor . . . "Right. So admins who have spent the last half-decade dealing with this shite are now judged by the same standards as the trolls they fought, even though they received practically no help for those 5 long years. Come on." :Moreschi (20:41, 22 May 2009  here

Note that it is a violation of civility policy to refer to other editors as trolls. In fact, in Wikipedia, it is the most insulting thing you can say about someone. Also, all editors are supposed to be judged by the same rules and standards. There aren't any rules which say person A can use foul language but person B can't. Also editors are required to discuss things, and resolve their differences. Anyone who 'fights' is edit warring, which is a violation of policy.

t 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 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).

Moreschi's ill-mannered comments about the Civility policy written by other editors

This is one of the three sentences that Moreschi wrote on his User page to introduce himself to Wikipedia, and it was still there on 30-11-09 . . . "I also have an alternative civility policy - I hope this will become the real one some day, as the current one is sheer junk." (end of quote). Needless to say that Moreschi is being arrogant and disrespectful to hundreds of other editors, and needs to develop a more appropriate way of expressing himself before he goes around telling other people how to behave.

I recently checked to find a link to that information but it appears to have been deleted by a "page protection" system that removes slabs of links to the history of edits . . . See here

See my other report on his "junk" comment here.

(New contributors, such as myself were told to be careful about what they wrote because it was on the permanent record and may be used against you in the future. However, I have seen several examples where my two critics and others involved can delete, or hide the evidence against them).


Other editors criticisms of Moreschi's ill-mannered behaviour

This is what another editor named WVBluefield wrote at 20:48 on 22-10-09, about Moreschi on another topic . . . "I am sick and tired of dealing with an editor who insults and demeans with nearly every edit he makes, all while refusing to address legitimate content issues . . . If you want to contribute to a discussion make sure you are up to date on the facts." here

This is part of Moreschi's reply at 20:55 on 27-10-09 . . . "Now please shoo and please post on some noticeboard somewhere to garner some other views" here


This is Moreschi's response to another editor at 23:09 on 27-11-09 . . . "Poisonous bullshit" here


Moreschi was involved in a dispute related to another editor or who was eventually banned for a year, and, at 2:35 on 20-12-09 the closing administrator named Seddon included this advice in his conclusion . . . "User Moreschi is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors." (end of quote).


About sixteen hours later, at 18:15 on 20-12-09, Moreschi archived the related discussions and left the following words in the edit notes, and at the top of his Archive number 13 . . . "thank god that crap's all over" (end of quote)

Gordonofcartoon and Moreschi

After my two critics lost several arguments against me, including one about naming Guidelines, Gordonofcartoon made a major change to his Userpage to indicate that, in future, his main focus in Wikipedia would be dealing with 'single purpose accounts' or SPA's. That is obviously what a person with shallow knowledge would do as a devious way of trying to eliminate people with thorough knowledge of topics. He also set up an Administrators Noticeboard discussion, but only managed to get one admin, named Moreschi, to agree with him, and when I added my response Moreschi didn't reply so I assumed that he agreed with me or didn't have enough confidence to argue the case. However some months later he barged in on the arbitration page and banned me, and was later rewarded with an outlaw halo award for breaking the rules to do so.

About a year later, at 1:16 on 18tth December 2009, Gordonofcartoon created an essay called "Only Martians should edit' here

It had the theme that a person should only be able to edit Wikipedia if they were as uninvolved as Martians. He then made an additional ten edits up to 14:09 on 31th December 2009, and obviously intended to use it as a guideline in future, as if it was written dispassionately by an unnamed group of editors from the distant past. However, nobody else contributed to his essay, and nobody discussed it on it's talk page.

In the following two months, on my website, I made some occasional comments that were critical of Moreschi for breaking the rules to ban me, and added some more statements about his frequent use of foul language which is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy.

Shortly after that, at 10:15 on 5-2-10 Moreschi blocked several editors on the grounds that they were SPA's

About four hours later, at 14:10 on 5th February 2010, Gordonofcartoon added a link to a section of his essay (to the words that I have highlighted in red) . . . "Examples . . . include both existing adherents and highly hostile ex-members/ non members:country/city naming disputes obviously polarised on nationalist lines, and deletion discussions similarly polarised by affiliation and often overt nepotism". The link leads to a page with the title "User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots", and it contains a long list of countries where there are political disputes. Here is one example . . . "Eastern Europe, period: Russian-Polish (not aided by the fact that even the best editors in this area on each side of the disputes simply cannot seem to get along with each other". (end of quote). Such disputes are as obvious as any political debate just before an election when one party will argue that they are right and their opponents are wrong, and vice versa.

The trouble with Gordonofcartoon and Moreschi is that they are both intolerant to other peoples point of view, and emotionally unstable, and lose their temper easily, and then make the excuse that it is because other people are annoying them. However, in fact, they should be mature enough to comment without using profanities. They also both seem to be completely oblivious to their own bias, and the reason they can't get along with people is because they don't care about NPOV. All they think about is their own point of view, and they think that they are right, and people who disagree with them are wrong, and they try to win arguments by banning their opposition and removing the side of the story that they disapprove of. Their idea of neutrality is 'we think it is neutral therefore it's neutral, and everyone else is biased".

Moreschi told another editor to "play by the rules or get banned", but he doesn't obey the rules himself, so he should ban himself - permanently


This was Moreschi's advice to another editor . . . "You don't actually have much of a choice. You can either play by the rules or get banned. And yes, I will be the one doing the banning. It's as simple as that." signed Moreschi 12:50, 29-12-09. See here


This was Moreschi's comment 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. Moreschi 15:36, 28 January 2009 here

Note that he didn't know anything about the topic, and ran away from a very brief discussion earlier without making any response to my comments, but he gave the arbitrators the ridiculous impression that he had studied the matter thoroughly and knew what he was talking about.


This was a comment left by my "frustrated" critic to Moreschi, thanking him for ignoring all the rules, and just for banning me.

"A long overdue thanks I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over Posturewriter a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert in January." (end of quote) signed WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009. She included an illustration of the "Outlaw Halo Award" which is given to editors as a reward for Ignoring all the rules (WP:IAR).

See the edit text here, and the actual text with the barnstar illustration here, and my full report about all of the lies and cheating involved in their behaviour here

Evidence that my two critics were acting as a tag-team against me

I was contributing to Wikipedia for about twelve months during which time I had two main critics who did 95% of the criticising and worked against me like two runners changing batons in a relay race. They have tried to give the false impression that they were not acting together, so I have presented the evidence below.


Today's joke. One editor said "I'll accuse Posturewriter of breaking a rule, and you can delete his edit". The other one said "No, I'll accuse him of breaking a rule, and you delete his edit". After several weeks of hostile arguments they finally gave up their silly nittering and nattering and decided to take turns on a first come first serve basis.


After the Da Costa's syndrome talk page was set up to discuss issues relating to the content my main critic, named WhatamIdoing, posted my personal Sir name "Banfield" in BOLD PRINT as the first heading at the top of the page at 1:08 ib 21-12-07 here

About an hour later, at 2:16, Gordonofcartoon made the second comment here

One of those two editors set up virtually all of the discussion pages that followed, including the two "conflict of interest" pages.

At 12:09 on 27-3-08 Gordonofcartoon set up Conflict of Interest number one page here

I gave my response to that criticism and the page was closed by another editor after my last comment at 09:06, 14 April 2008. No reason was given for the closure.

At 21:13 on 13-5-08 Gordonofcartoon set up Conflict of Interest number two page here

At 19:20, 15 May 2008 WhatamIdoing joined the discussion with these remarks " I've been off Wiki for a few days, and didn't realize that this discussion had started" ??? (WhatamIdoing followed every discussion like a bloodhound,

At 19:06 on 17-5-08 an editor named Edjonston left a heading of "Break" supposedly because the volume of discussion was getting so large, or to take some time off to consider things, and left the following comments . . . "User: WhatamIdoing if you think admin action is needed, it is good to provide diffs showing that the COI-affected editor is actively obstructing progress toward a better article. In fact, User:Posturewriter has only edited the article twice during the month of May, and he does participate on Talk at least occasionally. There are several editors active in this COI report who should be able to review any changes. If you have ideas for improvement of the article, just start making them and see what happens. EdJohnston".

However, less than six hours later at 01:39, 18 May 2008, WhatamIdoing continued with a relentless flood of criticism here that prompted me to sit back and wait until it all finished before I wrote anything and then at 02:26, 19 May 2008 EdJohnson left these remarks . . . "Based on the diffs given by WhatamIdoing, I left an admin warning for User:Posturewriter. If he persists in COI editing, he risks being blocked for disruptive editing. Others are welcome to give their advice on how to handle this case. EdJohnston"

At 04:26 on 24 May 2008 I presented a response but obviously the decision had been made on the basis of the criticism without me having time to defend myself and EdJonston was not going to change his mind.

During that time, at 2:25 on 18-5-08, WhatamIdoing also set up a discussion on the POV/CivilPushing page here

Seven months later at 16:57, 3 February 2009 (a few days after I was banned), Gordonofcartoon left another large paragraph of criticism here (You can see that the first paragraphs were signed by WhatamIdoing, and that despite there being many other comments placed on that page in the following seven months, Gordonofcartoon posted his in position number 2 to support WhatamIdoing's remarks)

At 00:52 on 30-5-08 WhatamIdoing took a discussion about the topic of Da Costa's syndrome to my Usertalk page, and then continued to discuss it there instead on the Da Costa talk page where it belonged, and it soon became obvious that it was done so that my two critics could start criticising me personally on my own talk page. At the same time WhatamIdoing advised me that an editor who had been writing agreeably about my contributions had been blocked, and it was an obvious hint that they could arrange for me to be blocked just as easily.

On 6-7-08 I started to write an essay on the tactics used by my critics and place it at the top of my UserTalk page so that readers would be able to see it first and then judge their comments about me in that 20-7-08. That essay can be seen here

In the meantime, on 13-7-08 Gordonofcartoon started the Wikiquette Alerts page to have that essay removed, and then lost the debate here

On 24-7-08 another editor named Jaysweet set up the Miscellany for Deletion page to discuss keeping or deleting that essay. and WhatamIdoing was the main critic followed by Gordonofcartoon and on 29-7-09 Jaysweet withdrew the nomination and conceded that several other editors were arguing that it was the wrong forum. An independent editor named Peter Symonds closed the MFD discussion on 6-8-09 with these words "The result of the debate was keep" here

At 18:16 on 20-7-08, while the MFD discussion was still going, Gordonofcartoon set up the 'Request for comments' page and added 15 edits in 24 hours and compiled a list of more than a dozen policies that I was supposed to have violated here

At 20:27 two days later, on 22-7-08, WhatamIdoing joined the criticism here

Four days after the 'Requests for comments' page was established by Gordonofcartoon, his tag-team mate WhatamIdoing established the RFC talk page to discuss the issue 24-7-08 here

The two of them continued to make most of the critical comments, and to disrupt the process of finding sensible solutions to the issues of bias and NPOV that were suggested by two other neutral and uninvolved editors named SmokeyJoe and Avnjay

They both continued to be the main critics until WhatamIdoing suggested a topic ban and Gordonofcartoon agreed on 20-8-08 here

The discussion continued until 05:58 on 8-9-08 until WhatamIdoing made a final gratuitous criticism that was intended to be pretentiously patronising here

There were no further comments on that page until an editor named Wizardman closed it at 20:15 on 18-9-08 with a suggestion that I should stop adding information here

Less than 24 hours later, at 18:16 on 19-9-08 WhatamIdoing awarded Wizardman with a barnstar for his help closing RFC's (in the last few months), but from my check of here

At 11:29 on 25-8-08, while the two RFC discussions were still going, Gordonofcartoon set up another one on the Administrator's Noticeboard where an editor named Moreschi agreed with the criticism until I joined the conversation to add some comments, and then it ended except for a response from Gordonofcartoon, and then, at 22:47 on 25-8-08, an anonymous editor left these remarks . . . "Your idea is to keep the world the same even if it is wrong, which is contrary to Wikipedia's invitation to help change the world for the better - classic. I also enjoyed the early example of new essay WP:GANG being cited"" here

Note that the anonymous editor added a link to the word "WP:GANG" which led to the Wikipedia page about Tag-teams here


The definition of Tag-teams in Wikipedia at 25-8-08. . . Tag team is a term used to describe editors who work together as a group in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of consensus by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as 3rr and civility) that editors are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially, in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions. Tag teaming is considered a pernicious form of meatpuppetry.

Only a fraction of the cooperative behavior seen on Wikipedia can be considered tag-teaming. Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, so not all editors who share the same point of view are working as a team: Remember to assume good faith" See here

At 2:42 on 11-1-2009 WhatamIdoing misrepresented my list of 60 top quality references by describing Harvard professor Paul Dudley White's book as a "1951 book" and by misrepresenting a medical consumer's webpage about chronic fatigue syndrome, as a website address "", in item 52 here

You can gain a more intelligent understanding of the quality of the references that I used by inspecting them yourself. The full list can be seen where I posted them to the Da Costa's syndrome page at 7:46 25-1-09 here

At 02:17 on 26-1-09 WhatamIdoing set up a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and tried to convince the editors there that all of my 60 references were unreliable, based on the criticism that one of them was from here

At 12:56 on 26-1-09 I decided to leave some comments on the Disruptive Editing page about the way they had been working as a tag-team to disrupt here

Within less than two hours at 17:48 on 26-1-09 Gordonofcartoonset up the Requests for Arbitration page followed soon after (on27-1-09 by lengthy comments from WhatamIdoing here

I was banned by one of their friends named Moreschi the following day, on 28-1-09.

It was obvious to me that they both wanted to get me banned as quickly as possible, before I found out about all of the policies and got them banned for violating them, because they both knew that they couldn't win an argument against me.


A week later, on 4-2-09,Gordonofcartoon added a note to the Wikipedia page about tag-teaming to change it, which I have highlighted in red print 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

Two weeks after I was banned, on 10-2-09, WhatamIdoing left this message on Gordonofcartoon's talk page with the heading "Our friend", and these were the words that followed . . .


"Your turn. Thanks for your help"

signed WhatamIdoing 21:17, 10 February 2008 here


The words "Your turn" were linked to the Da Costa page but nothing was changed there in the relevant text.


Two weeks after that, on 23-2-09, I noticed that I was still able to edit the Disruptive "edit" link, so I discussed the disruptive nature of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon's editing and referred to their tag-treaming behaviour again, and it was deleted within three hours by WhatamIdoing with these comments used as the excuse . . . "User:Posturewriter evading his block" here

At 23:41 on 8-5-09, which was three months after I was banned, WhatamIdoing gave an Oulaw Halo Award to Moreschi for being the only administrator in Wikipedia who was prepared to break All the rules to ban me here and here


The following quote comes from a Wikipedia page where proposed guidelines and policies were discussed as of 15:51, 4 February 2009, and will give some indication of how experienced editors can change the content, guidlelines, or policies to favor or suit their own purposes, by comparing it with the quote above from 25-8-09.

"Tag teaming (sometimes also called "Travelling Circus" is a controversial[1] form of meathpuppetry in which editors are accused of coordinating their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. Like with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). Unlike with meatpuppetry, the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from professional wrestling where teams of two wrestlers take turns in the ring, and the one brings in his teammate by tagging him.

Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning

Accusations of tag teaming are likely to be viewed as uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, and to cite the evidence". (end of quote)here

Evidence to prove that WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon Tag-teamed to change the definition of a tag team to give themselves an excuse to tag-team

At 8:29 on 19-8-2008 I started a new section on the RFC talk page called "More Evidence of Disruptive Dual Editing - Wikipedia:Tag teaming Used by my critics", and then wrote the following words . . . "WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon have been disrupting the consensus process with their typical dual editing practices which are described as Wikipedia:Tag teaming tactics (and then I gave some examples) etc.

At 01:52 on 26-8-08 WhatamIdoing added the following words to the WP:Miscellany for deletion:Tage team page where other editors were discussing whether to keep it or delete the whole page. These were WhatamIdoings words . . . "Delete (or move to userspace) I don't think it adds anything that isn't already present in better documents. Additionally, it seems to be open to abuse, with people on the losing end of any consensus ".

(that was followed by three examples including my comment of 19-8-08)

At 15:44 on 4-2-09 Gordonofcartoon added a note to the Wikipedia policy page about tag teaming to change it, which I have highlighted in red print 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

Seven months later

At 5:54 on 11-9-09 WhatamIdoing made the following amendment to the same paragraph of the 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 "tag team". here

The tag-teaming by my two critics was blatant and shameless.


Tag-teaming to make tag teaming easier for themselves to get away with

Not only did one of them try to get the tag team essay deleted, but the two of them had the cheek to tag-team to change the tag team essay to make excuses for tag teaming, and one of them also canvassed other editors to get support for making changes to the canvassing guidelines so that it would be easier to block anyone else from canvassing for support inside or outside of Wikipedia. That editor also recommends using the WP:ignore all rules policy as the major way to ban other editors who "compied with all the rules"??? I suppose you can say that my two critics are dumb and dumber, and both of them are sillier than silly.

The way to deal with those two nitwits is to make the rules enforceable to everyone, and then they would end up banning themselves so that other editors could write some sensible policies.


More Tag-teaming and POV pushing by my two critics

While I was contributing to the Da Costa's page in Wikipedia my two critics were OBVIOUSLY deleting information that they didn't personally like, and scouted around deliberately looking for policy reasons as their EXCUSE for deleting it. Their biased choice of words, and their misrepresentation of their real reasons was OBVIOUS to me because I was familiar with the topic, but their words were chosen to sound reasonable and believable, and polite to anyone who couldn't see what they were doing, so I will give one of many examples.

They were telling all of the other editors that all of my references were unreliable, so the easy way of dealing with their nonsense and lies was to use one of the references

It was a research paper by Oglesby Paul who wrote a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in 1987 in the British Heart Journal. It discussed about a dozen different ideas about cause from the time of Da Costa until then, and concluded that all of them had evidence for and against, so the origin of the disorder was still unknown. I therefore abbreviated it

My two critics put a cruft template on the page, which had the symbol of a broom, which they would have chosen to make a snide remark about it being, in their opinion, rubbish that needed to be swept away. Soon after that one of them deleted 99% of it, and the description of a dozen different possible causes disappeared, because they reduced it to one sentence about anxiety. However, they made their opinion and their bias

Many months later they started the same tactics again, about two days before I was banned, and once again, they were offensive, and told lies, and misrepresented the facts about the same article, and were trying their hardest to annoy me by making an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, as if I would take them seriously, while at the same time they chose their

I have cut and pasted part of their discussion below

On 1-8-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "OK, here it is: 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 ". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And the next day WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Yes, that's how I read it: Etiology unknown, Medical classification psychiatric/anxiety. WhatamIdoing" here

I did not answer their question because it had already been discussed before, and they already knew that I would not agree to representing an article about 12 different theories by commenting on only their chosen ONE. They were just being deliberately stupid to annoy me. I also got the impression that if I did answer their question, they would just invent another

I will now give some exact quotes from Oglesby Paul's research paper from his introduction and his third paragraph which provide the of his paper

In 1987 Oglesby Paul actually wrote . . . "Although the symptoms may seem to appear after infections and various physical and psychological stresses, neurocirculatory asthenia is most often encountered as a familial disorder that is unrelated to these factors, although they may aggravate an existing tendency . . . (and) . . . For the purpose of this discussion, a broad definition of Da Costa's syndrome that is applicable to military and civilian patients is : a disorder of unknown origin" etc.

Note that when Gordonofcartoon asked "Do we all have access?" he sounded like a courteous editor asking a sincere and helpful question, but he already knew that all three of us had access to it, and he knew that I had read every word of it, and he knew that I knew more about it than he did, and he knew that I had previously added an account of a the full history of a dozen theories before. He was just asking a deliberately stupid question for the purpose of annoying me

Note that there have been more than 100 different theories on cause, and Oglesby Paul chose to include about a dozen of them in his history report, which is perfectly reasonable, but my two critics reduced it to their one favorite choice, which is a ridiculous and biased way of discussing the

Note also that it was a reference that they supplied, so if it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for any other editor to use, or they should NOT have used it themselves. In that regard, if they criticised all of my references, and I have used one of theirs, then they are definitely

Note also that Oglesby Paul's article directly addressed the history, and so did many of my other references such as those by Sir James Mackenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Dudley White, and Charles Wooley, and a dozen others, and that I did not just cite them in passing but put them in context and in chronological order, whereas my two critics deleted everything

Note also that Oglesby Paul's article was not just a good source of information, but an excellent one, and that it is a secondary source, and that it did directly address the relevant history and so did a dozen other references that I supplied for verification. Note also that I was not giving my interpretation of his account of the history, but was reporting on his interpretation, whereas my two critics were deliberately

I would spend months carefully looking for the best references that complied with Wikipedia policies, and my two critics would spend about ten minutes reading the title of childrens fiction books, and the first paragraphs of research papers, and losing arguments with me, and then selecting policy reasons as their excuse to reduce my contributions down

This is an example of the many lies that

On 26-1-09 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "And above all, why doesn't the history section rely on the history papers? They do exist, and a couple are even cited in passing. But Posturewriter has instead relied on his own interpretation of primary sources instead of basing the history section around good secondary sources that directly address the relevant history. WhatamIdoing 19:14, 26 January 2009

Verification Details

At 21:59 on 18-12-07 WhatamIdoing edited the Da Costa's page and added the following words . . . "It has been called effort syndrome and neurocirculatory asthenia. (PMID 3314950)" here

About 6 hours later, at 5:43 on 19-12-07 another editor named Arcadian added the full details of the reference code to automatically include it into the reference list at the bottom of the page, and PMID3314950 referred to an article here

Oglesby Paul described about a dozen theories of DCS in a ten page essay about the history of the topic in that journal in 1987 so I reviewed it and wrote brief accounts of each idea and then reduced it to about one page of information and added it to Wikipedia at 8:20 on 10-2-08 here. I gave this explanation for adding the information . . . "(added 1987 history re; Oglesby of Harvard; controversies past and contemporary~~~~posturewriter)

>Almost immediately (in less than five hours) Gordonofcartoon deleted it at 13:10 on 10-2-08 and replaced it with one sentence about anxiety in the overview section. These were his words "A 1987 historical overview by Oglesby [1] described it as having "a long and honourable history in the medical literature", considering it to still exist - labeled as "anxiety state" or "anxiety neurosis" - and affecting 2-4% of the population". here He gave this excuse. . . "(This is an encyclopedia, not a treatise! - condense extensive Oglesby recap to overview)"

>What he actually did was delete every idea about cause except his own single choice - and as you can see - it was blatantly obvious, and note that If he had made a genuine and intelligent attempt at reducing it to one or two pargraphs that covered the controversy of ideas on the topic, in order to co-opertivelty comply with neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV) I would not have objected.

Six months later, on 1-8-08 Gordonofcartoon asked the following question about Oglesby Paul's paper as if to give the ridiculous impression that we had never discussed it before, and as if he was asking a sincere and helpful question for the first time . . . "OK, here it is: Do we all have access? - Note that the only editors involved in the See here

The Tag teaming was everywhere here an example related to their Double standards

At 8:29 on 19-8-08 I wrote . . . "Gordonofcartoon; Please stop referring to "everyone suggesting something" , when you are quoting the ideas which you have sewn into the heads of other editors while Wikipedia forum shopping [65]. Your biased editing is the problem, and I am confident that I would be able to collaborate with editors who interpreted policy properly and consistently, and accepted information from the FULL RANGE of RELIABLE SOURCES that represent NPOV" Posturewriter08:29, 19 August

At 19:37 on 15-8-08 WhatamIdoing posted these words addressed to me . . . "Furthermore, if you want to know how I work in articles, you can just look through my contributions. You'll find, to name just one example, that both of the references cited at the T-cell lymphoma stub were added by me, and that both of them are secondary sources that meet our normal reliable source guidelines. WhatamIdoing

At 8:29 on 19-8-08 I wrote . . . "WhatamIdoing; I have given evidence that you use DOUBLE STANDARDS and EVASIVE TACTICS to disrupt my contributions, so it is not a good idea for you to confirm that BY EVADING THE SUBJECT AGAIN. The cherrypicked aspects of your editing on a new, very small, non-typical medical page are irrelevant here [66]. You need to demonstrate the use of the same sourcing policy by editing the Varicose veins page which is more typical of medical pages e.g. [67] and here [68] where there are multiple PRIMARY SOURCES which you would not accept on the Da Costa's syndrome page e.g. here [69]. Posturewriter

At 12:48 on 19-8-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I am confident that I would be able to collaborate with editors who interpreted policy properly and consistently'
So go and do it. Here's the link -> Special:Random. Gordonofcartoon

At 1:43 on 23-8-08 I wrote . . . "Gordonofcartoon; Please don't twist my words to divert attention away from your responsibility to prove that you edit consistently. In that regard I have asked you to apply your interpretation of sourcing policy for the Da Costa's syndrome page, equally to the Varicose veins pagePosturewriter (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2008 here

At 7:37 on 25-8-08 I wrote . . ."WhatamIdoing; Since I offered you the opportunity to prove the consistency of your editing by applying your no-primary source policy to the Varicose veins page eight days ago here [70] you have added several hundred edits to other pages here [71], but none to the Varicose veins page here [72], because you know that you would be confronted by multiple editors telling you that you were being disruptive to their contributions. You also know that most, if not all of them, would refuse to co-operate with you and you would find it impossible to get consensus. Please don't argue about this, or bring up any more policies, or set up any more forums. I would like you and Gordonofcatoon to simply refrain from editing the Da Costa pages, and any of my other contributions in future." Posturewriter 07:37, 25 August

The conversation continued but regardless of what they said they were never going to apply the same standards of sourcing on the Da Costa's page to other pages.

One of my two critics tried to get the page on Tag-teaming deleted???
At 1:52 on 26-8-08 WhatamIdoing saw a discussion about a page on Tag Teaming and (of course) went there to have all evidence and discussion, and definition of that type of editing behaviour deleted. The following words were written by WhatamIoing . . . "Delete (or move to userspace) I don't think it adds anything that isn't already present in better documents. Additionally, it seems to be open to abuse, with people on the losing end of any consensus claiming that it's not a real consensus, it's just a tag team. See here, here, here -- and the page has only existed for how many days?" WhatamIdoing 01:52, 26 August 2008 here

At 5:54 on 11-9-09 WhatamIdoing rewrote the following section so the new words were as follows . . . 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 ". here

It is one of many examples where WhatamIdoing tries to change policies and guidelines and perceptions to justify or make them ambigous to allow for the distortion and rigging of outcomes. Note that when WhatamIdoing used the words "every editor" it was a ridiculous and deliberately inflated way of interpreting the tagteaming behaviour with Gordonofcartoon where they worked together as the only two editors 90% of the time.

Wikipedia policy of article Ownership issues

The following words are extracts from the policy page about how to identify inappropriate article ownership practices in Wikipedia which can be a 'riddle' to anyone observing it.

"Overview . . . Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend it against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia . . .

Multiple editors . . . 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, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process . . . Like the Sphinx guardians of Greek mythology, Wikipedia "owners" pose a riddle to all who dare to edit their articles." here

Evidence of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon Tag-teaming in the RFC talk page statistics

35 (34/1) Gordonofcartoon 2008-07-24 10:03 2008-08-25 08:34
20 (20/0) Posturewriter 2008-07-26 02:25 2008-09-07 03:52
14 (14/0) WhatamIdoing 2008-07-24 06:40 2008-09-08 05:58
10 (10/0) SmokeyJoe 2008-08-01 10:56 2008-08-30 10:59
4 (2/2) Avnjay 2008-08-03 20:43 2008-08-30 17:34
2 (2/0) Ncmvocalist 2008-08-10 11:07 2008-08-10 11:11
1 (1/0) Jaysweet 2008-07-24 18:05 2008-07-24 18:05
1 (0/1) SineBot (bot) 2008-07-27 11:24 2008-07-27 11:24

The evidence that my two critics were tag-teaming, edit warring, and trolling against me can be seen in the page which Gordonofcartoon started and called Request for comment Posturewriter. With my Wikipedia ID deliberately placed at the top of the page as the title they used it as a means of adhominem or character assassination to relentlessly criticise and insult me and turn any neutral editors against me, or to do as much as possible to interfere with my attempts to co-operate with them.

You can see that Gordonofcartoon made 35 comments, and WhatamIdoing 14, making the tag-team total of 49, and that quite clearly they were the aggressors, and that I made only 20 comments to defend myself. The neutral editors named SmokeyJoe and Avnjay made only 10 and 4 comments respectively.

The same two critics also went to as many other pages as possible to give the false impression that there were hundreds, if not thousands of editors who were arguing against me, by using such words as 'we' the entire Wikipedia 'community' are 'thoroughly disgusted' with 'his' disruptive 'behaviour'. However, as typical, you can see that there were only two other editors - Ncmvocalist and Jaysweet who left a total of three comments between them, plus one by an auto robot.

Before you believe anything that they say about this matter you need to bear in mind that they spent the entire 12 months tag-teaming and trying to turn every other editor against me.

See the statistics here
and more descriptions of their tag-teaming here - you may need to wait 20 seconds for the essay to load fully.


Previous statistics

In a previous discussion Gordonofcartoon failed to get me blocked on the grounds of conflict of interest. He started the topic, a neutral administrator made two comments, and I gave four responses, and the discussion ended with no apparent dispute of my responses.

The same editor then lost some more arguments and then set up a second discussion (COI number 2) which had the following edit statistics
Guido den Broeder 10
Gordonofcartoon 6
EdJonston 4
WhatamIdoing 3
myself (Posturewriter) 2

A closer look at those stats will show that Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing were teaming up with a total of 9 edits, and that WhatamIdoing's three edits included much more than a 1000 words of ranting lies, misrepresentation of facts, and sheer insulting nonsense, and involved completely disregarding a request from the administrator to take a break.
You would also notice that Guido den Broeder, was supporting me, so they arranged for him to be banned, and gloated about it.
They kept ranting until EdJohnston, the administrator, caved in under the massive assault of words and agreed with them.
I was sitting back and watching with sheer astonishment at their massive volume of blustering and offensive tripe, and decided that I would attempt to do something about it, by writing one final 2000 word essay with links as evidence to prove that they were telling lies, and Gordonofcartoon wrote, 'Please cut this readable length', and later described it as a deliberate attempt to confuse other editors. At that stage I stopped taking them seriously.
See here
and here

Statistics on the edit warring which they accused me of?

The top nine of the Da Costa's Syndrome discussions were
69 (67/2) WhatamIdoing 2007-12-18 21:59 2009-01-27 18:27
60 (57/3) Gordonofcartoon 2007-12-21 02:16 2009-01-27 10:25
51 (51/0) Roadcreature 2008-05-13 22:38 2008-06-06 00:08
49 (42/7) Posturewriter 2007-12-22 07:27 2009-01-27 10:08
9 (0/9) SineBot (bot) 2007-12-22 07:29 2008-07-17 07:24
5 (5/0) NapoliRoma 2008-07-15 18:40 2008-07-17 15:38
3 (3/0) L'Aquatique 2008-07-16 02:29 2008-07-18 07:54

As you can see my two critics made a combined total of 129 edits in 12 months, and I made only 49 attempts to defend myself. However, this is some of the lies that they wrote on the arbitration page to give them the false impression that I was doing all of the criticising. . . "Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints. The article's talk page and his own talk page is filled with endless arguments about every single point. The article's history is full of edit wars as he tries to force unreliable and misrepresented sources into it". WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009

Also note that I have never met the editor who made 51 edits in three weeks, but he was generally supporting me and criticising my two critics and was banned.

see here
and here

When they made 129 criticisms, and I made only 49 responses, you can see that they were making the 'endless arguments about every single point,' and the 'hostile litany of complaints, not me. For example, I would add some information by a top quality researcher (such as a Harvard professor, or a researcher who had been knighted from is contributions to medicine), and from a top quality medical journal (such as the journal of the American Medical Association), and they would complain that it was out-of-date, or only and op-ed, or cherry-picked, or only 'some guy', or from an 'ordinary meeting' etc, Their method of twisting that all around to make it look as of I was making the litany of complaints is called 'spin'. Another example of their incessant cititicism of every single sentence that I wrote can be seen here
The reason that they were able to get me banned was because I simply could not be bothered responding to their incessant bickering, as can be seen here

Tag teaming and THE THREE REVERT RULE (WP:3RR)

See also my slab vandalism report here.


During a Wikipedia discussion called RFC two editors suggested that the three individuals involved in the dispute settle it by preparing articles of their own that were then to be combined by independent editors to ensure neutrality,

I was the only one to produce such a page in collaboration with one neutral editor, however during the process he advised me that he would be busy on other

I completed the article and left messages on the pages of the two neutral editors and the Editors Assistance Noticeboard for several weeks, and as none of them agreed or disagreed to transferring the new page

My reasons for doing so were based on other comments left on the page of the neutral editor named SmokeyJoe which were essentially, that if you want to make improvements to Wikipedia you should not wait for others to do it for you but should "BE BOLD" and

The other message was "SILENCE IS CONSENSUS". I had no way of knowing if they were indirect hints to me or not, but they were relevant to my situation, and I considered the possibility that the two neutral editors saw how hostile my two critics were toward me, and didn't want to incur the displeasure of my critics by supporting me, so I eventually decided to transfer the text to the topic page

My Wikipedia ID was Posturewriter, the two neutral editors were Avnjay and SmokeyJoe, and my two critics were WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. My two critics had been dictating which content would or would not be accepted

At 7:46 on 25-1-09 I transferred the information

For the next few minutes an independent editor named Nishkid64 made four edits and comments to the

At 15:39 (about 8 hours later) Gordonofcartoon (deleted) the page and replaced it with the previous version.

At 7:44 on 26-1-09 I replaced the new version.

At 11:45 on 26-1-09 (four hours later) Gordonofcartoon reverted the page again.

At 13:06 on 26-1-09 I replaced the new version.

At 18:57 on 26-1-09 WhatamIdoing reverted the page.

At 8:50 on 27-1-09 I replaced the new version

During the next seven hours John Vandenbergmade three edits to the page.

18:12, 27 January 2009 WhatamIdoing reverted the page to it's previous version again. here

During those two days Gordonofcartoon set up an arbitration page to get me topic banned and I was banned and .

At 20:39 on 29-1-09 an editor name Moreschi banned me. Six months later WhatamIdoing gave him an OUTLAW HALO award for being the only member of Wikipedia who was prepared

Note that two independent editors were trying to improve the text that I provided, namely Nishkid64 and John Vandenburg, and that the only editors who were being disruptive by reverting the page were my two critics. They did not make any attempt at producing a neutral and unbiased article. In other words they were not doing anything useful, and in Wikipedia

There have only been six minor edits to


When I transferred the new text to the Da Costa's page I knew of a "three revert rule" called WP:3RR, which states that a person should not revert another editors improvements three times in a 24 hour period or they risk being automatically blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring by violating WP:3RR. I predicted that my two critics would try to subvert that rule by acting as a tag-team and taking turns to revert me three times, and then later argue that they didn't violate the rule because one of them only reverted once, and the other only reverted twice. I made my third revert of their reversions after 24 hours passed so I didn't violate it as an individual. I also anticipated that they would do their third revert just after 24 hours as an alternative way of avoiding the 3RR policy, and that is exactly what they did. They had been conducting an edit war against me since the POV page in May 2008, which I was not invited to or told about, and their precision based reverts were a small part of it, and was typical of their methods where they were using policies in an attempt to make me violate policies so that they could manufacture and excuse

This is a quote from the 3 revert rule guidelines . . . "Attempts to circumvent the three-revert rule, such as making a fourth revert just after 24 hours, are strongly discouraged and may trigger the need for remedies, such as an editing block on one's account." see here

WhatamIdoing's comment on the three revert rule

This was a comment made by WhatamIdoing at 19:06 on 30-3-10 . . . "3RR is generally considered to be breached on the fourth reversion ('more than three'), but you're right that even three reversions are generally considered a poor standard of behaviour. So is demanding discussion "(end of quote)

My comments

1. When two editors work together, and one reverts twice, and the other once to subvert the three revert rule, it is extremely called tag teaming.

2. When two editors work together to do a total of three reverts in 24 hours plus 6, in order extremely devious behaviour.

3. When the two editors who work together have had a lot of experience in policy and disputes and know exactly what they are doing, and they subvert the 3RR policy by working together to do a total of three reverts in 30 hours it is obviously a premeditated tactic in an edit war, which is the type of behaviour that should get them permanently


At 22:08, 31 July 2009 (8 months after I was banned) a comment was made about the "three revert rule"

Technical violation

"I'm having some qualms about 3RR

1. A makes a bold edit. 2. B reverts. 3. A reverts. 4. B reverts. 5. A reverts. 6. B reverts. 7. A reverts.

Then A reports B for 3RR. Thus far, A has made 3 reverts, while B has made 4. At this point, blocking only B is not the solution. On the other hand, A can't get blocked for 3RR since he has not exceeded the limit. Yes, he can be blocked for edit warring, but that requires a great deal of discretion. An admin who probably knows little about the situation (in fact, is required to be disinterested) would be forced to make a call. Wikipedia:Edit war#Administrator guidance contains a lot of fluff; we should spell out more clearly when to block and when not to block. Recently, I've been dealing with these cases using page protection, but is there a better way?" -- King of © ® ß ™ 22:08, 31 July 2009 here

At 18:22, 31 June 2010(17 months after I deviousexperienced editor to make a mockery of the 3 Revert Rule . . . "I think the policy is amply clear that editors can be blocked for edit-warring behavior even without making 4 reverts in 24:00. It already explicitly states that intentionally "spacing out" your reverts is an ''aggravating'' factor ("calculated or egregious abuse"). If people don't get it from the policy as it stands, then they're probably beyond reach of adding another redundant reminder." MastCell 00:18, 22 June 2010 See here


Summary: There must have been at least 50 editors who were aware of the subpage that I was writing, and only the same two editors were disrupting it from the start. They reverted my final version, and they did it twice each, with a total of four times, as one tag-team, without any help from anyone else. They tried to convince the arbitrators that I was arguing with every editor in Wikipedia, when in fact it was a simple matter of only those two trolls doing everything possible to disrupt and block my contributions by misrepresenting the


About 12 months after I was banned WhatamIdoing gave the following self-righteous advice about consensus to another editor . . . "If you want a practical answer, however: because we draw the line at WP:3RR, you need a four-to-one ratio of editors to enforce any proposed change. Any four editors can, in practice, impose any change they wish if they're willing to keep reverting (once a day) and leaving perfunctory messages about the evils of edit warring against consensus on the talk page. signed WhatamIdoing 3:29 on 14th

Four hours later an editor named Taemyr gave the following reply . . . "That is a very bad application of 3RR. Just because they are not stepping above 3 reverts each day does no mean that they are not edit warring. Tag-teaming is frequently seen as disruptive and may get you blocked" signed Taemyr 7:51, 15 February 2010

A second example of the 3RR policy

WhatamIdoing set up a special section on their own personal talk page with the title "REQUESTS FOR COMMENT/ POSTUREWRITER, and later archived other topics so that it became the most prominent discussion at the TOP OF THEiR PAGE. Obviously it would be the first thing that every one of their friends would see. That editor then criticised me ruthlessly and relentlessly behind my back for several months without informing me, and if I had not found out about it myself a month later I would not have gone there to defend myself. However, soon after that WhatamIdoing placed a snide sub-section title of . . . "fit the second" at the start of my comments. I therefore replaced it with the following SIX WORDS . . . "WhatamIdoing's attempts at undermining NPOV ". WhatamIdoing responded by reverting it to the original title, and I replaced it again, and then that editor accused me of violating the policies relating to 'personal attacks', 'edit warring', and the 'three revert rule'.

I added the following explanation for the change . . . "WhatamIdoing's questionable use of NPOV and sourcing policy".

We each reverted the title of the sub-section three times and then WhatamIdoing told the administrators this about me. . .

>"Note that this involved partial reversions, plus additional comments: the edit war is over his determination to restore a subsection head that attacks me . . . I frankly didn't think that Wikipedia's rules said that editors had to wait for repeated personal attacks to rise to the level of 3RR, but that seemed to be the drift of the (non-admin) comments at ANI. I've removed this particular one from my user talk page four times in less than 24 hours. Attacking me is the only thing this editor has done during this time. I would like someone to block this user before we make it a fifth, sixth, or seventh time. Thanks. WhatamIdoing 17:45 11 January 2009"

WhatamIdoing wanted the situation to be a massive hostile derogatory onslaught of offensive diatribe against me with no defence at all.

All I was doing was saying essentially 'let's have neutral point of view here (NPOV), not just one persons opinion, and let's consider both sides of the story".

Note also that the discussions of Da Costa's syndrome should have been conducted on the Da Costa's talk page where the other topic editors could see it, but WhatamIdoing made all of those comments on their own personal talk page so that their personal friends would see it and join the personal attack on me.

Here is a summary

WhatamIdoing wants other editors to believe that several months of relentless nitpicking criticism against me is called "editing". . .

And . . . that me changing only six words in the subtitle in the middle of months of massive criticism of me during one 24 hour period is called a violation of 3RR policy, a personal attack on them, and edit warring that requires immediate administrative action and blocking.

The double standards are blatant, flagrant, shameless, offensive, and ridiculous.


Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page about the signs, characteristics and practices of tag-teams and how to recognise them, as described on 25-8-09 . . . "Editors working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process of consensus, by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate policies and guidelines (such as 3rr and civility) that editors are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially, in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions."
Sometimes the two editors teamed up together to artificially violate the 3RR policy, and sometimes they did it as individuals. Actually they were not pedantically violating the 3RR rules, but strategically they were.


The Two Mothers of all Ducks

The following quote comes from Wikipedia

"The duck test - 'If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck' - suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics."

For twelve months two editors did 95% of the criticising of my contributions, and set up or incited 95% of the discussion pages against me, and tried to get the Wikipedia guideline on tag-teams deleted, and each rewrote the same loophole in the tag-team guidelines, and denied working as a tag-team of two against me.

I would describe them as acting as if they were two Siamese twins who were joined at the hip since birth.


Nobody bats an eyelid?

At 23:08 on 26-11-09 the editor who banned me left a comment on the administratiors noticeboard about another page about an entirely different topic, but discussed the type of ediing that had occurred previously, and how easy it was for some editors to get a away with lengthy periods of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, flagrant tag-teaming, personal insults and edit warring, and he added . . . "nobody bats an eyelid". It is therefore quite ironic that none of the other editors, including Moreschi, still haven't banned my two critics, despite the enourmaous amount of evidence against them. See here

The tag-teams co-ordinated smear campaigns against me

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia where contributors discuss the content of articles, but my two critics used the talk pages to conduct smear campaigns against me almost from the very start. Such tactics are primarily aimed at making personal comments to create prejudice against an individual before newer groups have the time to see the full facts (both sides of the story).

Typically, my two critics would lose an argument and then rush about in a frenzy to set up a new page, sometimes as secretly, and as quickly as possible, and insult me relentlessly before I had time to say anything.

The following words come from the Wikipedia page about 'Smear Campaigns' . . .

"Smear campaign: smear tactic or simply smear is a metaphor for activity that can harm an individual or group's reputation by conflation with a stigmatized group. Sometimes smear is used more generally to include any reputation-damaging activity, including such colloquialisms as mud slinging . . . A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, or character. "Mud slinging", like negative campaigning, most often targets government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in schools, companies, institutions, families, and other social groups.
Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility.
Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half truths, or even outright lies

Examples of their smear campaigning

After they lost several content disputes they conducted a massive smear campaign on the COI number two page here
The secret smear campaign that they conducted without my knowledge on the Civil/POV pushing page can be seen here
The massive number of criticisms by Gordonofcartoon at the start of the Request for Comment/Posgturewriter (RFC) page at 19:35, 20 July 2008 is here

The long running smear campaign by WhatamIdoing to turn a neutral editor named Avnjay against me can be seen here

The combined arguments and blatant lies that were presented by Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing on the Arbitration page is here

Note in particular 1. The decision to block me for COI/2 was made before I joined the discussion to defend myself from a massive amount of lies and accusations.

2. The decision to block me a second time on an RFC page was made after I advised the "neutral editors" that I would be away for a few weeks preparing an essay for them to judge independently. Such discussions cannot be concluded while attempts to resolve the issues are still active, and . . .

3. The decision to ban me was made after I advised a group of editors that I would look at the comments made by them and my two critics and give them my final response on the following Sunday. One editor 'ignored all the rules', and banned me before I could give that reply.


After my two critics created as much prejudice and hatred as possible a young editor who failed to see through their lies demanded that I be subjected to the harshest punishment possible. e.g. see here. Similarly the editor who banned me described me as a troll which is Wikipedia language for a disruptive editor, but carries the deliberate double meaning from the real English language word for a big ugly hairy monster that lives in caves.


Their attempts at character assassination

In almost every discussion my two critics would choose words that were deliberately and systematically designed to build up and create a negative impression about me.

For example the following words come from various discussions where they described my contributions. On one page they would describe my suggestions as ' garden variety', or 'stupid', on another they would describe my ideas as fringy, and on others they would refer to my editing as cruft, nonsense, and crap that crawled into articles.
They would describe my references as old, out-of-date, thoroughly outdated, obsolete, from before most editors were born, and unreliable.
When discussing me on pages which other editors would read they would write words like this . . . "We know you are 'mad at us', We know 'you are upset', 'We are sorry we made you read the very distressing children's book about the horrible, horrible, horrible war', and Aaarrrrghh, Yup, Oops, and 'Please don't leave nasty messages on our talk page, and they would portray me as 'Cattle' and a Luser, and tell other editors that their 'attitude readjustment tools' failed to 'scathe me', and later say 'do we want to up the ante'.
They described my response to their constant criticism as 'struggling', 'ranting' and 'continual griping' and 'a 'hostile litany of complaints'
They would set up many discussion pages in an attempt to recruit other editors to help them to get me blocked or banned, and eventually say 'we' the 'entire Wikipedia community' are 'thoroughly disgusted' with his 'disruptive behaviour' and 'edit warring'.

For 12 months they were constantly violating the Wikipedia policies which require editors to focus on content rather than the person, and to be polite at all times, and yet they would portray themselves as prim and proper, experienced, highly respected members of the 'rule-abiding' Wikipedia community, and would put on a display of pompous indignation and protest if I asked them to comply with policy. e.g. when one of them wrote this . . .
'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 you of impropriety. You may have confused CIVIL with WP:WikiLove and wikt:friendliness; WP:CIVIL does not require me to honor and respect either the out-of-date and widely rejected references you propose or to accept your ongoing efforts to violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I have simultaneously complied with WP:SPADE. In light of your complaints about civility, the second paragraph of that essay may interest you '(end of quiote) signed by.WhatamIdoing 21:34, 1 January 2009

As you can see they filled their paragraphs with insults and I was just defending myself. e.g. see here
and here

The objective of character assassinations is to make other people believe that the individual is stupid or inferior and not worth listening to, so that nobody bothers to read their references or even consider that they may have something valuable to say. Hence, I have told my two critics that I have been confident in disputes for thirty years, so they would go to ten other pages, which are read by 100 other editors, and address me with this sort of comment . . . 'we know that you are angry, easily upset, or frustrated', when they didn't know any such thing, and actually knew that it wasn't true, but they wanted everybody else to get that false impression. They would also tell other editors, after I was banned, that they themselves were 'on the verge of tearing their hair out', so the turth was the opposite to their previous comments. Another example is where they would lose an argument, and then write many paragraphs of criticism on an entirely different matter, or set up another discussion page. They knew that a lot of editors do 20 - 100 edits a day, and would only read the most recent paragraphs and wouldn't go back far enough to see that they just lost an argument, so the focus was on me and their new accusation. They would also tell one lie, and when I providded evidence that they lied, they would defend themselves by telling another lie. As you can see above, I provided proof that they had been ill-mannered, insulting, and generally offensive, and were calling me names, and edit warring, and they defended themselves by saying such things as 'we didn't do it', and calling it WikiLove. What they should have done is banned themselves for having bad manners, and for violating a dozen policies. See also here and here

The truth versus nonsense

Here are some lies within other lies written by my main critic about me . . . "We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for Verifiability and No original research for some time." WhatamIdoing 02:17, 26 January 2009

Here are some more revealing words by my main critic while rewarding another editor for deliberately ignoring 'all' the rules . . . "Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over Posturewriter". signed WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009

This is the truth: I wasn't struggling to understand anything about simple policies, and found it easy to see through all of that editors lies, as you can see if you read all five links below in full, with my critics additional comments, AND my explanations. I had two critics who were so pathetic that they had to help each other in almost every discussion, and could only win arguments by telling lies and cheating. While I was confident all the time they were losing their tempers, tearing their hair out, and swearing.

See here and here and here and here and here


Other examples of WhatamIdoings smear campaigns against me

I have written an evidence based report on my main critics attempt to vilify everything about me and criticise and delete every word I wrote which can be seen here

They also conducted a systematic smear campaign by linking to, and telling every other editor my real name and personal details. See here


Examples of their smear campaigning against all Da Costa's syndrome patients

While they were deleting all of the information about physical cause from the Da Costa's page they were filling it with links to categories which contained hundreds of psychiatric labels, and or, leaving them in place, and were cherry-picking references to anxiety, depression and mental illness, and a chapter in a book about military compensation, where they used a gratuitous comment about cowardice.

They also add information to pages about patients in general and refer to them as being too 'emotionally' involved in the topic to be able to edit 'objectively', and patient reports of personal experiences are just 'anecdotes' and 'self reports' which involve 'conflicts of interest', which make them unreliable sources of information, and that patients resort to fringe ideas out of 'desperation', and are from 'self-help' or 'support' groups, and have to be rejected even if they are true. They deliberately fail to mention the fact that some patients are objective, sensible, intelligent, educated, and fully aware of the requirements of proper scientific methods of assessment.


The history of the vilification of mysterious illnesses

In my book called The Posture Theory I included information about the history and politics of disease, and on page 864 of the 11th edition I gave some quotes about how undetectable or mysterious illnesses were attributed to evilness of some sort, including invented character flaws that appealed to public prejudice. The general theme is that ghosts, goblins, or evil spirits invaded the person and punished them for some sort of crime by making them sick.

As you can appreciate, the behaviour of my main critic was to be the creator or, at the very least, the deliberate inflamer of prejudice against Da Costa's syndrome patients, and of course, will try to disguise that process by pretending to be uninvolved and detached.

You can see an example of that two-faced hypocrite's insidious diversionary behaviour in a recent edit of theirs to a page about disease, which I quote below . . .

"When the cause of a disease is poorly understood, societies tend to mythologize the disease or use it as a metaphor or symbol of whatever that culture considers to be evil. For example, until the bacterial cause of tuberculosis was discovered in 1882, experts variously ascribed the disease to heredity, a sedentary lifestyle, depressed mood, and overindulgence in sex, rich food, or alcohol—all the social ills of the time". here


It is a case of my critic being a creator of prejudice, reporting on the problem of prejudice, in an attempt to make her own face look clean.

It is the equivalent of a man robbing a bank and then phoning the police to report that he had witnessed the crime, so that they wouldn't think he did it.



A recent TV show about the German composer Felix Mendelssohn reported that the Nazi biographies of him were deliberately negative in every respect, and claimed that his music was of inferior quality. The motive for that interpretation was the fact that he was a Jew. When prejudiced people are in position of influence or power, or when they have control of the media, the truth is a problem that they don't want the readers to consider.

Edit Wars, and how they made me their target


The repeated use of my real name without my permission

At 11:28 on 20th September 2008 the editor who later banned me, deleted the following words from Wikipedia's official rules about good manners called WP:Civil, on the grounds that it was pointless because they were mentioned elsewhere. See here.

(Note that I had accused my two critics of being ill-mannered and disrespectful, and of using my real name repeatedly without my permission, and despite my disapproval and advice to stop.


"Harrassment and disclosing personal information (outing)

See also: Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Outing
Harassment occurs when a particular user is "targeted" by another editor, and may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that user, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that user.
Outing occurs when a particular editor's personal information is revealed by another editor without their explicit permission. Editors who harass other users, publicly disclose personal information of another user, or enable the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so."



According to a TV report on 10-9-12 the Australian Federal police is suggesting that laws need to be passed to stop cyber trolling where anonymous individuals use the internet to stalk and harass other individuals with insulting, offensive, and unacceptable remarks. However so called cyber trolling is a standard part of the methods used by some of the Wikipedia editors but they don't call it stalking, they call it "lurking" over their "watchlist" and they don't call it harassment, they call it their 'attitude readjustment tools' and it isn't called cyber trolling, it is called edit warring, and they don't ban it, but just warn new editors to be prepared for 'merciless editing'. They also argue that if you don't want to play the game then get out of Wikipedia and find yourself a new hobby, and they don't call the offended person a victim, they call them targets and 'easy prey'.

It happens all the time and is standard practice which some unscrupulous editors have developed into an art form.


* * *

When I joined Wikipedia I saw a recommendation that I should be prepared to expect merciless editing. I am an honest person, so I thought that it referred to highly intelligent and educated people who would spot errors quickly and fix them. I therefore thought that it was reasonable advice, and had absolutely no objection to it. However, I did not think that it meant that some of the experienced editors were pathological liars, cheats, and control freaks who were hell bent on telling me, and the readers a pack of lies, and manipulating the rules to defame my character and delete scientifically proven facts. I didn't know that it meant they could put people on watchlists, and hound and harass them and get them banned so that they couldn't put the verifiable truth back.

I was also not warned to expect that I could be made the target of edit wars, and I wasn't given links to essays which showed me how to defend myself from liars and cheats who ignored all the rules. I have therefore described some of my experience for the benefit of any future new editors below.

After being relentlessly criticised by two editors for about six months, and being accused of violating dozens of policies, I decided write an essay on their tactics. I didn't know a lot about Wikipedia, so I didn't know which policies they were violating, and therefore had to write a plain English account of their unethical editing practices here.

They retaliated by calling it an "attack essay" and then lobbied to get it deleted, and hence they made me the target in a Wikiquette Alerts page (WQA), and when that failed it was followed by an MFD, and when that failed it was followed by a discussion which included my name as the target in the title of the RFC (RFC/Posturewriter) here.

However, my main critic is extremely two-faced and some years later had the cheek to give the following advice to other editors about not using RFC's to target individuals for the purpose of harassing them . . .


"I'd say that the major problems with RFC/U are:
1. They are hugely time-consuming for everyone and painful for the "target". (Also, as frequent Wikipedia:Too long: didn't read violators, too few people read the presented diffs, which do not always line up with the assertions made about them, and even fewer do their own research to see whether these diffs are anything like representative.
2. There's no way to prevent bad editors from using this process to harass others.
3. There's no way to reform the (fill in category of "bad" here) editor.
I don't think these problems are solvable . We have (mostly) solved the previous problem, which was that nobody outside the dispute showed up. A very partial solution to #3 is the involvement of more bold admin's, specifically of the type who are willing to write closing statements and, when appropriate, announce blocks and topic bans. Perhaps someone else will have other ideas. WhatamIdoing 15:56, 21 January 2011


Two days later that same editor gave this advice . . .

"About WQA: I've tried to help there, and I've lurked there, and a good number of the "wikiquette" problems and accusations of "personal attacks" amount to "Waah, he disagreed with me!" (As a matter of fact, there's one such complaint on my user talk page right now: One person advocated for a topic ban against an editor for not following the steps outlined in an essay he happens to agree with. I replied that while the newbie problems, the community didn't actually punish people for not doing things in the manner that he personally thought was "proper". This has apparently become a "personal attack" in his mind -- no insults, no belittling, no threats, just straightforward and direct disagreement with the substance of his previous statements. That's all it takes to get a complaint about personal attacks.)
I don't think there's any hope for really solving this problem. Wikipedia is attractive to teenagers and other immature people; we will always have some of this. And a good many of these show up at WQA, or make unsupportable claims on other pages.
I suspect that what most people want from WQA is some empathy and validation of their feelings: "I'm sure that was unpleasant for you, and I'm sure you're a good person, even though it wasn't bad enough to actually break our policies or trigger any sort of punishment. Just make sure you keep setting a good example, and everything will be fine." WhatamIdoing 01:09, 22 January 2011 (end of quote)

See here


You can see several things in that advice including the fact that my main critic knows how to use Wikipedia procedures to make someone their 'target' on WQA's and RFC's, and knows how to make false accusations to harass me, and that most of the other editors will only believe what they are told, and won't bother to read all of the evidence in the diffs to find out what actually happened six months earlier. For example, they acted as if they had consensus for their opinions when they didn't , and they acted as if they had won all previous arguments when in fact they lost. In fact, the reason that they had to set up the RFC was because they had just lost the WQA and then the MFD closed with a consensus against them. My two critics wanted the essay about their tactics deleted, and the closing admin on the MFD stated "The result of the debate was "keep". See here


Another editor commented on my main critics 'crude language', and history of making personal attacks against new contributors. here. See my report on their "trollish" behaviour here.

See how they made me a target by putting my real life Sir name at the top of the page here

and in the RFC title here

and on their own UserTalk page here


Character Assassination with me as their target

According to Wikipedia policy editors are supposed to comment on content and not the person. However my two critics set up numerous topic pages where they made me their target, by putting my real name, or my Wikipedia ID as the title at the top of very lengthy ongoing discussions. e.g. here. That style of argument is called "ad hominem" (which means playing the man). In more general terms it is a method used to distract attention away from the content. It is also called defamation of character, and is a form of character assassination.

My main critic is fully aware of how to target someone in that manner, as can be seen in this quote which that individual edited at 2:17 on 5th February 2009 shortly after completing the dirty deed successfully in order to get me banned on 29th January (the week before).

"Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument."

See here

That editor is a foolish braggart and gloater.


Edit Wars and
The "Assume Good Faith" policy


A quote from the Wikipedia essay called WP:Honesty

When I joined Wikipedia I thought that honesty would be a common sense requirement that I could take for granted, and that I didn't need to read their essays or policies to confirm it.

Nevertheless there is a page with that title and this is a quote from it . . .

"Honesty is a requirement of all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. Editors are reminded that while you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions." (end of quote) here

However, I was soon confronted by two editors who told a massive number of lies about me, and one of the topics, and the policies. The were also conducting an edit war against me and when I provided evidence of their lies they accused me of violating the "Assume Good Faith" policy.


This is a quote from item number 16 on the UserPage of an editor named MastCell . . .

"The more incapable an editor is of assuming good faith, the more prone they will be to cite WP:AGF at others." here



Edit wars and lynch mob arbitration practices are very common in Wikipedia

While I was involved in Wikipedia two editors were hopelessly losing virtually all of their arguments against me so they secretly planned an organised edit war to get me blocked. However, that is not unusual because, in fact, I have since learned that edit wars are quite common and occur when individual editors can't win arguments on their own and go searching or forum shopping to find other editors to support them, or they send private emails to each other to join in an attack of criticism to get the "illusion" of consensus for their opinions, or to get the other person banned. They then start exaggerating their support with such words as "we" have the "entire" Wikipedia "community" becoming "thoroughly disgusted" and "losing their patience" with this disruptive "troll" so "we" the "respectable" "rule-abiding" "majority" want him "permanently" banned.

The following words were written by the editor named Moreschi about another topic which involved groups of editors secretly organising themselves to control information, and were added at 11:34 on 9-12-09 . . . "The problem, as in so many other areas (Hindutiva, Armenian, Azen, etc) is an ill-defined group, largely coordinated off - wiki, who are URL unrelated to each other but express virtually identical ideology."

Of course the success of such practices generally depends on the individual not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, and on the instigators of the edit war denying it. They also try to create diversions by directing readers attention away from any evidence of edit warring and toward the person they are criticising.

In my case two editors were accusing me of violating the policy that requires me to assume good faith in them e.g. with these words

"For six months, he has openly flouted WP:AGF". . . which can be seen with Gordonofcartoon comments here


These words come from the Wikipedia; Assume Good Faith policy WP:AGF here

"Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning . . . This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

The Requirement for Evidence

Here is a quote from the editor who banned me. He is discussing the problem of dealing with all sorts of edit groups who try to control content in Wikipedia by working together. . . . "AGF is not a suicide pact: we do not have to assume endless good faith in the face of constant trolling."

Note that Moreschi is arguing that he does not have to assume good faith in editors who are trolling him, however, that principle applies to everyone.

In other words "nobody" is required to be stupid by assuming good faith in other editors where it is more than obvious that they don't deserve it.

The evidence against my two critics can be seen on the Wikipedia Civil POV pushing discussions with these words clearly describing WhatamIdoing's intentions and methods . . .

"my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed". WhatamIdoing 02:25, 18 May 2008. here

The "attitude readjustment tools" include a "metaphorical" block of wood that is used to hit the new contributor over the head, and it relates to the practice of severely punishing a person by insulting, annoying, and criticising them until they leave Wikipedia.

Here is some relevant text from Wikipedia . . . "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." here

Fifteen months after I was banned WhatamIdoing was pretending to be a respectable editor by criticising other editors who conduct edit wars. These were the words used by WhatamIdoing on the 'Citing sources' policy page at 22:04 on 31 March 2010 . . . "Edit warring is prohibited" . . . and then a few minutes later, made the following comments on that policy's talk page . . . "My goals for what editors will learn from this section are something like this: Edit warring is evil . . . if you disagree with these goals please help me refine them". (end of quote)
Note also that during that time WhatamIdoing was arguing with, and reverting the comments of two other editors.

Again at 5:58 on 15-8-10 the same editor told another contributor that Edit warring is evil and criticised the practice of forum shopping. here

That editor is astonishingly two faced.


WhatamIdoing is an offensive hypocrite who writes the policies and then violates them

At 18:36 on 2-9-10 WhatamIdoing made a minor edit to the following sentence on the Wikipedia page about Policies and guidelines . . . "Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more."


At the same time that individual added the following sentence to the policy . . ."These pages do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's legal and behavioral policies. For example, editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia, and edit warring is prohibited everywhere, not merely in encyclopedia articles." See here.

This is another example of that editor being a sanctimonious hypocrite . . . "Good faith" should apply equally to everyone". WhatamIdoing 04:00, 25 September 2010 See here



I have compiled a brief list of the edit war jargon below which includes evidence that WhatamIdoing had been using "attitude readjustment tools", and conducting a relentless edit war to get me banned.

See also great floods of criticism here

Edit War Jargon

in Wikipedia
The content control methods that are used in flame wars, that new contributors and readers are not fore-warned about, and which are . . .

Standard methods of cyber-bullying and internet harassment

Note: Wikipedia editors who consider themselves to be 'edit warriors' are being childish, but they actually seem proud of themselves when they go outside (or above?) standard policy, ignore all the rules, and act like "the wicked witch of the west", or use pretentious jargon by referring to their methods as "Attitude Readjustment Tools". They write with aggression in the heat of argument for the purpose of intimidating or scaring "newbies" so that they leave Wikipedia voluntarily. When their War Lording, flame throwing, and trolling fail they resort to more fairy land tactics and ban them anyway. Some time later, after all the dust settles they try to disguise their threatening methods of intrigue by referring to them as merely "metaphorical".


The following quote comes from Wikipedia . . . "Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another . . .A cyberbully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyberbully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target." (end of quote) here.

The following list contains a small number of words that relate to edit wars.


The word


The meaning of the word

Wikipedia readers; the general public PC CTL is an acronym for personal computer cattle. (See the photo on top here)


New contributors. The established members of edit war gangs refer to them as "bastards", "jerks", "little shits", and "easy prey", and say "Most of them walk into debates like knifers into a gunfight". See my report here.

Attitude Readjustment Tools - Also called Lart tools

The term "Attitude readjustment tools" is an abbreviation for "Lusers attitude readjustment tools" also called "Lart tools".

The definitions have changed by the type of people who invented them and are somewhat different now, but they are essentially used by internet users such as experienced and unscrupulous Wikipedia editors to block their opponents

The tools are standardized methods of provoking and annoying a person, who they call the Luser, and they have three basic objectives.

The first is to make their target give up all opposition and become mindlessly obedient to all instructions and confine themselves to unimportant and meaningless tasks of a routine nature.

The second is to make the persons activities (such as editing Wikipedia) so unpleasant that they leave in disgust.

The third is to relentlessly provoke their 'target' until they get an ill-mannered or hostile response and then get them blocked or banned for breaking Wikipedia's rules about good manners.

The secretive nature of their actions is designed to give the impression that they are 'respectable members of the rule-abiding Wikipedia community", so that they can argue that their opponent is a disgusting person whose hostile response was "unprovoked" or "unwarranted"etc.

Ultimately, by getting rid of all opponents in that manner the sly and secretive users of those tools can resume control of the articles in dispute.

The tactics include harassing the target with insults, and criticising and deleting every word they write, where each insult is referred to "metaphorically" as hitting them in the back of the head with a 2x4 block of wood, or slapping them in the face with a wet trout.

They are designed to win decision making arguments by individuals who can't do it properly, so they use methods which are outside of the standard, fair, and open processes of debate, and are unknown to new or inexperienced editors. In other words the Lart tools were used by my two very stupid critics as a form of cheating. See here

There is a language to describe various aspects of Lart tools which include 'Flame war", Flamer, Flame bait, and Clue by four etc.

Flame War

An edit war started by an editor to get a newbie or the information provided removed from Wikipedia after all proper, fair, and open standard methods of arbitration have failed. The idea is to incite and inflame the target so that the orderly discussion escalates into a heated argument. The person who responds with hostility can then be banned for breaking the rules which require calm and polite discussion at all times.


The flame-bait is the newbie who the editor wants to get banned. It perhaps also infers that the newbie is to be baited, or systematically provoked and goaded by personal attacks or unjustified, trivial or nitpicking criticism from multiple editors until his temper is inflamed, and becomes uncivil and can be banned for violating WP:CIVIL policy here

Strategic Rudeness

In their attempt to annoy, provoke and inflame the tempers of new contributors and drive them out of Wikipedia, some editors use "strategic rudeness". When caught, they try to excuse their arrogant and deliberately offensive behaviour by describing 'strategic rudeness' as a method used by "intelligent" people to achieve status and to over power their opponents.

(Any form of rudeness is a serious and bannable violation of Wikipedia's Civility policy).

Double Entendres

Many words in Wikipedia are used to exploit their double meanings. In particular they are like Trojan horses, (or jargon horses), which are intended to look like a compliment, but are actually insulting. In fact some of the editors change the "official" meaning of the words to invent double meanings.

One example is the word WP:Trout. It is used as an obvious insult in a heated argument (to slap the person in the face with a wet trout), but is described as humorous here. Similarly the word 'cruft' can mean that a persons contribution contains 'too much detail', or, is 'useless junk'.

Another example is the word "consensus", which normally means a decision made by the majority of at least six people, but in Wikipedia it can mean the same, or ,'numbers don't matter', and editorial judgment does, or the 'previous version is the consensus version', or the 'ignore all rules' policy can apply if one editor personally thinks it is best for Wikipedia etc.

In other examples carefully chosen links to other topics can be used as insults, such as 'Findagrave'.

Similarly psychiatric jargon, and links to pages with such labels can be used as insults, or to create bias or prejudice, rather than as diagnostic labels.

For example, if you mention that someone is young, they could respond by ignoring your comment and editing a page about senility.

Of course, if those editors are accused of ill-mannered behaviour they will 'play dumb', and deny it by arguing that the favorable meaning applied, or that the insulting link was just a 'coincidence'.

The word troll also has double meanings. In general terms it means a big ugly hairy monster who lives in caves and comes out at night to make a pest of itself, but in Wikipedia it means a 'disruptive editor'. Hence the word is often used with duplicity. For example, if one editor wants to insult another he will call them a troll, meaning a bloody pest, but when accused of being rude they will reply - 'Oh no, it just means disruptive person'.

Edit war lords

These are individuals who join Wikipedia and learn all the rules so that they can boss everyone else around. They essentially argue that "you must write this or you are breaking the rules", or "You must do it that way or we will block you".

They also influence, write, change, or interpret the rules for the purpose of improving their power.

They learn how to set up discussions to get information deleted, or other editors blocked, such as WP:MFD - Miscellany for deletion, or RFC's - Requests for comments about other editors, or Arbitration pages to get other editors blocked or banned.

They are anonymous, and refuse to give their real names, and they claim to be volunteers, but no-one can tell if they are writing out of prejudice, or bias, or if they are the highly paid staff of organisations which want to control what the public thinks about particular topics.

They put other editors on watchlist and follow them from page to page to delete anything they add, and they patrol pages related to their vested interests for the same reason. They know the edit war jargon and methods, and harass other editors to drive them out of Wikipedia, and they have allegiances with other editors who share their prejudices and will come to their aid to get other editors blocked. They also know how to recruit gangs of people to help them by processes called canvassing, or forum shopping etc.

They isolate individuals and harass any neutral editors who support their opposition, and they try to intimidate anyone who challenges them, and give barnstars to anyone who is servile and obedient to their wishes, or who comes to their support when they need it to win the "edit wars" which they start for the purpose of winning disputes.

Clue by four

also called a clue stick

A clue stick is a metaphorical 2 by 4 piece of wood used to hit the newbie in the back of the head with to make him obey the "clue" that he is not wanted in Wikipedia and must leave.

This is a quote . . . "The clue-by-four is a close relative of the LART. Syn. clue stick. This metaphor is commonly elaborated; your editor once heard a hacker say "I smite you with the great sword Cluebringer!"


An editor or group of editors who makes comments which are deliberately annoying to "inflame" the temper of their target, in the hope that they respond in an equal manner and can be banned for violating Wikipedia's rules which require good manners at all times.

The "flamer" will deny that their initial comments were insult, or argue that their relentless criticism was not 'nitpicking' etc.


For example, when Gordonofcartoon said "Do we want to up the ante", I replied "Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry". He later started a discussion to get me blocked from the topic and described my response as an "Unspecified threat". He put it as in item number five in a section which he called "Evidence of disputed behaviour here.

See my full report here.


Telling someone that they need to be slapped in the face is extremely offensive, and slapping them in the face with a wet trout is ridiculous, but Wikipedia has a page called WP:Trout, which has a template on top to explain that it is meant to be humorous.

However, editors like my main critic, put such links in the text of their criticism as a means of being deliberately offensive and to provoke a response which is the equivalent of slapping them back. She will then use the response as an example of the other editor making an "unprovoked personal attack".

If she is accused of being rude, she will argue that the other editor was too stupid to read the link and see that it was meant to be "humorous".

She is a very immature person who thinks that it is clever to "invent", and "use" such 'double meanings'.

Sucker Bait

An edit tactic or comment which is used in an attempt to inflame the temper of another editor so that they react in an offensive manner and can then be banned for violating "WP:Civil".

Examples include - sarcasm, asking dumb questions, or requesting an editor to provide references for obvious commonly accepted facts, or "moving the goal posts" etc.

Wicked Witch of Wikipedia (in the seventh paragraph here)

An editor who has failed to win evidence based arguments and failed to have the newbie removed from Wikipedia for genuine and fair reasons, and who resorts to a variety of childish ways of trying to scare them out, or of frustrating them with insults, sarcasm, and spin, and by using policy to nitpick and provoke them until they leave voluntarily, or react in an uncivil manner and can be banned for violating WP:CIVIL.

The Wicked Witch is usually an experienced policy expert and acts as a policy troll, and often as a forum shopping troll by going from one discussion page to another to get help from other editors, and subverts the proper decision making processes by starting non-conventional flame wars to deal with opponents. WP:CIVIL


Wikipedia has a template which an editor places at the top of a page to say that the information contains too much detail that needs to be abbreviated. It also has a picture of a broom, which conveys the dual meaning that it is "rubbish" which needs to be swept away. It is also used more broadly as a substitute for the words "useless junk".

If an ill-mannered editor is accused of breaking the rules about courteous editing they will "play dumb", and pretend that they meant "too much detail". See here, and see the cruft template with the broom symbol at the top of a page here, and my report here.

A wave of the cruft wand

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". However, 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". See examples of it's use described here.



The word junk normally means rubbish, but in Wikipedia some of the editors give a double meaning to many words, within the rules, or, 'unofficially'. Hence it is also used to describe anything which a particular editor doesn't like, or want in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is top quality or poor quality. They just call it junk, and don't bother to check or discuss the evidence, and delete it as if with the wave of a cruft wand.

Winged monkeys

Editors or administrators who previously acted like members of a free society, but who became the mindless slaves of the Wicked Witch of the West and did her dirty work. They are similarly described as 'meat heads', or the wooden headed puppets of individuals who break the rules of Wikipedia by organising edit wars.

The Cavalry arrived (in the ninth paragraph here)

The cavalry is a cohort administrator, who had been sent a notice of a flame war by hint or email, and who went to an arbitration page and placed a ban on the newbie before he had the time to present a defence, and before the other honest and genuine arbitrators had the time to decide the case on the basis of the weight of evidence from both sides.


The acronym used to advise the newbie after he has been defeated by the flame war lords and been banned from Wikipedia. YHBT is an acronym for "You Have Been Trolled".

It is essentially used by arrogant individuals who are gloating that they are a Wikipedia criminal who has the power to break the rules and get away with it, and that the banned editor cannot do anything about it.

also see here

My definition: a troll is an editor who is an arrogant, ill-mannered, impatient, hot-tempered liar and cheat who ignores all of the rules of Wikipedia, and deliberately acts like a nitpicking pest to annoy and provoke honest and respectable editors into uncivil retaliation so that they can be banned.

See the WP: Civil policy here, and examples of bad manners & provocative behaviour here, and editors who ignore the rules here, and my report on editors provoking others into uncivil responses here.

Troll maker

A troll maker is an editor who pretends to be respectable, and who wants to get rid of someone else. He therefore nitpicks or insults that individual to provoke and inflame their temper so that they respond with hostility. When that happens he will call his target the troll and get him banned for trolling. i.e. the troll maker is the real troll.


The name given by the edit war lord to the newbie who they started the war against.


The name given by a newbie to describe the childish edit war lords who are stupid enough to think that they can win all evidence based discussions by ganging up on their opponent and transmogrifying the intellectual process into an edit war, and using stealth, ambush, spin, trickery, scare tactics, and cheating. The gang of losers are called losers because that is what you call more than one loser.



OutLaw Halo Award

Wikipedia editors give each other barnstars as a reward for doing something they like. It is the equivalent of awarding someone a medal.

One of them is called The Outlaw Halo award. It consists of a symbol of a head with horns (representing the devil), with a halo on top (to represent a saint). i.e. it symbolises a devil disguised with the mask of a saint.

It is given to an editor who breaks the rules of Wikipedia by using the "ignore all rules" policy WP:IAR.


My two critics spent 12 months pretending to be "respectable" members of the "rule-abiding" Wikipedia community, but they were breaking any rule they wanted at any time. In that respect, an accurate description of their behaviour would be "Two faced". See my report here


My main critic gave the Outlaw Halo Award to an administrator called "Moreschi" for banning me. She probably offered it to him (overtly, or covertly) as a bribe, before he did the illegal deed. See here

The Last Word

There is a page in Wikipedia which describes new contributors as "newbies", and bastards, jerks, little shits, and prey, and gives instructions on how to cheat in order to win disputes against them.

This is a small quote from that page . . .

"Call in your friends uninvolved users to keep the other party busy and distract from the original debate. Exploit the headstart you have over impudent newbies. Most of them walk into debates like knifers into a gunfight: Easy prey." (end of quote). here

It describes the tactics used by my two critics to perfection.


They are both younger than me and watching them was as amusing as watching a couple of clown fish trying to hide in the nooks and crannies of rocks in a fish tank.




Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by volunteers, but in fact most of them are anonymous, so although they have chosen Wikipedia ID's, nobody knows who they are in real life. If they are accused of having a conflict of interest they are supposed to tell everyone who they are to prove their 'innocence', but nobody enforces that rule.

Many of those individuals are the employees or highly paid agents of large companies and political groups etc. and their objective is to control the contents of articles, and to watch, hound, and harass or ban any person who adds information that they don't want the public to know. They use such things as "watchlists" and "page patrols", etc., for that purpose. (of course they will argue that they are just doing that to ensure the 'reliabilty' of the article.



WP:IAR The "ignore all rules" policy

When Wikipedia started the founders thought that having a large set of rules would discourage people from joining, so they provided an "ignore all rules" policy which advised them to just add anything useful without concern for the rules, and let other editors make any corrections later.

There was also the idea that there weren't many rules anyway, and that sometimes there might be situations which were not covered, so they advised that occasionally it might be necessary to ignore the rules to achieve the best results.

However, many years have passed, and there may have been millions of changes to the rules which are now well established, so the ignore all rules policy should not be necessary.

Nevertheless, some editors have used it to win disputes and achieve power and control over other editors and articles, and they want to keep the IAR policy for the purpose of maintaining that advantage for themselves.

They therefore want other editors, administrators, readers, and the public to be brain dead, and gullible, by believing the argument that it should be kept, but only be used "for the good of Wikipedia".

If you look through all the double talk you can see what that policy actually means. Namely it gives them permission to 'ignore the rules'. i.e. to be rude, to tell lies, to cheat, to break the rules, and to deceive the readers and the public any time it suits them.

Ambush tactics


I have defined an edit war tactic that I saw in Wikipedia which I call 'ambush tactics': Some of the established editors have learnt all the rules of Wikipedia and use them to control new volunteers by telling them that they are only allowed to add information which conforms to those rules. However if the new editor continues to win disputes within the rules, they will be ambushed by the sudden use of the "ignore all rules" policy and banned in the middle of a dispute before they have the opportunity to defend themselves. See my report here.

Double standards - the rule that doesn't exist.

Some time after joining Wikipedia I found a rule which said that all editors should treat eveyone else with respect regardless of how long they had been members. However, at one stage I was confronted by two individuals who acted like a couple of prima donnas who had the manners of ill-bred pigs, and expected everyone else to treat them with respect. They argied that I should respect them for being involved in particular articles for several years. They were also accusing me of being ill-mannered so I suggested to neutral editors that there should be new policy called "Double standards" which required "respect to all or respect to none". One of my critics responded by arguing that such a rule did not exist, and that they were not under any obligation to write one.


Note that the editors of Wikipedia modify word meaning and uses for their own purposes, and have specific discussion and policy pages which they use to discuss methods of controlling "newbies" etc which has been developing since it started. However, when I added a section of similar nature at the top of my User Talk page to define words that describe the tactics of my two critics they called it an "attack essay". They then spent several months making strenuous efforts to delete it and eventually did - after I was banned. i.e. they have a language to control newbies but they don't want newbies to develop a language to control the editors. That imbalance undermines NPOV policy (neutral point of view). That also presents double standards - re; what they can do, the new contributors can't. Such policies (rules) are therefore rigged to predetermine the outcome in favor of whatever decisions the editors want, regardless of the merits of their arguments.


For another assessment of the tactics used by experienced editors in Wikipedia see here


Another essay on my main critics exteremely childish behaviour

My main critic tries to create the ridiculous impression that she is a well mannered person who deserves courtesy and respect when she writes the following words to another editor . . .

"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" (at 23:10 on 28th May 2008 here)

However, as you can see, a few days earlier, at 2:25 on the 18th May, she was complaining about the fact that her "attitude readjustment tools" has failed to have any effect on me here.

Note that in my opinion, and in the opinion of the other editor, she has the manners of an ill-bred pig, and was completely messing up the 'neutrality' of that article by filling it with her own biased and 'ignorant' point of view.

Note also that her use of "attitude readjustment tools" (or Lart tools) is an example of her rudely describing me as a Luser.

It is also 'proof' that she was using the rather immature, and childish jargon of internet 'edit war' 'games'. and was being deliberately rude to me, which means that she was deliberately breaking the rules of Wikipedia, AND the rules of 'civilised' society outside of Wikipedia.

The rules which she violated require all editors to treat everyone else with courtesy and respect regardless of whether they are a new contributor or an experienced administrator. Everyone is required to have good manners even during heated arguments, and they are told to focus on content, and not the person, and hence, deifinitely not mess about by writing insulting rants about other individuals.

The rules which she was 'ignoring', and treating with contempt, and essentially treating as trash, were the Civility policy (WP:Civil), the No Personal Attacks policy (WP:NPA) etc.

The fact that she makes ridiculous excuses for her ill-mannered behaviour, by writing essays about "strategic rudeness' and "skillfully choosing when and how to be rude", being a sign of intelligence, simply makes her look even more immature.

I continue to be surprised at how some administrators condone her behaviour, or even co-operate with her or defend her childish nonsense, and it continues to amaze me, that despite all of the evidence I have provided, she still has not been permanently banned.

(See another one of my reports about courtesy - or the disrespect for it here)

A case of the pot calling the kettle black essay 1

The facts - who was rude, and started and lost the arguments and the edit warring

From the very first discussion that my 2 critics set up against me you can see that they were arrogant, rude, and disrespectful. They then proceeded to set up arguments against me, and lost most of them, for example, in the very early ones . . .

They lost their argument about Hyperventilation syndrome.

They lost their argument about a research paper.

They lost their argument about changing the page title.

They soon became resentfull, spiteful, and hostile, and proceeded to set up discussions to get me blocked for breaking one rule, after another, and another, relentlessly, beginning with the 'conflict of interest' dispute. A few months later they set up a Civil/POV/pushing page where their arrogance and rudeness is still clearly evident.

They tried to blame it all on me

At that stage, if you had a casual look back over those discussions you would think that it was all one big mess, but they managed to convince other editors that I was the one who had been losing all the arguments, and that I was the one who was spiteful and angry, and that I was the one who had been setting up all the discussions to create chaos and confusion, and that I was the one who needed to be blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring.

They continued in exactly the same manner relentlessly for 12 months and were never going to stop until I was banned.


Their first arrogant comments can be seen here, and why they lost their early arguments here, and their 'conflict of interest' accusations here, and their Civil/POV/ pushing argument here, and one of them commenting on me 'edit warring' here.

They have been using the same methods to win disputes against other editors, which is why they are still in Wikipedia despite being liars and cheats.

First impressions - people don't change their minds when the facts

My main critic knows the importance of creating first and last impressions to leave opening prejudices that persist despite the truth being presented later. She generally started arguments by telling lies, and I won them by telling the truth, so she set up "secret" discussions for the purpose of insulting me, and getting other editors to hate me. Eventually, the editors who saw those rants would join other discussions where I was involved, but they were hell bent on banning me no matter what evidence I presented.

The first example was their argument that I had to be blocked for "conflict of interest". They were in a hurry to get that decision made because they didn't want the administrator to see my side of the story. By the time I arrived at that discussion the decision was already made, and the admin was never going to change his mind. here

The second example is the Civil/POV/Pushing discussion which was unknown to me, and I don't think I knew it even existed until after I was banned. There are enough lies and misrepresentations on that page to fill the Grand Canyon. here

The third example occurred when I was editing a version of the article with a neutral editor to make it comply with all Wikipedia rules. My main critic secretly set up one of her own subpage's and copied it, and subjected it to 80 ridiculous nitpicking comments and lies here. She also set up a discussion on her own User page without telling me, and was telling the neutral that every word I wrote had something wrong with it. By the time I found out about that the neutral editor had turned against me here.

There are other examples where both of my critics set up discussions on Administrators Noticeboards and barraged me with ranting criticism so that they would be convinced that I was doing everything wrong before they joined the discussions where I was actually involved.

The final example is the "Arbitration" page where she presented a massive ranting and raving mass of lies, and then got me banned by one admin the next day, before I had a chance to give the other 12 editors the evidence that she was a liar here.

See also, my report on how they created false impressions by deliberately arranging other discussions so they got the last word here.


A case of the pot calling the kettle black essay 2

Here is what an editor named Guido den Broeder wrote about my two critics on 21-5-08. .

"I am now quickly getting the idea that this COI complaint against Posturewriter has one reason only: to get the opposition against your own pov out of the way." Guido den Broeder 07:23, 21 May 2008 here


The following statement was made about me by WhatamIdoing seven months later on 28-1-09 on the arbitration page that was set up by Gordonofcartoon to get me banned . . .

"I'm tired of the POV-pushing and the edit wars (which he's currently blocked for)". . . here

As you can see they were experienced at conducting edit wars, and were deliberately, and secretly running an edit war against me by using such methods as "attitude readjustment tools", and then they had the cheek to tell everyone else that I was the one running an edit war???

I didn't even know that such 'wars' existed, and was routinely defending myself against outright lies.

Their Trojan Horses

There are many essays in Wikipedia which my main critics uses as Trojan Horses, which seem or are even labeled as humorous to other editors, but carry her great load of insults. For example the page called "Trout" here, and "The Last Word" here

For example the word trout refers to slapping someone in the face with a wet trout, and she would suggest that her "attitude readjustment tools" failed to scathe me. What she was telling other editors was that her attempts to hit me over the head with a "metaphorical" 2X4 block of wood didn't drive me out of Wikipedia. See here

She would argue that she was not being deliberately and disgustingly offensive, but when I said that she should "stop beating her chest like an ape swinging through the Wiki trees" I didn't have an "official" Wikipedia essay to link to, so she told the other editors that I was an extremely ill-mannered person who needed to be blocked for "incivility".

She also pretended to be a man for six months so when she revealed that she was a woman on her User Page, the other editors would get the impression that I was a disgusting man insulting a delicate damsel.

In fact I was criticising a very sly and manipulative shrew.


How to copy their edit war tactics
The principle of Wikipedia is to have flexible guidelines which are applied with courtesy and common sense, but my two critics treated them as if the were rules carved in rock that had to be obeyed. To convey the illusion of power and authority they would tell everyone that they were highly respected editors with many years of experience, and would refer to the actions of anyone who opposed them as disruptive "behavior", as if they were a couple of mother geese addressing little children. You can do exactly the same to them. Remind them of the rules relating to good manners and tell them to behave themselves when in the company of other adults etc. As the colloquial expressions go - knock the chip of their shoulders and put them in their place.

If you want to copy their methods then all you have to do is join Wikipedia and find a policy fault for ever word they write, and if they try to comply with policy then tell them that they got it wrong, and just keep telling them that they are wrong, ten times a day, on ten different discussion pages where 100 other editors can see it if necessary, until they leave Wikipedia or are banned. If they complain about you being unreasonable then just tell them that they have to assume good faith in your motives or you will have them banned for violating WP:AGF (assume good faith policy). If they still question your motives then tell them to stop making personal attacks on you which violate WP:NPA policy, and to stop edit warring, and that, in your honest opinion, you are criticising them for the good of Wikipedia. You are allowed to do anything you want if you think it is for the good of Wikipedia. You can also ignore all the rules by citing the "ignore all rules" policy WP:IAR, but read those policies first so that they can't argue with you about the details.

For more information about how to copy their edit war methods see here and againts me here'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#EditWarJargon

and their satirical essay called "The Last Word" here

and their "How to win an argument" essay here

and WP:Sock puppetry here

and WP:Meat puppetry here

and the use of sock-puppetry against me here'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#anchor132811

and the tag-teaming tactics used against me here'sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#tagteam

and have another look at my description of their editing tactics here'sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor5667

They exploited the fact that I was new to Wikipedia. However, now it is my turn. See my introduction to the weaknesses in their methods and personalities here

My motives


When I was young I had already survived health problems such as measles, mumps, hepatitis, tonsillitis, and appendicitis, so I had a general attitude that it was best to lead a healthy lifestyle, and not add to the health problems caused by the world by causing them myself. I also had the attitude that I would help other people prevent health problems which extended to my teenage years when I became a gymnastics instructor and later a leader. I decided not to raise money by putting adverts on the club walls for cigarettes, soft drinks, or junk food etc., and I decided not to make money by selling street drugs.

Later in life, after I was diagnosed with cancer and given two months to live with no hope of a cure, I could have gone on a holiday, but I chose to write a book about posture and health which I had already been studying for 20 years.

One of my main health problems was severe abdominal pain which would occur if I sat at a desk to lean forward to read and write for any period of time. I decided that I was going to die anyway, and that the pain wouldn't matter so much, and if I did any permanent damage to my abdomen it wouldn't matter because I would soon be dead anyway. I therefore proceeded to write that book at the rate of 100 pages per year, and generally had mild pain after writing a page or two per week, but about three months of severe pain at the end of each year after I completed the editing process of each additional 100. On at least one occasion there was permanent damage which remained, but eventually I started typing while standing at a computer and the pain subsided by 90%. It has only been sever once since then, about 2 years ago, and I was able to treat it effectively within two weeks.

I had a policy of not putting adverts in that book, especially for soft drinks or junk food etc, but I knew that many other people were becoming extremely wealthy by advertising such products as cigarettes etc, and that they didn't give a dam about how much illness and pain they were causing other people. Similarly I did not advertise such items on my website either.

However, I did think that it was reasonable and respectable to make money out of selling a book aimed at improving the health of the general population, and especially at preventing health problems in children.

Nevertheless I was not a person who could write pretty rhyming words, and my style of writing only one sentence or paragraph at a time was often mocked and ridiculed, but I couldn't write in the normal constant flowing way because it was always interrupted by pain.

In fact I was never able to make a profit out of it. The latest edition cost me about $40 each to make, and $15 for postage and packaging and I sold it for $55. i.e. for no profit at all.

I also sold most of them to school and public libraries, so that the poorest people who needed it the most, could read it for free.

However while I was writing for Wikipedia two disgusting editors were always insulting me, and my contributions, and my motives.

At one stage my main critic who knew about the pain, tried to give the impression that I was telling lies about it by writing these words . . .

"Based on his prolific output, I think it would be fair to say that writing is not especially difficult for him, but perhaps we should not assume that it is trivial." signed by WhatamIdoing 17:28, 5 August 2008. See here

On another occasion that editor tried to create the impression that I was a selfish and greedy person who was trying to make massive profits out of my "very expensive book".

When another editor asked me to reveal more and more personal details about myself and I eventually told him that I had written the book while I had cancer, he called me a liar. See my webpage about my experience with cancer here.

As they say it was a case of the pots calling the kettle black.

The Criticised becomes the Critic

My two critics had a remarkable ability to invent faults in me, and knew enough about the rules and procedures of Wikipedia to deny, archive, hide, or delete all of the evidence and proof of faults in themeslves. This report describes just one of their methods. See also Gordonofcartoons threat to Up the Ante, and how he hid it here.


Foreword: I went into Wikipedia to provide useful information that was sensible, logical, and factual. However, at one stage I was confronted by two critics who spent their time inventing an endless series of excuses for deleting almost everything I wrote (see here). I therefore started an essay to describe their reasons and tactics, and how they were breaking the rules of Wikipedia, but they immediately began a series of discussions to get it removed.

They called it "an attack essay" and they tried to tried to convince other editors that I was an uncooperative and disruptive person who needed to be blocked and banned for "edit warring"?

Ultimately I was banned, and they arranged for it to be deleted. (You can see that essay below).


They were the equivalent of criminals who were trying to get the eye witness put in jail for reporting their crimes.


I would like you to independently consider the facts. For example, I was adding good information so that the other editors, administrators, and readers could see it and use their brains to think about things for themselves, and my two critics were deleting it so that the readers couldn't use their brains, but just had to believe whatever remained on the pages without question.

My two critics think that they are intellectually superior, and that all of the other editors, administrators, readers, and the public, are as gullible and stupid as sheep and cattle.

However, they are just a couple of childish fools, and you would learn a lot more about the topic, and my two critics, if you read everything that had been deleted. Obviously, they don't want you to do that, so while people like them are controlling Wikipedia their ambition to become the sum of all knowledge is utterly ridiculous.

Recommended reading; "The Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. See here


If you want to know what to expect when you join Wikipedia I can give you my experience as an example. When I started contributing to one of the topic pages, one of the editors put me on a watchlist, and then followed me around like a bloodthirsty bloodhound and deleted every word I wrote. That same individual argued that I was a SPA (a single purpose account with only one interest), but I have had hundreds of interests, and had contributed to six pages already. They also argued that my sole purpose in Wikipedia was to promote my own theory, but they deleted it and continued with that same accusation for the next twelve months. The same individual always acted as part of a two person tag-team and together they did 95% of the criticising, and then had the cheek to argue that I was going against consensus. Those two were going from page to page telling everyone else such things as "we" have here a "self-identified" "SPA" with a "COI" (conflict of interest), using Wikpedia to promote his own theory, and being "disruptive" by ignoring the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia "community" etc. The same two individuals eventually managed to get one administrator to rush in on an arbitration discussion and ban me on the false basis that I was constantly arguing with hundreds of other editors. Their general complaint was that I was being disruptive to the development of a page that many contributors were keenly interested in? However, in the fifteen months since then, only a few minor edits have been made, but no-one, not even my main critic, has added any actual content to the text.

To give you some examples of their 'disruptive behaviour', (they like using the word "behaviour"), they put my real life personal Sir name at the top of the topics' discussion page here, and then proceeded to insult me and find a countless number of policies to use as their excuse for more deletions.

My response to that indiscriminate criticism was to write an essay about their tactics, and place it at the top of my Userpage so that neutral editors could see it first and judge the it in the proper context. However, that same editor went to many other discussion pages and described it as an 'attack essay' and demanded that it be deleted. Those complaints continued on pages called Wikiquette Alerts, MFD, Request for comment, Administrators Noticeboard, and Arbitration etc, until they achieved their objective, so I have pasted the text on my own webpage here.

That editor was obviously not going to stop until I was banned, and I did not join up to have to respond to incessant criticism up to six times a day, so I just waited until then, with the intention of becoming a critic of my critic outside of Wikipedia.


My essay about the rules and principles which they violated

I only ever had two editors criticising my contributions to a page about Da Costa's syndrome, and each and every time I added an item of information one of them would accuse me of breaking a rule, and the other one would delete it. They took turns doing that for about eight months, during which time I checked the rules and found out that they were telling outrageous blatant lies about many of them. The most obvious was when they deleted information about the history of the subject on the basis that it was "old", but when I read the actual policy myself it specifically stated that older information was allowed with these words . . . "History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons" (end of quote here).

I decided to write an essay to describe all of the rules that THEY were breaking, and the type of lies they were telling about the subject and the rules, and provided links to show the evidence and proof.

You might appreciate that I expected the administrators to check the evidence and criticise, block, or ban them.

However, my two critics used another devious trick called . . .

Shooting the messenger

They accused me of writing an "attack essay" and of breaking the rules which require me to "Assume Good Faith" in them, and of breaking the rules which say that I can't make "Personal attacks" on other editors, and of breaking Civility rules which requires me to show them courtesy and respect. e.g. See here.

I hope the public can understand why I was laughing at their "cheeky" behaviour, namely - they were telling lies, I had proven they were liars, and they knew I had proven it, and yet were telling the other editors that I "should" assume good faith in them??? and they had spent eight months accusing me of breaking the rules, and yet were saying that I didn't have the right to accuse them of breaking the ruleßs??? The essay I wrote can be seen below . . .


The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

(an essay written several months before I was banned)

After I added this section to the top of my Usertalk page my two critics set up a separate talk page where other editors discussed whether to . . .

keep it or delete it

Note that it is an essay written in plain English that actually describes eleven different policies that my two critics violated, with links to the discussions that provide the evidence and proof of those violations.

(Note also that the links to other pages are not available in this cut and pasted version, but nevertheless, the context still describes the tactics - They eventually managed to get the essay removed from Wikipedia to hide the evidence of their guilt)
The Deletion of Significant Scientific Evidence of Physical Cause . . . In my assessment the main objective of my critics is to prevent, erase, or delete any of the significant scientific evidence of the physical or physiological basis for the symptoms of Da Costa's Syndrome, to support their own views of the condition. i.e. if they delete it, and no-one can see it, they can argue that it doesn't exist, and has never existed. The significant evidence being deleted includes the comments of Sir James MacKenzie in 1916 that the fatigue is related to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins, and the findings of S.Wolf in 1947 that the breathlessness is related to the abnormal spasm of the thoracic diaphragm, which is the primary muscle involved in inhaling and exhaling, and which explains some of the biochemical abnormalities. Thirdly, in 1980, V.S.Volkov of Russia referred to the scientific measurability of various degrees of severity of the physical limitations for exertion. An example is here [1]
Insulting the Contributor as a Diversion. When there are differences of opinion about something, the standard method of discussion involves comparing facts and evidence, but when one individual has weak evidence to support their idea they often write disparagingly, or insultingly about the other person to divert attention away from the weak argument, and simultaneously hope that the readers will think that the opposing idea is not worth considering. e.g. here [2]
Using policy as Red Herrings. The purpose of contributing to wikipedia is to add information to article pages, but if that information is not agreed with by some editors they will give a policy reason for objecting, which seems reasonable. However if, each time you meet the criticisms they add another policy, or variations thereof, they are using policies as red herrings which they want you to follow, so that they succeed in keeping you away from adding information to the article page so that readers can see it. Examples can be noted by scrolling down the Da Costa discussion page here [3] which show that I am supposedly violating every policy in the wikibook, e.g. copyright violation, conflict of interest, synthesis, cruft, adding original research, soapbox etc. and each time my critics add policies they argue that I am doing everything wrong, and when I criticise them they always argue that their usage is justifiable on 26-6-08 here [4]
The Double Bind Tactics, Including the friendly Trojan Horse. This tactic involves the request to answer a question, or two questions in the one paragraph, where the answer will be used to provide evidence for a second accusation. For example, where the person asks for more information about my real identity to prove that I am not breaching my own copyright. If I provide the proof another editor will join the discussion and use it as evidence of an accusation of "conflict of interest" . The question is designed to create a simple "double bind". It becomes more devious when the person couches their words in sincerity, which have the style of 'please, if only you could answer our question, we will be happy to withdraw our accusation'. In such cases it is designed to appear as a kindness, as friendly persuasion to answer the question, and then the trap is set, and the second accusation is made with rigor and zeal with words which have the style of "see, we told you he was violating conflict of interest policy'. It is like the Trojan Horse, presented as a gift, with an army inside. For example here [5]
Flooding, Drowning, and Smoke Screen Tactics (High volume opinionated, Low Substance Critisism). This tactic involves a large number and volume of arguments to divert attention away from the deletion of important evidence on the article page. It acts as a smokescreen because the volume of criticism is so large, that when observers look back they can't see where the issue started. Also there is no actual relevant or valid substance to the argument, so if a small volume of words doesn't convince someone that the argument is valid, the critic will continue relentlessly (ignoring a request for a break) until the observer (an independent editor) is not only flooded with information, but is actually drowned in it, and becomes convinced, that there must be something wrong somewhere. For example after a flood of criticism was lodged against me on the "CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOTICEBOARD" as item number 65 here [[6], Edjonston, the referee, came to my User Talk Page, accusing me of a slightly different policy violation, namely "DISRUPTIVE EDITING" here [7]. and when, after 5000 words of criticism in one week, I present a 2500 word response, I am asked to "cut this readable length" here [8]. The sole purpose of the flood of criticism was to divert attention away from evidence on the article page, and the fact that it had been removed. My critics then had to stop me from adding more evidence, and they didn't care how, so they just kept up the flood of criticism, resorting to any policy, or any way of discrediting me that the thought of at the time, until they achieved their objective of having me suspended if I added any more information to the article page.
The Wild Goose Chase. A wild goose chase is a strategy which involves the laying of a trail which promises to lead somewhere, but which, in fact, deliberately leads to something unattainable. For example, when I am told that I will be suspended if I contribute facts and evidence directly onto the article page, a critic will say 'I can still influence the information which is provided on the article page, because all I have to do is discuss things on the discussion page with other 'neutral editors' who will be more than happy to consider it when they add their information to the article page. For example, on 19-16-08 here [9] However, when I do discuss the relevance of a reference on 26-06-08 here [10], it is dismissed because of another policy here [11], and here [12], and again, relentlessly, e.g. here [13]. The objective of the 'wild goose chase' is to give novice readers the idea that the process is fair, when, in fact, my critics are trying to make it impossible for me to influence the article page.
Blatant Anonymous Vandalism - with a Clue. After I added comments to the article page on 28-4-08 here [14], Gordonofcartoon added a cruft template recommending the removal of excessive detail five hours later, with a broom symbol implying a dual meaning that it was rubbish that needed to be swept away, here [15]. I then abbreviated and integrated the information during the following week and amended the page on 5-5-08 here [16], but 5 hours later almost all of the text was deleted by anonymous editors, who made it a clear case of vandalism with the remark "I love cheeseburgers" starting at 14:55 on 9-5-08 here [17], however, note that they left a clue at the top of the page to their preference for the terms "* Exercise intolerance *Chronic fatigue syndrome *Soldier's Heart (novel)". The vandalism deletions continued an additional 3 times in 12 minutes until 15:07 on the same day here [18]. Also note that six weeks later, on 26-6-08, when I started commenting on the irrelevance of Gary Paulsen's novel "Soldier's Heart" on the discussion page here [19] there was a considerable response by editors with Gordonofcartoon starting on 28-6-08, and continuing through 3 sections until 3 -7-08. That could be just coincidence, or perhaps another example of the information being accurate but unpopular, with a different person who doesn't want wikipedia readers to see it, and who doesn't want their identity, and their COI revealed, and achieves their objective by deleting the material by using blatant anonymous vandalism. Posturewriter (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Sweeping the Tracks, and Making Forks in the Road (Side Tracks) to Hide the Trail of Evidnce in History; Sweeping the tracks to hide a trail, and setting up side tracks as diversions are common strategies which are used to evade detection. That basic methodology appears to have been used by my critics on the Da Costa pages re; I found that the modern term of Da Costa's syndrome referred to a set of symptoms like those of heart disease where there is no evidence of heart disease, and therefore, it had previously been argued that it must have been trivial, imaginary, or anxiety related. However, I followed the history back to Da Costa in 1871, and found the heated controversies (is it real or imaginary, physical or psychological, etc) and traced the evidence of physical cause which has been improving for 100 years. In December last year, 2007, I began describing the discoveries in chronological order for wikipedia from 1871 to 1997, (the main track). However, within a month, most of it was deleted, and when I presented it again, shown in the left side here [20], 75% of it, from 1900 to 1997, was swept away again as shown on the right side here [21] on the grounds that it contained excessive, unnecessary detail. Soon after that I was threatened with suspension if I added the evidence again. In the meantime, Naming Guidelines were used by my critics in an attempt to add a trail to the left (side track A) so that the Da Costa page could be abbreviated to almost nothing and moved into a brand new one called Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction here [22], and again here [23], and mixed with several other ailments and labels (to bury it in jargon). Also, the information and clues that I provided to wikipedia for the full Da Costa page previously, in addition to the information on the left here [24], appear to have been used by other individuals in the series of 33 edits to the previously small 'Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome' page (side track B), to make it larger and much more detailed and comprehensive. Note that 31 of the 33 contributions were conveniently anonymous and started on January 1st, 2008 here [25] I then added information to the Da Costa page again, with more references at 00:06 on 14-1-08 here [26] but it was deleted almost immediately by WhatamIdoing at 1:34 on 14-1-08 here [27] Ten days later, on the 23 January the anonymous contributions to the Postural Tachycardia page resumed here [28], and can be seen by clicking on the 'newer edit' links. The anonymous contributions continued for almost 3 months until 21:15 on 9-4-08, and included references to autonomic dysfunction and chronic fatigue syndrome. Also note that the very next minor contribution was made by my main critic, WhatamIdoing a half hour later at 21:45 here [29] . . . , who was perhaps one of the anonymous contributors, or collaborating with a nameless critic, who mixed the information with other material from other sources to hide the true source. Presumably the plan would be to wait until I became bored and left wikipedia because all of my suggestions on the Da Costa discussion page were being systematically dismissed for dubious policy reasons. They could then suddenly report that the symptoms of the modern and scientifically esoteric term Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome are the close equivalent of the old, rarely used, Da Costa's syndrome label which should be removed because it was 'obsolete' (their word for evidence from history). Alternatively if I answered the question on my talk page here [30], and observed that the symptoms were features of Da Costa's syndrome, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia etc. etc. my critics could argue something such as 'Has anyone noticed that they are both (near enough) to the same as' here on 7-8-08 [31]; and ask; 'Should we delete the Da Costa page because it isn't necessary?' It would then be removed, thereby achieving their original objective. i.e. The trail of history and controversy will be gone. The ultimate result is that Da Costa's syndrome, which is one of many different types of chronic fatigue syndrome, will continue to be clouded in doubt about it's previous or current existence. It is a fact that the trail of research evidence has been disrupted, and one side track has been attempted, and another now exists. The only question is whether or not it is coincidental. In either case, the Da Costa material should be put back (Also note that the words 'Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia' describe a type of tachycardia, which is a symptom, whereas Da Costa's syndrome describes a set of symptoms which may include postural tachycardia, without emphasising it . In summary, in the 8 months since December 2007 I have added a lot of information to the Da Costa syndrome page which has been deleted on the policy grounds of having excess detail, and anonymous contributors have added a lot of detail to the previous small Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia page, and it is still there.
Policy Tactics. The use of wikipedia policies, policy fine print, or policy interpretations to block a contributor from adding information that is contrary to an editor's point of view Posturewriter (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Victory by Deletion. The process of using policy to delete evidence from history, or evidence from different sources, that makes a favoured opinion look the best of those available - because the actual best evidence can't be seen by those making the decision.
The Final Say - a pathetically fallacious strategy. This is where the critic will keep adding comments to every argument which they started so that their comment is always the last, to create the impression that they have won, when in fact, for example, the opponent has won 49 previous discussions, and will win the next one, if and when he arrives, making the actual result 50 to zero, instead of their critics temporary and illusory victory of one to nil. Posturewriter 08:56, 20 July 2008

This was the consensus from one of the previous discussion pages about the keeping or deleting of the section above

"The result of the debate was keep"


Recommended reading: "The Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. See here


My main critic ignored consensus but had the cheek to criticise others for doing the same thing.

Sixteen months after ignoring and snubbing the consensus in the case described above, WhatamIdoing pretended to be prim an proper about such things with these words . . . "Any editor can write whatever essays s/he wants. If there are problems (i.e., it is a strongly anti-consensus viewpoint), then you'll hear about either a proposal to move it into your userspace (where editors are given even broader discretion), or to have it deleted at [[WP:MFD]] (usual rules apply; most editors argue from common sense for essays)." WhatamIdoing 05:08, 19 May 2010 See here


Another example of the two-faced attitude of my main critic can be seen in the following quote where they are criticising another editor for ignoring criticism . . .

"Reisio is currently failing to win friends and influence people by claiming that . . . he is obliged to ignore the consensus because he personally does not believe any of the (six?) editors opposing it have put forward a good enough reason to justify its removal.
. . . but we rarely see such poorly disguised contempt for other editors." WhatamIdoing 20:54, 14 February 2011

See here

They ignored Consensus decisions about that essay

One of their first attempts to get that essay deleted was made on a Wikiquette alerts page where I asked another editor named Jaysweet for some time to consider the request to remove it, and also wrote . . . "Jaysweet . . . If you wish, could you please take out any of the comments in that section which may have been interpreted as personal attacks on specific identified other editors, and take it to another page, and inform me of it's location. I will then consider my response in due course (in the next two to four weeks preferably). In the meantime please note my assessment that it is my critics objective to have it archived so that a description of their tactics disappears so that they can continue their policy attacks with my responses stymied. I don't think that is the proper way of using policy" signed Posturewriter 08:21, 16 July 2008. see also item two on the list here


Note that I was being criticised on four or more pages that had been set up by my two critics at the same time, and I didn't want to watch the computer all day and respond to all of their policy interpretations all of the time,I asked politely if I could respond in the following two to four weeks. However, whenever I made such requests they would deliberately and falsely try to convince everyone else that I was using delaying tactics. Note that none of the experienced editors ever answered my questions such as "how long have I got to respond". . . they just left me guessing!!! If any of them had given me a time frame, I could have organised a response to meet the deadline, but that "never" happened in the entire twelve months of arguments against me.

I found out later that the discussion was closed by an editor named Ncmvocalist on 20-7-08 and Jaysweet hadn't removed the "motivations and tactics section". A further editor removed the comment at the top of my page linking to the dispute, so I assumed that it ended in my favor. The Wikiquette discussion can be seen here


On 24-7-08 Jaysweet wrote the following words on another discussion page called MFD . . . "The user was asked to remove or revise this section, but refused . . . Jaysweet 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) here

I gave the following reply . . . "On a previous discussion page called Wikiquette Alert, I saw your comments, and as I came here as a contributor, and was having critics using policy against me, I asked you to assist me with determining, and removing anything which was deemed as inappropriate in "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics" on my User talk with the following words . . . "I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can't say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another.I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don't wish to change it I will leave it there. I am happy for you to decide what to remove and don't see any reason to take it any further." Posturewriter 08:26, 26 July 2008


On the following day at 12:43 on the 27-7-08 another editor named SmokeyJoe suggested that Jaysweet should determine the parts of the essay to be removed and do so. These words his words . . . "Could the nominator remove the specific sections he wants removed, and provide the diffs for easier assessment please?"

Despite those polite requests Jaysweet didn't delete anything???. However, he continued to criticise me in the MFD discussion???? and on 29-7-08 implied that I was "talking shit" about my critics. That is an example of Jaysweet not being co-operative, and using foul language which is a violation of WP:CIVIL, although he did apologise and retract those remarks a few hours later.

I don't know why Jaysweet did not remove the section as I and SmokeyJoe suggested??? and can only assume that he wrote his criticisms without first reading the discussion properly.

Here is what Jaysweet wrote at 16:01 on 29-7-08> . . . "I really do want to get community consensus on whether this section is acceptable or not".

Note that I wrote the section, and myself and SmokeyJoegave Jaysweet permission to remove any part of it, so it wasn't necessary for him to get consensus from anyone else.

Here is another comment by SmokeyJoe . . . "I do not find the section in question to be nearly problematic enough for deletion, even if it were alone on its own page. It is clearly the users opinion, it is to his credit that accurate diffs are cited (I followed a few), and I am not left with the impression that the user does not believe that his efforts are for the good of the project "SmokeyJoe12:33, 29th July 2008.

He also made the following comments a few days later . . . "He is contributing to wikipedia. The fact that his contributions are contentious only means it is more important that his talk page contributions remain accessible. If we delete (not just blank) them, then we open ourselves up to accusations of editorial censorship". --SmokeyJoe 10:13, 1 August 2008

Here is the comment of another editor on the same page . . . "Keep I see no basis for deleting the page, or even forcing the removal of the section--it is not an attack on specific named editors, and one is welcome to criticize Wikipedia policies as one likes if one doesn't violate npa." DGG

Most of the NPOV editors agreed that there was nothing about that section which was inappropriate so the "debate"closed with the consensus in my favor. The closing admin wrote the following conclusion . . .

"The result of the debate was keep"

signed by PeterSymonds 10:16, 6 August 2008 . . . The MFD discussion can be seen here


Of course, throughout that process Gordonofcartoon was continually trying to mislead the other editors. For example, at 18:16 on 20-7-08 he accused me of creating confusion and delaying the process by not deleting it myself???

>Furthermore, he and WhatamIdoing, just kept starting new pages such as RFC Request for comment on 20-7-08 where an editor named Wizardman closed it on 18-7-08 while it was still active, which is a violation of RFC closing guidelines, and on the following day of 19-7-08 WhatamIdoing awarded him with a barnstar for help with closing RFC's.

I spent some time away from those pages preparing a subpage of replacement text. I then asked NPOV editors to apply it as a replacement for the existing page but received no comments in favor or against so I added it four times myself between 26 and 27-12-08. It was reverted twice by Gordonofcartoon and twice by WhatamIdoing. The Arbitration page was set up a month later by Gordonofcartoon on Monday 26-1-09. These were some of his words . . "I'm asking for Arbitration attention - ideally a topic ban, covering disruption/harassment on Talk and dispute resolution pages - on grounds of Posturewriter exhausting community patience: this involves a classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing".

I gave the arbitrators a brief response on Tuesday 27-1-09 with advance notice that I would be presenting a full defence on the following Sunday, and WhatamIdoing responded with a large section of criticism 12 hours later, and then, at 15:36 on Wednesday 28th the editor named Moreschi suddenly interrupted the process and banned me. here

Gordonofcartoon thanked him on his talk page fourteen minutes later at 15:50 on 28-1-09 here

Three days later, on 3-2-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote the following words on the CivilPOVpushing page . . . "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." Note that the admin or CAVALRY on the arbitration page was Moreschi. The words can be seen here

On 4-2-09, a week after I was banned, Gordonofcartoon left the following comment on the tag team page . . . "What should you do if accused of being a member of a tag team?The accusation may be a form of baiting that attempts to provoke you into reacting in an uncivil or otherwise undesirable way" here . . . Note that I had provided evidence of Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing's tag teaming five months earlier on 19-8-08 here . . . and that it would have been seen by Moreschi on 25-8-08 here . . . where he apparently accepted my response, and didn't comment again until the day he banned me.

Also, after I was banned, another editor deleted the "motivations and tactics" section, and everything else on my UserTalk page has since been blanked. here


Another editor ignored all the rules, including a seven month 'consensus', and any decisions made by the arbitration committee?

The motivations essay provided evidence and proof that my two critics were violating many Wikipedia policies but an editor named Horologic wrote these words on the arbitration page. When you read them note that WP:IAR is the 'ignore all rules' policy - This is the quote . . . "Comment by Horologium - if the arbitration committee declines to take this case, I will (as a previously uninvolved admin) step in and stop some of the blatant PoV pushing I am seeing from Posturewriter. Addtionally, somebody needs to nuke that long screed on his talk page, which has been there for SEVEN MONTHS, in which two editors are repeatedly attacked, and which absolutely screams a total lack of WP:AGF. It's appalling." Horologium 22:54, 27 January 2009
Those comments were followed by these words "Comment to Whatamidoing - Since Moreschi went ahead and indef-blocked Posturewriter (and kudos to him for the block), I went ahead and deleted the screed on the talk page. I generally tend to avoid being rouge, but I think that this, at last, is an appropriate use of WP:IAR. Horologium 00:24, 29 January 2009

Horologium completely ignores the fact that I had previously won the argument because other uninvolved editors agreed by consensus to keep the motivations essay in its entirety, even though, on two occasions, I gave them permission to delete any parts of it they wanted. He was not only ignoring the previous consensus, but says that he was also prepared to ignore the arbitration committee if they decided that there wasn't a case to be answered. He was violating the policy that says he has to 'assume good faith' in the consensus of other editors and the decision of the fifteen arbitrators, and not just ignore everyone else as if they don't exist. He 'ignored all the rules" to push his own point of view, and deleted the essay just because of his own personal opinion based on a brief superficial assessment. See here

The Final Say and The Last Word

I wrote the 'Motivations and strategy essay' as a series of paragraphs and posted them onto Wikipedia between June and July 2008. I was banned in late January 2009 and It was deleted shortly after that, so I posted the complete article on my own website so that anyone who was interested in my side of the arguments could still see it. See here.

The tactic that I placed at the end of that essay was called The Final Say, and it describes how my two critics tried to have the last word on every discussion to leave a misleading final impression that would do as much damage to my credibility as possible.

I was upgrading my website about 20 months later, and made some improvements to the introduction on the morning of 11-9-10 Australian time..

Within a few hours, at 00:53 on 11-9-10, international time, my main critic went to a well established Wikipedia page called The Last Word, and amended the abbreviation in several paragraphs. Some of the comments on that page are as follows . . .


"This page is an essay attempting to critique certain actions. It is intended to show a serious opinion about editorial concepts — by means of a style that may or may not be described as humorous . . . In Wikipedia, sometimes debates get heated . . . even more than in real life, getting the Last Word in a debate is crucial, as it is the only proof of your argumentative success over competing editors . . . getting the last word means that you win the debate. . . This . . . will certainly impress your fellow Wikipedians . . . and . . . brings the advantage that you may subsequently point to your success in this debate as the clinching argument in future debates . . .

We recommend the following tried and tested tactics . . . Often, your opponent will not understand the importance of the last word . . .and will readily concede the ground to you (in which case it's nevertheless mandatory to rub it in his face on all relevant talk pages) . . . Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow . . . If they bring any arguments you cannot immediately refute, play dumb and ask for clarification . . . Ask for more sources and better source (ideally in that order). If they insolently keep providing answers . . . Be sure to post on their user talk page, so they have additional opportunities for frustration thoughtful response . . . Cheat, if you think you can get away with it.Call in your friends uninvolved users to keep the other party busy and distract from the original debate. Exploit the headstart you have over impudent newbies. Most of them walk into debates like knifers into a gunfight: Easy prey . . . This clever technique allows you to simultaneously regain the last word for yourself while making any sort of reply from your opponent seem in bad faith . . . Remind the little shits your opponents that they should abide by Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you are, why shouldn't they? . . . Block the jerk or get him blocked . . . and protect his talk page — then post your comment". (end of quotes)


That page can be seen by scrolling up and down here

The editors who contributed to it can be seen here

The term TLWTM appears to include a trade mark symbol that was added by my critic, so I have acknowledged that fact and the source.


Note that when I provided evidence that my two critics were using "The final say" as a strategy, it was seen as objectionable, but there was, and still is a standard essay on the same strategy which has been in Wikipedia since 6th September 2006. My two critics obviously knew about it and were using those techniques in manner that could be called text-book perfect.

You can therefore appreciate that my previous assessment of their tactics was very accurate.

They were using them to deceive all of the other editors such as EdJohnston, SmokeyJoe, and Moreschi, and were attempting to deceive me, the readers, and 200 million people with the chronic fatigue syndrome.

They were also systematically discrediting all new contributors and opponents by referring to them as "newbies", "jerks", "little shits", and "easy prey", which is a violation of so many policies that it is superfluous to name them.

Note also that the words "final blow" was struck out but still visible, and was replaced with "Last Word", and "your friends" was replaced with "uninvolved users" and "little shits" was replaced with "your opponents", In other sentences the word "bastard" was replaced with "user", and the opportunity to "frustrate opponents" was replaced with giving them an opportunity for making a "thoughtful response".

That page is riddled with ridicule and double meanings, and apart from being something to amuse small minds, it is also an instruction sheet for such individuals.

I suggest that all of the new contributors, experienced editors, and readers who have been deceived by those two individuals should use the same techniques of "gaming the system", and make sure that they are never allowed to deceive anyone else by having the final say inside or outside of Wikipedia in the future.

I am only the messenger here, and I can't stop people from being fooled if they don't want me to.

An example of WhatamIdoing using the final say tactic

At one stage my 2 critics did some things that were extremely childish. For example, in order to give some weight to the alternative label of Soldier's heart, they added a children's fiction novel with that title on the See also section at the bottom of the page about Da Costa's syndrome

They did something even more childish by not reading it first, to see if it was a reliable source of information about the medical condition. I read it, and it wasn't.

They then gave the label more weight by moving the childrens story to the top line.

After doing many more childish things to defend themselves from that obvious mistake, and then my main critic tried to make things appear as if she was an adult arguing with a child. She apologised for making me read a book which in her opinion was scary to children.

She is a stupid middle aged woman who was trying to convince the other editors that I was childish, but if she thinks that I get bothered by reading childrens books, she is obviously an insolent idiot.

She then archived the page so that her comments would leave the last impression. She knows that most editors wouldn't read the full conversation to see the evidence that she was being ridiculous. Some of that discussion can be seen here.


An example of Gordonofcartoon using the final say tactic

In May 2008 I was watching my two critics write thousands of words of criticism so quickly that new ones were coming faster than I could reply so I decided to sit back and wait until they stopped ranting. To my surprise an administrator finally agreed with them without seeing any response from me, and threatened to block me if I added any more information to the topic.

They were involved in 5000 words of discussion spread throughout several discussion pages in twelve days, and when I provided a 2500 word response one of them wrote this . . .

"Please cut this readable length". Gordonofcartoon 12:21, 24 May 2008

My response, with Gordonofcartoon's impudent quip at the end can be seen here


Dark Science

Most people regard the scientific community as a respectable and reliable group because of their reputation for attention to detail and reliability of the methods and comments. However, they are not so aware of the darker side of science which lurks in the background hoping not to be noticed. It is a place where people with large financial vested interests are willing to pay some scientists to discredit good ideas and spread disinformation. For example, the tobacco industry executives were found to be non-smokers because they had read all of the scientific results of studies which proved that the smoke caused emphysema and lung cancer, but they were making money out of sales, so the set up their own science laboratories and paid their own scientists to argue that there was no scientific proof that cigarette smoke caused lung cancer. They thereby continued to make profits from cigarette sales by telling the public that cigarette smoking was safe and by dehumanising smokers as the poor, the black, the female, and the uneducated. i.e. as people whose lives had no value and weren't important.

My two critics were claiming to be honest, respectable, highly qualified volunteers trying to develop good articles, but they were extremely dishonest, and deleted a lot of useful information.

People from the dark, sinister, murky, or black, or underground side of science are able to deceive the public by pretending to be 'experienced', or 'academically qualified' or 'scientists' in order to exploit the good 'reputation' of 'science' while telling their lies.


Counter measures

At the end of that page it advises that any attempt by your opponent to change the outcome should be resisted at all costs by accusing them of violating other policies such as civility, and when experienced editors are deliberately acting like annoying trolls, they should accuse the new contributor of trolling.

As you can appreciate that is a simple example of the two-edged sword. The way to deal with that inane tactic is to just do what you have to do, because the outcome is going to be judged against you by fools, regardless of what you do.

There are five billion people outside of Wikipedia, and I only had two critics who were using all of the tricks on that page as if it was their instruction sheet for a video game, but there was nothing humorous about their intentions. They were being hostile and vindictive.


If you decide to join Wikipedia to do something about that, remember that you may be immediately targeted, and referred to, and treated as a 'newbie', a 'bastard', a 'jerk', a 'little shit', and 'easy prey', regardless of your age, intelligence, and experience.
As was made known to me early in the process. . . . Don't join Wikipedia unless you are prepared for 'merciless editing'.

Have fun, and good luck.

* * *

For more information about their tactics you can read another Wikipedia page which explains how to win arguments. It states at the top that it is intended to be humorous, but that is not necessarily how it will be used by individuals such as my two critics who relentlessly lied, ignored the rules, and cheated.
The page can be seen by scrolling down here


To use their own methods against them

I, like many members of the public, joined Wikipedia to add useful information, but it is obvious to me that my two critics, for one reason or another, went there to achieve status and power, and learnt all of the rules and methodologies to be used as weapons for the purpose of bossing other people around, and in particular to control content. They have been there for more than four years, and have started or written or influenced the major parts of some policies whenever they needed better ways of controlling everyone else.

From my observation of their pattern of edits they use an assortment of essays, guidelines, and policies, as if they were rules which they impose on everyone else but completely disregard themsleves whenever it suits their own purposes.

The following table contains links to pages in Wikipedia that will illustrate what they know, what they read, what they edit, and how they edit.

New contributors are advised to be prepared for merciless editing but they aren't given any specific information about what to expect, and you won't want to spend several years learning them, so the following table could also be called . . .


The new contributors instant guide to merciless editing

Many of the essays or guidelines of Wikipedia are provided with a template at the top which states that they may be humorous, but they can, and are used as instruction sheets for merciless editing. Others practices such as 'anonymous editing' may be 'proper', but also offer the opportunity for rogues to furtively infiltrate and slyly control content without being noticed or criticised. There was, at one stage, a proposed policy to block 'paid editing' which 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 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 on 30 December 2010 . . . "No longer proposed".

With the failure of that policy 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 the following methods with professional skill. See also here



The difference between myself and my two critics

The following three small essays were written about a year before I saw the page called WP: The Last Word. As you can see, my assessment was highly accurate.

I was more than happy for my two critics to add whatever information they wanted to be on the Da Costa's syndrome page as long as they didn't delete the verifiable scientific material that I provided, and I was very agreeable to neutral editors asking for each of us to produce a version of the text for them to decide in terms of neutral point of view and the reliability of sources, and to remove any influence of conflict of interest. However, the sole purpose of my two critics was to maintain absolute control of every word that went onto the page, and they arrogantly and blatantly refused to co-operate with the neutral editors, and were never going to be satisfied with any outcome except to get me banned so that they could delete all of my criticisms of them, so that no-one would ever see it again.

I was also more than happy to discuss the topic with sensible editors but my two critics did everything they could to interfere with that possibility. They didn't want a neutral point of view in the article and specifically prohibited the input of medical consumers, and yet they had the bald-faced cheek to say that I was violating NPOV policy.

If you want to know how easy it is for them to control content then have a look at the page which they cut and pasted from my subpage and subjected to more than 80 nitpicking criticisms here

and the relentless nitpicking of the same subpage in the discussions here


More differences: I kept adding references to the Da Costa topic until there were a total of 61 to cover all points of view, and my two critics kept on deleting references until only 18 remained which agreed with their own point of view. I want people to read the full history but they want to hide most of it. They were deletionists. There should be policies such as WP:DVE which prohibits the 'deletion of verifiable evidence', and WP:DEH which prevents editors from 'deliberately erasing history' as a part of "WP:DEH/POV pushing" where they try to make their own ideas look good by deliberately removing information that sheds doubt on them. I provided information about myself when requested, and was accused of having a 'conflict of interest'. My two critics refused to reveal information about themselves and expected everyone to blindly believe that they don't have a conflict of interest. I was willing to co-operate with the neutral editors in providing a replacement text for the page. My two critics refused. I took all of the policies into consideration and frequently made changes when necessary. My two critics ignored all of the policies by using WP:IAR as their excuse.

There is a guideline in Wikipedia which states that it is not a crystal ball where people can predict the future verifiability of something; There should be another policy that says it is not a pencil eraser that can be used to rub out 100 years of history.


My "Last Word"

My two critics are arrogant, and think that their 'annoyingly' high I Q, and their four years of knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and their ability to do up to three hundred edits a day makes them unassailable in a dispute. They think that they can lose up to fifty arguments and convince everyone else that they have gained the ascendancy by winning the last dispute. They didn't beat me - they cheated.

They also think that all of the other editors and readers are empty headed puppets, or meatheads who will believe their lies and can be fooled into doing their dirty work by criticising me.

What I want intelligent readers to do is look at their pattern of edits, and compare it with the actual evidence, and see that every criticism of me was just one of a mounting pile of twaddle aimed at diverting attention away from the fact that they were falsifying history.

I don't care what their meatheads and puppets think, I only care what intelligent readers think.


Intelligent people don't believe anything they are told without checking the facts first.

This is a starting list of the 60 intelligent people who I based my article on - J.M.Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, emeritus professor of Harvard Medical School Paul Dudley White, Paul Wood O.B.E, and Harvard professor Oglesby Paul. My critics used all five on their small list of 18, and they got four of them from me after telling the other editors that they were unreliable sources of information.

This is what my main critic wrote about James MacKenzie who was knighted for his contributions to medicine in the same year that he chaired an important meeting on the topic . . "it was just another normal meeting of the Therapeutics subsection of the Royal Society of Medicine. MacKenzie read a paper. (Back in the day, that's how all scientific papers were published: you joined a society, showed up at a meeting, read your paper to the assembled members, and answered their questions. If you did this, your paper was then printed in the society's Proceedings"

More of that editors tirade of lies can be seen on the arbitration page here


Gordonofcartoon's tactic

He was 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 the Wikipedia 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 that argument, and a second discussion called "Miscellany for Deletion" was established to have the essay removed, but the consensus of other editors 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". (end of quote)


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 the 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 those two arguments they set up a "Conflict of interest" dispute to get me blocked but they lost again, 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 the only other one, named EdJohnston, eventually agreed with them, so with one in favor, and one against, they failed to gain a consensus again. However, EdJohnston was the administrator, and my two critics wrote thousands of words of criticism and convinced him that there were a lot of other editors in the dispute when there weren't, and that there was a large consensus against me when there wasn't, and he made his decision before I had presented my side of the story. I knew, from a basic understanding of human nature, that he was not going to embarrass himself by admitting that he had made the wrong decision later, so I simply complied with his request to refrain from editing the topic page. In fact, I didn't write anything for that page until several months later when two neutral editors suggested it.

Gordonofcartoon later told the arbitrators 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 then 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. 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 were still actively pursuing a solution to the dispute, so I told them my intentions and had Avnjay's co-operation.

Shortly after I started the essay an editor named Wizardman entered the dispute and 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 shorthand comment 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.


Before setting up the RFC dispute Gordonofcartoon also asked for help on an administrators noticeboard and cancelled it, but included itj on the arbitration page to make it look as if their was more criticism against me than actually existed. He then set up another Administrators Noticeboard and accused me of disruptive editing, but it ceased as soon as I found it and gave my side of the story. Meanwhile WhatamIdoing had set up a discussion about me on their own UserTalk page, and made it number 1 at the top of every other discussion, and then proceeded to criticise me for months. When I found out about it I attempted to defend myself by changing one sub-heading entitled "Fit for the second" to . . . "WhatamIdoing’s attempts at undermining NPOV policy". We each reverted that sub-heading 3 times and then WhatamIdoing set up another Administrators Noticeboard and accused me of being the one who was making personal attacks, and then set up a further Administrators Noticeboard to accuse me of violating the Three Revert Rule (WP:3RR).

This is how Gordonofcartoon described all of that on the arbitration page . . . "Topic raised at WP:ANI: Archive 451 (belayed in favour of RFC), Archive 469 (no result), [5] (advice to report elsewhere), 3RR Archive 88 (result: warning and subsequent block by User:William M. Connolley)."


Gordonofcartoon 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 he didn't. (note that ANI means "Administrators Noticeboard", and RFC means the "Request for Comments" discussions, 3RR means the "Three Revert Rule", an COIN means "Conflict of Interest Noticeboard", and that most new contributors would not know the meaning of those abbreviations, and wouldn't know how to find the discussions, and would not be able to defend themselves from all of the lies, or find the evidence.


This is what a small section of his argument looked like on the Arbitration page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Advice on general editing etiquette and standards. [2]
Warning about disruptive editing [3]
Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest [4]
Topic raised at WP:ANI: Archive 451 (belayed in favour of RFC), Archive 469 (no result), [5] (advice to report elsewhere), 3RR Archive 88 (result: warning and subsequent block by User:William M. Connolley).
Two unsuccessful attempts to resolve via WP:COIN
Take 1 [6]
Take 2 [7]
Request via Wikiquette alerts to abide by WP:UP#NOT [8] and remove bad-faith Talk page diatribe about other editors. Outcome: "Stuck".
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter: strongest consensus for outcome was [9], closing conclusion here [10]


In the meantime I had explained that the RFC decision was invalid because it had been made in violation of the RFC cl

osing 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


Also the editor who banned me was Moreschi. He had only written one sentence on one small ANI, and did not respond to any of my comments at all but wrote this on the arbitration page several months later . . . "I've banned Posturewriter, as I should have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. That will save you a case, I think". Moreschi 15:36, 28 January 2009 . . . and . . .
"Actually, no, I meant an infinite 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 issue with the overturning of. 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

Of course, as was predictable, WhatamIdoing later rewarded him with a barnstar. e.g. See here and here and here

An Summary of Gordonofcartoon's lies in one section of the arbitration page

Gordonofcartoon was an extremely ill-mannered and offensive editor, and yet told the arbitrators that he had given me advice on Wikipedia etiquette.

He and his tag-teamer started most of the arguments for 12 months and lost, and he accused me of disruptive editing.

He told lies and there is evidence and proof of it, and told the arbitrators that I should have had good faith in him.

I changed a sub-title on WhatamIdoing's talk page, and that editor reverted it 3 times, and I reverted twice, which meant that WhatamIdoing violated the 3RR policy, not me.

A Miscellany for Deletion page was set up to discuss whether or not to delete or keep the essay that I wrote about their tactics, and the consensus of neutral editors was to keep it, so he lost the debate. He told the arbitrators that it was "stuck".

The RFC discussion was closed in violation of the RFC closing policy, so none of the decisions on that page had any validity. He told the arbitrators that a decision had been made to block me by the strongest consensus.

For another example of Gordonofcartoon tag teaming to subvert the Three Revert Rule see my description here

My two critics; The Rule Breaking - Rule Abiding Editors of Wikipedia???

"Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia) tells #c4news don't need new laws to combat bad behaviour on web; need enforcement of laws that already exist".

That quote comes from "Weekdays at 7 on Channel 4 - on 11-8-13.

My comment: It is impossible to enforce any rules in an organisation where one of it's 5 major principles is their "ignore ALL rules" policy.

The obvious result of that policy is that corrupt individuals or gangs of outlaws will use it to control the rule-abiding edtiors.

i.e. The people who control Wikipedia are anonymous dictators or cabals who obey no rules and demand that everone else obeys them.

The following quote comes from a commentator on the ABC TV show called "Offsiders", Sunday 29-9-13, It was said in a discussion about Australian Rules Football.
" You reduce the game to a pantomime if you don't enforce your own rules"





The symbol for the Outlaw Halo Award

The devil wearing a halo. Evil disguised as good

First of all, an example of an editor who doesn't give a dam about any of the rules of Wikipedia . . .

There is a rule about good manners called WP:CIVIL which has been developed and refined by hundreds of different editors over a period of several years. It requires all editors and administrators to be polite at all times, even in heated arguments.

However, I had the displeasure of having to respond to an ill-mannered and disrespectful administrator named Moreshci who rudely described that rule as JUNK (see here), which is obviously offensive to all of the editors who tried to make it useful.

He has the attitude that he can be as rude as he wants to anyone who, in his foolish opinion, deserves it, regardless of that rule. In fact he doesn't, and repeatedly broke it in the most contemptable and disgusting ways.

He is also the administrator who barged in on an orderly arbitration discussion, and had the cheek to use the "ignore all rules" policy to ban me, and was given the Outlaw Halo Award by my main critic for doing that. See here.

He also tries to create the impression of being a respectable admin by writing an alternative policy about good manners here, and by placing a barnstar for diligence of his User page here.

I was told that I had to co-operate with people like that?????



The Image Makers of Wikipedia

Two editors want you to believe that they are honest, respectable, rule-abiding, and trustworthy individuals who are friendly, co-operative and constructive, and who always do things properly to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information which only comes from verifiable top quality sources.

By contrast they also want you to believe that I am a worthless, non-notable, disruptive and fringy kook who uses poor quality references and writes nonsense.

The fact that they spent 12 months insisting that I comply with all the rules of Wikipedia, and then suddenly arranged for me to be banned me by using the "ignore all rules" policy should give you some indication of how untrustworthy they are, but in fact, that example, as they say, is just the tip of the ice burg of their deceitful and cheating methods. See an index to my reports about their lies and ill-mannered behaviour here.


How my two critics used the rules to gain a cheats advantage

When disgraced Tour de France cyclist Lance Armstrong was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey she asked him if he considered himself to be a cheat for taking banned drugs to win races.

He said that when he was first accused of cheating he looked up the word in the dictionary and read that it was defined as 'breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage over others. He then argued that he wasn't cheating because other cyclists were taking performance enhancing drugs, so it didn't give him an advantage.

The flaw in his argument is that it did give him an advantage over honest cyclists who were trying to win properly within the rules.

My two Wikipedia critics were much worse, and much more disgraceful and disgusting cheats who were repeatedly telling me to obey one rule after another, and inventing or interpreting rules to block me from editing, while they were pretending to be respectable.

However they were actually premeditated cheats who were imposing the rules on me, to give themselves a cheats advantage, by ignoring the rules themselves.

Furthermore, they had an end plan from the start, where, if they still failed to block me they would completely ignore ALL the rules anyway, by ambushing me with the "ignore all rules" policy.

They were premeditated and calculating cheats and there is absolutely no excuse for their utterly disgraceful behaviour.

Cheating to create an even playing field?

Lance Armstrong's view was that other cyclists took banned drugs, so all he was doing was making it an even playing field.

That equates with arguing that if one Wikipedia editor uses the "ignore all rules" policy in a dispute, then all editors should ignore all the rules in all topics and all disputes.

All boxers should put horse shoes in their gloves.

All soccer players should trip other players.

All jockeys should inject their horses with drugs.

All football players should punch all of their opponents in the back of the head and knock them out.

All accused people should bribe the judges in all courts.

All children should take cheat notes into their exams.

It is quite clear to intelligent people that the purpose of rules is to create an even and fair playing field.

When people like Lance Armstrong break the rules they are cheating, and when Wikipedia editors use the ignore all rules policy to win disputes they are cheating.

Of course cheats will try to deny, deny, deny, and make excuses, and try to justify their behaviour, but they are still cheats.

Criticising people who tell the truth?

When Lance Armstrong was accused of cheating he sued them for defaming his character, even when he knew that they were telling the truth. Similarly when I accused my two critics of breaking the rules they had me blocked for being disruptive, even though they knew I was telling the truth. e.g. See my report here.


Is there a culture of cheating in Wikipedia

Machiavellianism is the art of achieving status and power by using any unscrupulous means possible, while giving the false impression of being a respectable person of ethics and authority.

It has been successfully used by those who think that it is necessary for controlling the dumb and gullible masses, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia which aims at providing the public with the sum of all knowledge, and it is the opposite of the scientific method, and is completely useless as a way understanding or curing disease.


I was brought up to believe that it was reasonable to treat other people as I would like them to treat me, and that during games of sport it was respectable to play fair, and by the rules, and that no pride was to be gained by any victory which involved cheating.

However, since then I have become aware that some individuals are brought up with the attitude that their aim in life is to achieve status and power by any means possible, which includes gaining the advantage over rule-abiding people by ignoring all the rules themselves. See here.

As a basic example, if there was a race to be run where the rules required each contestant to carry a 20kg bag of rocks, they would be carrying a bag of feathers.

In the case of my two critics it was obvious from the early stages that they were fully prepared to lie and cheat to gain the advantage.

1. Some examples are the way they always worked as a team of two against me, so that any discussion, or vote, always started with them having the advantage of two to one. See my report on how they took turns in their tag-teaming tactics here.

2. Another example is where they would tell me that I had to provide references from independent sources, and when I did they said they were "old", and then when I provided modern ones they deleted them for another reason. It is a type of cheating which ensures that their opponent can never win, and which Wikipedia compares to field sports by calling it "Moving the goalposts". See my report here.

3; They also cheated by setting up some discussions where they wrote large volumes of criticism in a hurry so that they could get decisions made against me before I arrived to defend myself.

4. Nevertheless, by far the most disgusting example is where they combined those forms of cheating together and then arranged to get me banned by an administrator who used Wikipedia's " ignore all rules " policy. See my report below.

5. While they had previously been pretending to be members of the respectable rule-abiding Wikipedia community, who were obeying all the rules like everyone else, my main critic presented a large rant of lies about me on the arbitration page and arranged for an administrator to suddenly barge in and ambush me by using the "ignore all rules" policy to ban me before I had the time to reply.

In the summation of all those factors they were merciless cold blooded cheats who told manipulative lies to convince other editors that they were the respectable heroes, and that all of their opponents were evil villains.

See also my index to their lies and bad manners here.


The difference between the meaning of the words "rule-abiding" in normal society, and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia has an "ignore all rules" policy called WP:IAR

In normal society most people are aware of corruption at all levels, but the term rule-abiding citizen refers to someone who is honest and respectable, who accepts the rules and complies with them willingly, without needing to be forced to by any form of threat. The don't steal from others, or rob banks, and don't deliberately exceed speed limits or go through red lights in their cars, and they don't cheat when playing sport.

However, while I was involved with Wikipedia I had the displeasure of being confronted by two anonymous individuals who claimed to be "rule-abiding" members of the "Wikipedia community", and yet their actions were the exact opposite of what you would normally expect from that phrase. The told lies, and broke the rules whenever they wanted to, and I was banned by an administrator who used Wikipedia's "ignore all rules" policy, and he was rewarded by my main critic who gave him a barnstar for ignoring all the rules

If someone joins Wikipedia to help them improve it, they will need to know the difference between the real world meaning of the word "rule-abiding", and the Wikipedia meaning, otherwise they will be at risk of being ambushed by the ignore all rules policy and banned at any time.


The Two Wolves in Sheeps Clothing!
They were like criminals who learnt the laws and then dressed in police uniforms to put innocent people in jail so that they could control everything. See also here.

A brief note before my report about the rule ignoring behaviour of my two critics: About 3 years after I was banned I noticed that I could still add comments to Wikipedia discussions, so I added evidence that my main critic was a liar. I was soon blocked again by an anonymous person with the Wikipedia ID of Doc9871. He essentially brags about being a fake doctor, and a fake administrator, who ignores all the rules when it suits him, and is so irresponsible that he makes important decisions about disputes relating a medical topic. In the same period I was also blocked by another editor who calls himself Madman. See my report here.


Wikipedia Disputes Compared to Olympic Boxing Matches

A Wikipedia essay gives this advice . . . "Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow Last Word . . . and . . . In Wikipedia, even more than in real life,[dubious – discuss] getting the Last Word in a debate is crucial,[citation needed] as it is the only proof of your argumentative success over competing editors " (end of quote) here.


In a boxing match two opponents enter the ring and fight for a given number of rounds. A referee makes sure all rules are complied with, and judges decide who wins.

In Wikipedia, if two people are involved in a dispute, the administrators are supposed to ensure the rules are complied with, and decisions are supposed to be made by a consensus of uninvolved editors, which in any sensible situation involves a majority of perhaps 7 out of 10.

However, at one stage I became involved in a situation where two editors were working as one team to criticise me. They had their say in decisions so that the result was always at least 2 to 1 against me. i.e. they were a part of the dispute and yet their votes were influencing the result. When they lost a dispute they would say that it failed for 'technical or procedural' reasons, and they would set up new disputes and tell the new editors that they had won previous arguments.

Ultimately they set up an Arbitration page to get me blocked, and this is what happened.

1. My first critic presented his case and I gave a brief response.

2. My second critic presented an argument which made the result at least 2 to 1 against me.

3. I wasn't given the right of reply to my second critic.

3. An administrator rushed into a discussion and banned me on his own before 12 editors had the opportunity to make a proper consensus based decision.

4. That individual threatened to argue with any of the other 12 administrators who challenged his decision.

5. That administrator had previously been involved in one brief discussion with me, and had the opportunity to have a proper reasoned talk with me, but he didn't.

6. That administrator was a non-medical editor making a decision about a medical topic which he knew absolutely noting about. re; he didn't know if my two critics were telling him a pack of lies or not, so he was not in a position to know if their criticism of me was justified or not.

7. Some months later my main critic secretly rewarded him for banning me by 'ignoring all the rules".

In an Olympic boxing match, where complying with rules matters, my two critics would have their gold medals taken back on the grounds that the match was rigged, and they were cheats.

Wikipedia rules are not like football games

In normal games their is an umpire who wears a different uniform to the players, and a set of rules which clearly define what is acceptable or not, and have the purpose of ensuring that each team has an equal chance of winning, so that the outcome is determined by skill. If any player questions the decision of the umpire he will be sent off the field, and if the umpire makes a decision for one team which is different for the other, then arguments and hostility are likely to occur because the disadvantaged team knows that it is unfair.

However, my experience in Wikipedia was totally different. For example, two editors appointed themselves as my critics and hounded and harassed me for a year. They would give me orders, and dictate what did or did not appear on the topic page, and if neutral editors became involved they would argue with them for weeks or months, and tell them that they were incompetent until they agreed with their decision.

If they applied their methods to the game of Aussie rules football, they would deliberately break the leg of an opponent and then argue that intelligent players do that to gain a 'strategic advantage' over their 'inferiors'. If an opponent caught the ball cleanly for five seconds, they would argue that according to the "unwritten rules:" and "conventions" of Wikipedia it is not 'technically' a mark unless they hold it for ten seconds. If their opponent kicked the ball straight through centre of the goal posts. they would argue that in their 'editorial judgement' the ball was heading for the point posts, and would not be a goal if the breeze didn't carry it there, and therefore, according to the 'admittedly' 'very, very' 'complex rules of Wikipedia it is not technically a goal. They would continue to argue that way until they kicked a goal themselves, and then immediately declare that the final score was one goal to nil. See my report on the rules here.


The 'ignore all rules' mockery festival

My two critics named WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon spent 12 months criticising me in ways that were obviously ill-mannered and against the rules of Wikipedia, so at one stage I wrote an essay about it, in which I provided all of the evidence.

They then described it as an attack essay and tried to get it deleted.

Eventually an administrator named Moreschi barged in on an arbitration discussion and ignored the rules completely to ban me.

Soon after that another administrator named Horologium ignored all the rules to delete that essay. He wrote these words . . . "somebody needs to nuke that long screed on his talk page" here . . .

and then he wrote these words . . . "I went ahead and deleted the screed on the talk page. I generally tend to avoid being rouge, but I think that this, at last, is an appropriate use of WP:IAR." here (WP:IAR is an abbreviation of Wikipedia: Ignore All the Rules policy). The essay which they don't want readers to see can now be seen on my website here.

Several months went by when WhatamIdoing secretly thanked Moreschi for ignoring all the rules and gave him a barnstar called the Outlaw Halo Award for it. See my report here.


The question I present is this - Does any honest member of the public think that they can edit Wikipedia when there are other editors who ignore the rules, and where administrators can ban you by ignoring the rules, and another can delete the evidence against your critics by ignoring the rules?


One of the biggest lies told by my main critic

She wrote this to an editor named LisaW24 . . .

"I support Wikipedia's policies. I'd be happy to help you with the "learning curve" aspects, but I have no interest in violating the policies" WhatamIdoing 22:17, 7 October 2009 here.


The truth about her attitude and use of the rules (blatant double talk)

She wrote this to the editor named Moreschi who banned me . . .

"A long overdue thanks . . . The Outlaw Halo Award . . . I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks." WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009. (The Outlaw Halo award is given to editors who use the "Ignore all rules" policy) See here and here and here


Normal attitudes

The attitude of my two critics, and some of the other editors is the exact opposite to what normal members of the public would expect.

This is the sort of comment that the average sensible person would generally agree with

"Rules are rules", if you get caught speeding, or going through a red light, you are guilty, "No excuses", pay the fine."


I find it truly astonishing that my 2 critics were able to treat the rules with such utter contempt, and that the Wikipedia administrators let them.


Truly Amazing

A few years after I was banned by an editor who ignored all the rules another editor told me that if I wanted to get back into Wikipedia I would have to do it properly according to the rules. See the last comment here



First a quote from my main critic, named "WhatamIdoing", who left this message on my UserPage which has since been deleted from Wikipedia so that no-one can see it . . .

"You are welcome here, so long as you 'play the game . . . according to the established (and admittedly complex) rules. "signed WhatamIdoing 18:44 15 July 2008.. See my report here


Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws . . . Plato.


I recently heard this quote "We are a nation of laws; if the president can break the laws, we are not a nation of laws anymore".

It follows that if Wikipedia is an organisation of rules, and it has an 'ignore all rules' policy, it has not been, and is not now an organisation of rules.


"A great line in the Disney pirate movie was where Geoffrey Rush (as Captain Barbossa) explained the Code of the Pirates, this way, to Keira Knightley (as Elizabeth Swann), “… the Code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ really, than actual rules.” He was a pirate, after all." See here


The purpose of Wikipedia's 'ignore all rules' policy

From what I can recall the original principle of Wikipedia was that the rules were never meant to be treated as if they had been carved in rock, and needed to be mindlessly obeyed, but could be applied with common sense and flexibility. Consequently there was an 'ignore all rules' policy.

However, since then some extremely corrupt and incompetent editors and administrators have been using it as an excuse to delete information and ban individuals who they didn't like, when in fact, they were simply incapable of winning disputes properly, within the rules.

As an obvious example, the ignore all rules policy was never intended to be used as an excuse for bad manners, or as an excuse for using "attitude readjustment tools", or 'edit war' techniques.



I was contributing to Wikipedia for 12 months, during which time I had two main critics who claimed to be respectable??? rule-abiding editors??? editors. However, they were actually extremely ill-mannered and insulting, and they denied working as a team of two against me, and told lies, and ultimately presented another editor with an Outlaw Halo??? award for being the only one who was prepared to break the rules to get me banned. I have presented a brief account of their words below, and later on this webpage. When you read them you can see evidence that I was complying with the civility policy which requires editors to be polite even when being insulted by others, which is why Gordonofcartoon could not call me ill-mannered. He got around that problem in a typically devious way by accusing me of "low grade" incivility???

At 19:26 on 20-7-08 the editor named Gordonofcartoon wrote this about me . . "It's a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing, and I think the current editing pattern particularly fits WP:DE's description of conduct based on long-running low-grade WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches that operates "toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles". here

At 23:41 on 8-5-09, the editor named WhatamIdoing posted an award on another editors talk page thanking him for being the only member of Wikipedia who was prepared to break the rules of Wikipedia to ban me.

The full text appears in the edit script with these words . . . "A long overdue thanks . . . I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter|a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert]] in January. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 23:41, 8 May 2009. . . that text can be seen at the top of the page here

Note that WhatamIdoing's words . . . "I saw this" . . . refer to seeing an illustration of 'The Outlaw Halo' award which is given to editors who break the rules of Wikipedia, and which he then gave to another editor for being the only one prepared to step up to the plate, which refers to him banning me when no-one else would. Note also that no-one else was losing their patience except my two critics who were "tearing their hair out" because they were losing all of the arguments that they started, and that I can't recall ever calling myself a subject matter expert, and they did not provide a link to verify that their snide remark had any basis.

They think that they can justify breaking all of the rules of Wikipedia while pretending to be rule-abiding editors??? According to common sense and good judgment NOBODY can do that.


WhatamIdoing's Control of 'Ignore all rules' policy (WP:IAR) and control of interpretation

(and the TYPICAL methods of deliberately INFLAMING arguments, and vilifying all opposition)

Note that WhatamIdoing is contributing to, and manipulating and controlling the policies, including the 'ignore all rules' policy, to make them ambiguous so that any interpretation is possible based on who thinks they have 'common sense' and can argue or get 'consensus', but in fact it allows WhatamIdoing to control content by keeping the 'ignore all rules' policy a secret to establish an advantage by telling all new contributors that they must obey policies while personally ignoring them.

At 01:11 on 19-10-09 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Camelbinky would make a change that seems 100% reasonable to him. (Based on what he's said so far) I will believe his change is (1) worse than what we already have and (2) sufficiently misguided as to not be worth attempting to incorporate his ideas. I will therefore simply undo the change . . . Camelbinky will not accept the long-standing statement that editors 'should' follow policies *includng IAR) in their normal editing, so he'll try to restore his "policies are optional" idea, perhaps in a slightly different form". WhatamIdoing 01:11, 19 October 2009

At 01:16 on 19-10-09 Camelbinky wrote . . . "What is completely misleading the entire"audience" with this continued inflammatory declarations about this. I haven't changed anything, and if he let me explain I would, I would like an apology from him because he has continued on each post to make it more inflammatory, he has yet to talk about the issue, only make statements that make it seem like I'm a rogue. I'm trying to have a discussion here and it gets hijacked. The whole problem is that a discussion never took place regarding what the proper wording should be. That is all that I would like to take place. I got hijacked by this whole discussion of "policies are laws". Camelbinky 01:16, 19 October 2009

At 2:09 on 19-10-09 Camelbinky wrote . . . "It seems the whole page was written to appease those who are unhappy that IAR exists, we shouldn't have wording and portray to newbies ideas that those people hold. IAR exists and is our number 1 core principle, highest policy we have, and it gets no special treatment? I know we've gone over in a different thread that policies don't have to be NPOV, but this page is completely on the POV of punishing those that don't conform. We should encourage non-conformity and people who push the envelope and question why things are. Discussions like the one we have should occur MORE. This page basically says to a newbie "do what the policy says and adhere to it and its spirit or we kick you out, donut question it, just do it the way we've already decided on, too bad you didn't sign up earlier when we were deciding things". Camelbinky 02:09, 19 October 2009 here

At 03:05 on 19-10-09 another editor named Kim Bruning wrote . . . "Intentional ambiguity seems to be a common failure mode of the consensus system. --Kim Bruning 03:03, 19 October 2009 - who also added . . . ''Or maybe it's not a bug, but a feature"?' here

At 03:11 on 19-10-09 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Does anyone here really want to tell newbie editors that they ought to assume that the major policies are pages that they should ignore whenever it seems like a good idea at the time? WhatamIdoing 03:11, 19 October 2009 see here

At 03:55 on 19-10-09 WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Please go read the bit that says '''Editors are expected to use common sense in interpreting and applying these rules; those who violate the spirit of the rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken.''' and then come back and tell me if you're still convinced that common sense is not already required by this page. You'll find it at the end of the very section that Camelbinky wanted to change".:WhatamIdoing 03:55, 19 October 2009 here

Summary; The general discussions about the "ignore all rules' policy shows that there is no actual consensus about it, and that it contains ambiguities which allow experienced editors to use it and interpret it any way they want, and use it for any purpose that, in "their opinion", is 'common sense'??? It is regularly used to punish and block new contributors, and there are experienced editors who like it that way, because it gives them an artificial advantage, so they don't want new contributors, or their readers, or the general public to know about it, and that is also why it took me about 12 months to find out about it . In the meantime I was repeatedly being told to comply with all of the other policies, and being insulted, blocked, or punished for not complying with their constantly changing interpretations of different policies.

I do not wish to comment on the other editors who were involved in the discussions about policy, which are aimed at solving those problems, but merely point out that a person with "real" "common sense" would see how easily that rule could be misused, and how WhatamIdoing (the real scheming rogue???) was keeping WP:IAR a big secret, while using it to portray anyone who disagreed with WhatamIdoing as a villain, and ban them for the purpose of controlling content, and NOT for it's intended purpose.

Note that WhatamIdoing has made up to several hundred edits on some days, over a period of four years, and has probably spent at least 10% of that time adding, changing, or rewording policies, and telling others that their policy recommendations are misguided etc i.e. influencing or dominating policy, but here is WhatamIdoing's comment that was put on my User talk page at 20:36 on 1-8-08 . . . "I'd feel a lot less attacked if you quit blaming me for policies that I did not create and do not control. Every editor is required to comply with all policies and guidelines at Wikipedia. It is not a matter of me, or any other editor, changing the requirements on you".

Several examples of WhatamIdoing's typical deviousness can be seen in the quote above. First of all, whenever I described their policy violations they called it "attacks", and "blaming", and WhatamIdoing has not created ALL policies, but has written, changed or reworded many policies, and tried to modify many policies for the sole purpose gaining an artificial advantage over me. For example WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon almost always worked as a team of two against me, and when another editor wrote a guideline about tag-teaming, WhatamIdoing went there and made changes to the wording to get an 'excuse', or an 'out' for that practice, by arguing that some editors were accused of tag-teaming when they were just editing together?????? I will discuss that further below by including exact quotes.

Note that 90% of the time I had only two critics, and when another editor wrote an essay about tag teaming they tried to get it deleted, and then, a week after I was banned, one of them went to the policy page to alter the wording and rig the policy in their favor.

I was banned on 29-1-09, and the following change was made by Gordonofcartoon at 15;44 on 4-2-08. The name of the page was "Wikipedia: Tag team", and the name of the section where he made his changes was . . . "False accusations of tag-teaming". His addition was made to the following sentence in red . . . "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"see here

The following change was made to Gordonofcartoon's words in the same sentence seven months late by WhatamIdoing at 5:54 on 11-9-08. . . . "False accusations of tag-teaming" . . . and the words that WhatamIdoing changed to are shown in red . . . "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

Note also that there were only two of them, which is not 'every' editor, and their tag teaming failed (two to one against me), and their policy changes failed. They therefore had to cheat by using the 'ignore all rules' policy to get me banned for trumped up policy violations such as disruptive editing, and edit warring.???

My two critics were deliberately using the "ignore all rules" policy against me, and encouraging other editors to break the rules, and deliberately organising an edit war against me, but Gordonofcartoon did not tell the arbitrators that. This is what he said that he did to resolve any disputes with me . . . that he gave me "Advice on general editing etiquette and standards" . . . and . . . "Advice, again to assume good faith" . . . and he accused me of "repeated accusations of various forms of bad faith in other editors' actions". see here

Note that, at that time there were no "other" editors who were being accused of anything. Gordonofcartoon was being ridiculous by creating the illusion that he was defending "other" editors, when, in fact, he was just defending himself and his tag-teamer.

Note also that Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing were tag-teaming on the tag-teaming page in the same sentence about false accusations of tag-teaming seven months apart.

They were quite amusing.


My solution to those issues

Firstly, if the WP:IAR rule is to be used at all, then the ethical thing to do is to make it known to all editors, including those who have not read all of the policies. For example, every time an experienced editor gives instructions to obey all the rules like all rule-abiding editors, they must also give a link to WP:IAR so that the new contributors is made aware of the 'ignore all rules' policy. That will ensure that each party understands to situation properly.

Secondly; Wikipedia policy seems to be controlled and dominated by a few editors who have been involved for several years and have designed the policies to suit their own hidden agendas, or their undisclosed conflicts of interest, so one way that other groups solve that problem is to have a rotation of responsibility, such as the annual change of president, or biannual elections etc. In Wikipedia's case the policy could state that editors can contribute to policy discussions for a period of 12 months and then they should be required to stay away from such pages for 12 months to allow other editors to make all policy recommendations and changes. If they are good policies with true consensus they will be retained or improved and if not they will be replaced with something different, and not just a more ambiguous or elaborate rewording of the old faulty policies.

Thirdly, whenever there is a dispute over content, conflict of interest, or bias, and one person is blocked from the topic, then the other person, or persons in the dispute should also be blocked from that topic, and all contributions deleted, to leave what is neutral, so that previously uninvolved editors can add to it without interference from either bias. (here is what another editor named Avnjay suggested, and that my two arrogant critics would NEVER agree with. Avnjay wrote the following words on my Usertalk page at 20:36 on 3-8-08 . . . "Gordonofcartoon, I guess you might see no reason why you should not edit the pages but I suggest this purely as a way of showing good will and so as not to stir up anything controversial while Posturewriter is not editing the article." end of quote; Note that my two critics completely ignored that compromise, and deleted everything that I wrote and dominated the page, and replaced it with their version).

Fourthly, in the case of my two critics here is what I suggest: That they should not be able to edit in their area of qualification or past interest for at least a year. In particular WhatamIdoing has won a prize for an essay on fatigue, and should not be allowed to edit pages that have anything to do with the chronic fatigue syndrome, Da Costa's syndrome, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome, MCS, or any pages even remotely related to fatigue, medicine, psychology, or pharmacology. WhatamIdoing should be required to demonstrate the ability to behave properly on other pages without telling lies, cheating, or breaking the rules, and should not be able to misrepresent facts, take other editors words out of context, or speak in any manner that exaggerates the value of their own personal opinion. For example WhatamIdoing should not be able to use words like "we think this" or "the entire community is disgusted", and should not be able to insult other editors by choice of jargon such as "attitude readjustment tools", or by inventing ideas about another persons attitude, such as saying they are angry, or upset, when no such evidence exists except in WhatamIdoing's fanciful words. WhatamIoing must also edit pages to a consistent standard and not in a manner that is wildly different from one contributor to another or from one topic to another. For example, if references are deleted because they are old or from primary sources then that must be the case on all pages that they edit during that same time period. WhatamIdoing must demonstrate the ability to discuss things in a neutral, courteous and respectful manner to ALL editors, and not write in an arrogant manner, or in any manner that could be interpreted as arrogant, and should not be allowed to be patronising or appear to be patronising, and should not goad, or bait, or be sarcastic, or 'play dumb', or 'deny the obvious' to other editors in a manner that deliberately inflames discussions into disputes or edit wars. In particular WhatamIdoing should not be able to act in a tag team of two under any circumstances, but must always edit alone, and demonstrate the ability to discuss topics without using WP:IAR unilaterally, or at all, and any use of that rule will result in automatic permanent banning.

After 12 months the matter of allowing WhatamIdoing to return to favored topics should be determined by a group of 12 editors chosen at random to ensure that they aren't all personal friends or associates who have been sent secret emails to come to the rescue, or who can be influenced, pressured, enticed, bribed, or rewarded with barnstars etc. It is not good enough for editors to "seem" to be neutral, or to expect everyone to trust them when they say they are neutral, or that they have no conflict of interest or bias just because they say so, but there must be policies that ensure that they are "actually" neutral.



Editors who ignore all of the rules should not lecture everyone else about the importance of obeying them

At 18:44 on 15-7- 2008 WhatamIdoing posted these words on my Use talk page . . . "You are welcome here, so long as you 'play the game' . . . according to the established (and admittedly complex) rules".

At 18:16 on 20-7-08 Gordonofcartoon set up an RFC page to ask other editors to put a topic ban on me here

He added the following words about me at 19:26 on 20-7-08 . . . "It's a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing, and I think the current editing pattern particularly fits WP:DE's description of conduct based on long-running low-grade WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches that operates "toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles". here

At 5:18 on 26-7-08 (9 hours later) WhatamIdoing endorsed those comments here

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". here

On 10-1-09 WhatamIdoing made these comments . . . "you're wasting your time. You complain here that I made Da Costa's syndrome comply with WP:HATNOTE and WP:LAYOUT#See_also: Yup, I'm guilty as charged. It's just another example of me wanting to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't apologize for it, however . . . But I say again: You are wasting your time. You cannot change Wikipedia's policies by leaving messages on my talk page" at 18:30 on 10-1-09 here

At 20:25 on 27-1-09 WhatamIdoing again pretended to be a self-righteous rules-abiding editor while accusing me of violating the rules with these words on the arbitration page . . "I am running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues because I no longer have any hope that he is willing to apply Wikipedia's core principles, even if he understands them" here

At 15:36 on 28-1-09 an editor named Moreschi interrupted the arbitration process and banned me here

At 23:41 on 8-5-09, four months after I was banned, the editor named WhatamIdoing posted an award on Moreschi's talk page which included an outlaw halo award, and thanked him for being the only member of Wikipedia who was prepared to break all of the rules to ban me. That text can be seen at the top of the page here

The text of the outlaw halo award can be seen here

My two critics self-righteously acted "as if" they were "rules-abiding" editors on 20-7-08, 26-7-08, 1-8-08, 10-1-09, and 27-1-09, and "as if" they respected and always complied with those rules, but later rewarded another editor for breaking the rules on 8-5-09

Five months after giving Moreschi an Outlaw Halo award for breaking the rules, WhatamIdoing responded to a comment by another editor named LisaW24 a 22:24 on 7-10-09, with the following words . . . "New to Wikipedia? No. New to this dispute? I've been watching it for less than a week, and commenting on occasion. Perhaps what you meant to ask was "Are you a different person than WLU and Verbal?" The answer is definitely YES -- but, like them, I support Wikipedia's policies. I'd be happy to help you with the "learning curve" aspects, but I have no interest in violating the policies" WhatamIdoing 22:17, 7 October 2009 here

WhatamIdoing's arguments can be summed up like this . . . 'we are not violating the rules of Wikipedia because WP:IAR says we are allowed to ignore them and treat them as if they don't exist.'

A revealing combination of edits: 'Posturewriter, 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' signed WhatamIdoing 20:36 on 1 August 2008 . . . and . . . 'Moreschi, Thank you for being the only administrator in all of Wikipedia to ignore all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to ban Posturewriter' signed WhatamIdoing 23:41 8 May 2009

The Excuses that editors use for Violating their own conduct rules that relate to discussions

The supposedly rules-abiding editor??? who banned me was Moreschi. The following words relate to a discussion between Sumeagle179 and Moreschi where Moreschi tries to justify the use of foul language, and uses foul language himself, and refers to some contributors as trolls, which are all violations of WP:CIVIL. He also tries to justify the uncivil behaviour of other admins, such as ChrisO, and those who use foul language and insult people and their nationality. The civility guideline, on how to conduct discussions, requires all editors and administrators to discuss content and policy in a matter of fact manner, and to be courteous at all times regardless of what they think of the person concerned. Here is an extract from the discussion

This is Sumeagle179's comment to Moreschi

Moreschi, you must not have looked at the diffs, as you said "never in as many words", but check just [ the first one] and you see "fuck off idiot" in the summary. There are many more. Then look at his RFC, he has a long history of this behavior and it's highly inappropriate for an admin. He insults users and their nations and that doesn't help this mess at all. As for ChrisO, he's been sanctioned by arbcom 3 times before, just how many times does he have to be warned? If they can't learn to behave, even though in hell storm, they should be desyssopped. As for Avg, Kekrops, and Reaper7, yea, I could support longer sanctions too. :Sumoeagle179 20:13, 22 May 2009

Here is Moreschi's reply

"Right. So admins who have spent the last half-decade dealing with this shite are now judged by the same standards as the trolls they fought, even though they received practically no help for those 5 long years. Come on." :Moreschi 20:41, 22 May 2009  here

Here are my comments

It is relevant to say that just because a person has been in Wikipedia for five long years does not give them an excuse for using foul language and insulting people, and doesn't mean that they can win every argument that ever comes along. There are five billion people outside of Wikipedia, and some of them know how to win arguments without resorting to insults and foul language, and some of them have been involved in controversial discussions for a lot longer than only 5% of a century.

Note that I am not going to comment on the topics that are being discussed, but merely state that if the Wikipedia editors don't abide by their own rules they shouldn't write them, and they shouldn't complain about other people breaking them, and they definitely have problems if they expect intelligent people to take them seriously.

As a new contributor, I was directed to the Wikipedia discussion policy and read it, and thought it was a good idea, and complied with it for several reasons, one of which was "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". If the editors and administrators set a good, or BAD example, people will follow it.

This is what an editor named Pawell5586 wrote on Moreschi's talk page

"I don't agree with your block and I don't accept your demands. You didn't punish other people violating Wikipedia rules." signed Pawell5586 at 11:05, 29-12-09

This was Moreschi's reply

"You don't actually have much of a choice. You can either play by the rules or get banned. And yes, I will be the one doing the banning. It's as simple as that." signed Moreschi 12:50, 29-12-09. See here


Writing the rules to include 'exceptional' circumstances as their excuse to ignore them

Another devious way of breaking the rules is to influence or write them in such a manner that there is always an 'out' or an 'excuse' that can be used for non-compliance. e.g. WhatamIdoing gave these suggestions to the discussion about how to interpret "Notability" requirements . . . "'Generally' does not mean 'sometimes': it means 'usually', as in 'not' sometimes, but more than 50% of the time. 'Sometimes', by contrast, is typically taken to mean less than 50% of the time" signed WhatamIdoing 00:49 17th February 2001.

It sound honorable, ethical and proper in discussion but WhatamIdoing would use it like this . . . 'the rules can be broken for very, very, 'exceptional' circumstances, and when that fails then the WP: ignore all rules can be used, and of course WhatamIdoing was encouraging other editors to win arguments by policy twisting rather than merit.

In a very similar, and extremely ridiculous attempt at annoying me, WhatamIdoing wrote something like this . . .Just because another editor put the words 'chronic fatigue syndrome' in a section of the Da Costa's syndrome page under the sub-title of "RELATED", doesn't mean that it is actually related to it even though everything else on that list is'.
see that list here
and WhatamIdoing's ridiculous argument here


The extreme double standards

For TWELVE MONTHS my two critics were CONSTANTLY drawing my attention to an ENDLESS VARIETY OF POLICIES, and policy sub-clauses that ALL "RULE-ABIDING EDITORS", including themselves, were expected to comply with. I noted their double standards in many respects and drew it to the attention of other editors such as SmokeyJoe. Here was his reply . . . "I find the allegations of "double standard editing and dictatorship of content" to be not demonstrated to the point that there is something to act on". SmokeyJoe 10:59, 30 August 2008. . . Those comments can be seen here>

Since then WhatamIdoing has rewarded the editor name Moreschi for breaking all the rules to ban me, so there is something shameless, blatant, boastful, and therefore "obvious" to act upon. Here is evidence of the bald-faced double standards of Gordonofcartoon where I was banned by his edit war "cavalry" (an editor named Moreschi), on 28-1-09. He was fully aware that he broke the rules to do it because, on 8-5-09, WhatamIdoing rewarded him with an Outlaw Halo award.

Two months later, on 14-7-2009 Gordonofcartoon gave the following advice to another editor named Dolfrog. . . . "If you can/will function within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good. If you cant'/won't, you know where the door is" Gordonofcartoon 23:52, 14 July 2009 here

If Gordonofcartoon was to be CONSISTENT AND APPLY THE ADVICE EQUALLY TO AL LEDITORS he would tell WhatamIdoing to . . . refrain from using WP:IAR . . . and . . . "if you can/will function within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good. If you can't/won't, you know where the door is".


An extract from the page on Wikipedia:Administrators

"Administrator conduct: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others . . . Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. . . and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another" here


An extract from the Civility/Poll page

"The (civility) policy ''is'' applied inconsistently. Long term, "established" admins, for example have traditionally gotten-away with many more violations of this policy than newbie editors." Cla68 00:31, 30 June 2009 here


These words by IronDukecome from the same page
"more importantly, we should have consistency"IronDuke 00:17, 30 June 2009


An extract from the Criteria for Speedy Deletion page

(Note that at least one of the editors appears to be unaware of the widespread practice of "IGNORE ALL RULES" policy amongst the experienced editors)

On 6-9-09 Rd232 wrote these words . . . "I'd suggest that we may actually have a consensus: user talk pages shouldn't be speedied; where deletion is required, they should be referred to WP:MFD. WP:RTV would be updated appropriately. Anyone disagree with that conclusion?" Rd232 talk 01:24, 6 September 2009

Two hours later Ched gave this reply . . . Fine by me, I don't mind playing by the rules ... so long as I know what the rules are." Ched 03:47, 6 September 2009 here


An extract from the Wikipedia page on Wheel Wars

The dispute about what to do when defining a consistent policy for CSD's was called wheel warring by Oe at 1:19 on the same day, and that process is described on a Wikipedia page with these words . . .

\"In computing, the term wheel refers to a user account with a wheel bit, a system setting that provides additional special system privileges that empowerthat ordinary user accounts cannot access.[1][2] The term is derived from the slang term big wheel, referring to a person with great power or influence. . .

The term was adopted by Unix users in the 1980s, due to the movement of operating system developers and users from TENEX/TOPS-20 to Unix.[2] Modern Unix implementations generally include a security protocol that requires a user be a member of the wheel user privileges group in order to gain superuser access to a machine by using the su command.[4][2][1] . . .

Wheel War" The related term wheel war was used in early hacker culture to refer to system disruption caused by students gaining wheel access in order to log other students out or erase their files, with collateral damage caused to the work of other uninvolved users of the system.[5] . . .

Wheel war is also used by the online encyclopedia Wikipedia in its internal operations to refer to a struggle between two or more of the website's administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions-specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user, undeleting and redeleting, or unprotecting and reprotecting a page." here

An example of WhatamIdoing's devious use of covert editing methods which were used in the process of banning me


A Quick Summary

How my main critic got me banned and made it impossible for me to get back

This is a quote from the Wikipedia page called "Setting up to fail" which describes one of the many devious tactics used by my main critic . . .

"A variation on this is that an otherwise achievable objective is covertly sabotaged and undermined to make it unachievable." here


My main critic is a manipulative shrew who was so desperate to get me banned that she was prepared to tell a massive number of lies, and secretly arranged for an administrator to ignore the process of consensus and ban me. She then waited several months to thank him for 'ignoring all the rules'.

In the meantime she didn't want any of the other editors to know what she had done.

She also knew that I would be given the opportunity to appeal the decision, and get back into Wikipedia, but that it would come with these instruction . . .


"Talk about yourself, not others . . .
If you are blocked, it is because of your conduct and not of that of others. Accordingly:
Do not attack or accuse other editors, such as those you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator.
Assume good faith. It is theoretically possible that the other users who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person. But they probably aren't, and an unblock request that presumes they are will probably not be accepted by anyone.
Don't accuse the blocking admin of being involved.
Agree to behave.
If you are blocked for something you did wrong, and especially if you are blocked for a long time, you are more likely to be unblocked if you:
Admit to it.
Make people trust you again. Promise, credibly, that you will stop doing whatever got you blocked." end of quote here


My main critic secretly thaked the administor for banning me by 'ignoring All the rules'

This is what Moreschi saw when he was given the barnstar called the Outlaw Halo Award for ignoring the rules . . .

My main critic wrote . . . "I was about to tear my hair out over Posturewriter, a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert, in January. WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009. See here

This is what all of the other editors get to see in the future . . .

My main critic wrote . . . "I was about to tear my hair out over a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert in January." WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009. See here

Note that she hides my name, so that no-one else knows who she is talking about, and she says that I am a disruptive editor, when it was just her opinion, and she says that I am a self-proclaimed expert, when I never said that. Every sentence she writes is full of lies.

See my report about the administrator who banned me here


Gordonofcartoon set up an arbitration discussion to get me topic banned, and as the process continued many editors joined in with their suggestions, with some in favor and others against the ban. However, an editor named Moreschi interrupted the process and virtually told all the others that their opinions were not necessary because he was banning me on his own. I thought that it was a rather odd way of making arbitration decisions.

Three months later WhatamIdoing rewarded Moreschi with an Outlaw Halo Award in the following DEVIOUS manner where my name was visible in the edit text at the top of the page where Moreschi could see it, but was encoded in such a way that it did not appear in the page text that other readers and editors saw.Here is the DEVIOUS coded edit text that WhatamIdoing used for Moreschi to see where my name (posturewriter) appears.

 "== A long overdue thanks == 'The Outlaw Halo Award' . . . I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter| a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert]] in January. WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009  
<small>([[User:Kathryn NicDhàna/Outlaw Halo|about the award]])</small>


Here is how that text appears in the section of the page that other contributors get to read. Notice that my name (posturewriter) was coded out so that it couldn't be seen . . . "A long overdue thanks . . . The Outlaw Halo Award. . . I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert in January." WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009. See here


WhatamIdoing obviously didn't want too many editors to know that the rules were being broken to ban me because

one of them might have told me about it, or I might have read it and noticed it more easily, and I was not supposed to find out,

Another reason was that WhatamIdoing had been FALSELY accusing me of 'disruptive conduct' and yet can be seen here rewarding another editor for breaking the rules in order to disrupt the orderly arbitration process.

Notice that the reward was given three months after I was banned, and I was not able to use the information as part of my defence against numerous false allegations.

You can see the edit text at the top of the page, and the text that readers get to see at the bottom of the same page here

Notice also that WhatamIdoing was referring to me as a 'self-proclaimed subject- matter' expert, yet I can't recall ever referring to myself as an expert????, although several other editors have, and it is probably a vindictive response to me accurately referring to WhatamIdoing as a "self-described" 'instant expert' at 10:08 on 27 January 2009, the day before I was banned. See the tag-teams swift retaliation at the end of the discussion here

It is clear that WhatamIdoing likes criticising other people at every opportunity but arrogantly resents being criticised.

Note; I don't have any reason to think that Moreschi was doing anything deliberately wrong by banning me, but was under the influence of the constant insulting remarks and misrepresentation of me by my two critics.


From what I can determine Moreschi was mainly interested in classical music and opera, and had absolutely no knowledge of medical history, and based his decision to ban me on undeserved, and misplaced trust in what my main critic told him.

The Outlaw Halo award

Something to be proud of, or a badge of shame for someone who can't accomplish a task properly?


The symbol for the Outlaw Halo Award

The devil wearing a halo. Evil disguised as good

In the process of gloating, the editor named WhatamIdoing waited for several months and then furtively posted a message on the page of the administrator named Moreschi which included an Outlaw Halo Award which was given to him for being the only person in Wikipedia who was prepared to lower himself to the level of cheating by ignoring all the rules to get me banned. I have no way of proving it but I get the distinct impression that Whatamidoing had sent him an earlier private, and therefore secret email, and offered him that award as a bribe for doing the dirty deed.

If you have a look at the editors User pages you will find that they often have a collection of all of the awards or 'barnstars' that they have been granted over the past. In fact WhatamIdoing has been in Wikipedia for five years and has a long list of awards which includes attractive illustrations of stars, medals, and other colorful items. see here

Note that one of the awards appears to have been given sarcastically - "The Barnstar of Diligence For your great work on merging trivia into the main article. Tiggerjay 16:57, 30 April 2008

A second example was "The Barnstar of Persistence (in flogging that dead horse)"

This was WhatamIdoing's response . . .

"I conclude, for the sociologically minded, that the editor in question comes from a shame culture instead of a sin culture; therefore . . . it's better to steal and endlessly lie about it than to steal and confess when you're faced with embarrassingly incontrovertible evidence of your crime". signed by WhatamIdoing 06:10, 16 May 2009 here

Note also, if you look at Moreschi's User page you can only see one very impressive "Barnstar of Diligence" here

The Outlaw Halo Award cannot be seen. It is an illustration of the Wikipedia globe, with the horns of the devil on top, and the halo of a saint above. It obviously symbolises someone who does bad things while masquerading as a good guy. (a rule-violator who is pretending to be a rule-abiding editor). I assume that Moreschi regarded it as a badge of shame, and didn't want his friends to see it, so he hid it somewhere. When I did a search I found that he hid it in an archive page at 18:15 on 29 December 2009 here

I have nothing against Moreschi other than his association with a deceitful and unscrupulous editor named WhatamIdoing.

Note that it is typical for that editor to put me on a watchlist, and then tell me about it to deter me from adding information here, and then later to enter a discussion and give other editors the false impression of being calm, unbiased, and casual by saying this. . . "I've been off Wiki for a few days, and didn't realize that this discussion had started when I made major changes to the history section on Da Costa's syndrome yesterday." WhatamIdoing19:20 15 May 2008, and then proceed to write 1000 words of relentless comments involving hostile criticismhere

It is therefore typical for that editor to go to Moreschi's page several months after I was banned and say "Outlaw Halo Award - I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate". here Surprise surprise!!!!!!

Note also that WhatamIdoing was using a supposedly 'proper' watchlist as an excuse to violate many Wikipedia policies by following me around and criticising and deleting every word I wrote. For example, that is a violation of the guidelines against 'hounding', or 'wikilawyering', or 'trolling', and 'tendentious editing', and 'disruptive editing' and 'edit warring' and the 'assume good faith' policy etc. i.e. WhatamIoing is the one who was really the Wikipedia Outlaw, using the Halo as a mask.


Unsportsmanlike conduct

A quote from the Farlex online dictionary . . . "unsportsmanlike - violating accepted standards or rules; "a dirty fighter"; "used foul means to gain power"; "a nasty unsporting serve"; "fined for unsportsmanlike behavior"

"Unsportsmanlike conduct (or unsporting behaviour, or ungentlemanly conduct) is a term used in many professional sports to refer to a particular player or team who has acted inappropriately and/or unprofessionally in the context of the game. Such behaviour is not necessarily illegal according to the sport in question's rules, but is frowned upon by the vast majority of both players and spectators. The term is distinct from cheating in that it also includes conduct meant to incite others. The official rules of many sports include a catch-all provision whereby a competitor may be penalised or otherwise cited for unsportmanlike conduct. This provision allows sports officials to sanction a competitor for offenses which do not violate a specific rule, but are not considered to be in the spirit of the competition . . .

In Association Football, unsporting behaviour is punishable by a caution under law 12 of the laws of the game.[2] Popular examples include extravagant celebration.
In American basketball, such misconduct
is penalized by a technical foul as opposed to a personal foul. The technical foul is akin to a caution in that two such fouls results in an expulsion". See here and here
An example of my main critic celebrating the success of cheating against me can be seen with the presentation of an Outlaw Halo Award at 23:41 on 8th May 2010 here


The following words are extracts from the Wikipedia topic page about cheating . . . "Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others,[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules."

"An implicit agreement exists among participants that they will play by the rules and eschew unfair measures to win. Cheaters violate the rules of competition." See here


A common form of cheating occurs when a referee has been bribed. He will pretend not to see his own team members who deliberately trip an opponent, but if he sees the opponent doing exactly the same thing, he will have him sent off the field.
a coach encourages a player, or his team to cheat, and then the coach can be banned for giving the whole sport a bad reputation.

People who have the ability to win honestly and within the rules will do so, but if they can't, some individuals will lie and cheat, and try to do so in a way that avoids detection. If they get caught they will, at first, try to deny cheating, and ultimately make excuses for their actions. However, the fact remains that they are not good enough to win without cheating, and they know it.

An essay that my main critic obviously uses as an instruction sheet on how to cheat can be seen here


My two critics may not have been technically violating the rules of Wikipedia because of their use of the 'ignore all rules' policy, but . . .



The "rule-abiding rule-breaker" is an oxymoron

There have been some editors in Wikipedia who have tried to allow for an 'ignore all rules' policy to deal with situations that are not covered by the existing rules. However it was introduced in the early stages when there were very few rules, but since then many thousands, if not tens of thousands of words have been added to essays, guidelines, and policy pages, so it shouldn't be necessary anymore. Nevertheless if it still exists as a remnant of the original limitations, the fact is that my two critics have abused that policy.
For example, they must have told me to comply with dozens of policies, but they deliberately did not tell me about WP:IAR, because, if I ignored all the rules the way they did, they would lose their one-sided advantage.
Also they told me and other editors that they were rule-abiding editors who respected the rules, while at the same time they were ignoring them.
They also encouraged and rewarded other editors to ignore them.
I am an honest person and when I was young I played a lot of sport, and opponents like that were called cheats. It was also known that the best players were the role models because they never cheated. They were the example that set the standard expected of every player. The cheats were not good players, and were used as the example of how 'not' to play. They are generally sent off the field by the referee, banned by sports arbitration committees, and put to public shame by the sports media.

Even if WP:IAR is still on the books it is not an excuse to tell lies, it is not an excuse for being deliberately offensive, or for using foul language, and it is not a tool to be used for the purposes of controlling content.

The rule breaking practices used by my two critics

and the absurdity of a rule that allows all of the rules to be broken. i.e. if editors are not going to comply with policies why bother writing them.

At 23:41 on 8-5-09, four months after I was banned from Wikipedia, the editor named WhatamIdoing posted an award on Moreschi's talk page thanking him for being the only member of Wikipedia who was prepared to break all of the rules to ban me.

The full text appears in the edit script with these words . . . "A long overdue thanks . . . I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter|a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert]] in January. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 23:41, 8 May 2009 . . . that text can be seen at the top of the page here

If you scroll down the page you will see that illustration, and also notice that my Wikipedia ID (Posturewriter) has been blanked so that the other editors and general readers can't see that Moreschi was being given the award for banning me. It simply reads to them as . . . "Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert in January." WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009

Note that WhatamIdoing's words . . . "I saw this" . . . refer to seeing an illustration of 'The Outlaw Halo' award which he then gave to Moreschi for stepping up to the plate, which refers to him banning me when no-one else would.

A link to the Wikipedia page which describes "The Outlaw Halo" award provides several excuses for editors and administrators to break Wikipedia rules, which means that any experienced editor or administrator can break any or all of the rules of Wikipedia any time they like . . . in particular, when they are falsely accusing new contributors of breaking them.

For example . . . "The Outlaw Halo Award is given for whatever reason you may have, to whomever you feel like presenting it to". . . "This award may also be given to those who Ignore All Rules in an audacious way that protects the 'pedia. . . It was introduced by Kathryn NicDhàna, illegally, on March 15, 2007" That text can be seen here

If you follow all the links you will find this text . . . "What "Ignore all rules" means . . . By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist . . . They're more what you'd call guidelines, than actual rules." here

If you type in the words "Ignore All Rules"into the Wikipedia search box you will find a link to this page here. . . . . . and a redirect to this page here. . .

Notice that it can be described in full, or abbreviated to WP:IAR, or just IAR. This means that if an experienced editor wants you to know that you can "ignore all rules" he can direct you to the page with a link, but if he only wants his friends in Wikipedia to know that he is breaking all the rules himself he will just use the code IAR with no link, and an inexperienced editor won't know what is going on. i.e. they can easily rig the outcome of the discussion by making the rule requirements covertly unequal in the extreme. i.e. the new contributor has to obey every rule, and the experienced editor can break every rule.

Here are some words from the IAR pages . . . "Back when Wikipedia was just getting started, its editors discussed what kind of rules the project should adopt. The first rule they considered was called "Ignore all rules", and its earliest formulation was" . . . "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."

This is the way it is evidently used now . . . If complying with the rules properly wants experienced editors to tear their hair out, then they should ignore them entirely and go about the business of banning new contributors who easily beat them in every fair argument.
An example of my main critic referring to the routine, or "standard" use of "ignore all rules" policy can be seen here

They used WP:IAR as an excuse, not as a reason

It is understandable that some respectable editors might be tempted to ignore all the rules as a last resort to resolve difficult issues.
However, my two critics contributed to the policies, and therefore acted as if they consider themselves to be 'above the law', or 'above the rules', and that they wrote the rules for everyone else to obey, not for themselves.

They routinely ignored any rule any time it suited them, even when it wasn't sensible, or wasn't even necessary. For example an intelligent person should be able to remain calm, objective and courteous at all times. However they used used the 'ignore all rules' idea. . .

an excuse to be arrogant, insulting, and offensive

as an excuse to use foul language

as an excuse to lie about their own policies

as an excuse to combine as a team of two against the Tag-team guidelines

as an excuse to claim consensus when it didn't actually exist

as an excuse to ignore consensus when it went against them

as an excuse to delete relevant verifiable content

as an excuse to slab delete information and dictate content

as an excuse to add massive amounts of criticism to a sub-page, in violation of the tag-bombing guidelines

as an excuse to conduct a systematic long term edit war using 'attitude readjustment tools'

as an excuse to act like trolls or 'the wicked witches of the west' and be as provocative and inflammatory as possible

They try to convince the other contributors that it isn't possible to do the editing, or resolve disputes in a courteous, sensible, rule-abiding manner???


They were fully aware that they are not supposed to disregard the rules to suit their own purpose, and yet, at 16:58 on 3-9-10, one of them tried to act respectable by making a minor change to this one . . .

"Despite its name, 'Ignore all rules. does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have ''zero'' importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated." See here

There is a photo of a cars speedometer next to it with the comment . . . "Sometimes you need to draw the limit."

Unfortunately, there didn't seem to be any limit to the number of lies they were prepared to tell, or how many policies they were willing to violate. In fact they told so many lies that I can't be bothered counting them.

They would often try to convince the other editors that they were 'ignoring the rules' for common sense reasons, or editorial judgment. However, this is another quote from the same page

"Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess."

Here is a further quote . . ."Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me," you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil . . . Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing "common sense" and leaving it at that." (end of quote)

There are many things that my two critics did that were not even remotely 'common sense', and were in fact 'extremely bad judgment'.

However, here is one example. They would argue that they had to use common sense and ignore all the rules to achieve their objectives, but the vast majority of normal rule-abiding people would say . . . "if you had any common sense, and you wanted other people to obey the rules, you would obey them yourselves, and set a good example for others to follow.

Here are a couple more . . . Respect isn't given to people just because they think they deserve it. It has to be earned by acting respectable and treating other people with respect . . . and . . .

If they had any common sense they wouldn't use foul language in a public forum.

Also, if they had any common sense, they would know that there is a time and a place where foul language might be acceptable, but if they are involved in a disptue where they are trying to give everyone else the impression that they are intelligent, and in control of the situation, then that is not the time, and not the place.


Here is a set of lies that WhatamIdoing told to another editor named LisaW24 . . . "I support Wikipedia's policies. I'd be happy to help you with the "learning curve" aspects, but I have no interest in violating the policies" WhatamIdoing 22:17, 7 October 2009 here

WhatamIdoing uses the 'ignore all rules" policy as an excuse to violate every other policy, but, as the common saying goes 'you can't have your cake and eat it too.'

This was WhatamIdoing's response to another editor . . . "I conclude, for the sociologically minded, that the editor in question comes from a shame culture instead of a sin culture; therefore, it's better to steal and endlessly lie about it than to steal and confess when you're faced with embarrassingly incontrovertible evidence of your crime". WhatamIdoing 06:10, 16 May 2009 here

On 14-7-2009 Gordonofcartoon gave the following advice to another editor . . . . "If you can/will function within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good. If you cant'/won't, you know where the door is" Gordonofcartoon 23:52, 14 July 2009 here

A policy on double standards is unlikely to be written

At one stage I accused my two critics of having double standards which needed to be stopped, but Gordonofcartoon argued that such a policy did not exist, and that he wasn't going to write one, and that it was unlikely that any other editor would.

However, although there is no such policy, there is an article about it on one of the topic pages and here are some quotes from it. . .

"The term double standard . . . refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another . . . by holding different people accountable according to different standards . . .
There is a distinction to be made between double standards and hypocrisy, which implies the stated or presumed acceptance of a single standard a person claims to hold himself or herself accountable to, but which, in practice, may be disregarded." See here

The "ignore all rules" policy of Wikipedia WP:IAR

It's original purpose!

When Wikipedia started it's founders wanted a lot of people to join up and add information, so they didn't want them to be discouraged by a lot of rules. They therefore included an "ignore all rules" policy, but it was only to be used for the good of Wikipedia, and it was only meant to be a temporary measure to be deleted later as the encyclopedia grew.

However, since then millions of articles, and hundreds, if not thousands of pages of rules have been added, so the original purpose of the "ignore all rules" policy no longer exists.

Nevertheless there have been arguments, and even a petition against that policy but, as you would expect, there would be many smooth talking con men, corrupt editors, and propagandists who would like to keep that rule for the sole purpose of cheating to ensure that they maintained absolute control over any articles they wished, and so far they have managed to keep it in Wikipedia. In fact, people like my main critic want it to be used as their "major" and most important policy.

The catch cry of those con artists is something like this . . . "We lovely people ignore all of the rules any time we want, but it is only for the good of Wikipedia, honest it is. You can trust us."

The modus operandi of confidence tricksters is to gain your trust to make you believe all their lies without question, and Wikipedia's ignore all rules policy achieves that purpose.


Some quotes about the origninal purpose of the "ignore all rules" policy


The symbol for the Outlaw Halo Award

The devil wearing a halo. Evil disguised as good

"The Ignore all rules" policy was introduced by Larry Sanger who was one of Wikipedia's co-founders, and was the very first rule to consider when the encyclopedia was new and, as he said . . . "we needed participants more than we needed rules" . . . He also made the following statements . . "As the project grew" and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular 'rule' and then rejected it altogether" . . . "As one participant later commented 'this rule is the essence of Wikipedia'. This was certainly never my view. I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted etc. In a similar spirit, I proposed that contributors be bold in updating pages". signed Larry Sanger 20:24, 19 Apr 2005

"The Outlaw Halo Award is given for whatever reason you may have, to whomever you feel like presenting it to.
This award may also be given to those who Ignore All Rules in an audacious way that protects the 'pedia.
It was introduced by Kathryn NicDhàna, illegally, on March 15, 2007, after Sue Rangell [citation needed] Climbed the Reichstag to present her with a Wikihalo award, illegally, without even asking anyone to vote on it"Current revision as of 16:43 1st August 2007 (edit) Kathryn NicDhàna (keep having to refine this, apparently...) see hereàna/Outlaw_Halo&diff=next&oldid=148509630

One of my critics named WhatamIdoing gave an administrator named Moreschi an Outlaw Halo Award for being the only editor in Wikipedia who was prepared to ignore all the rules in order to ban me here

When I first saw the "ignore all rules" policy I thought that it would be a magnet for all sorts of liars, schemers, rogues, and scoundrels who would see it as an opportunity to embed themselves amongst the honest and genuine editors and achieve social status, power, and influence in Wikipedia and use it to serve their own purposes. It would make Wikipedia attractive to advertising departments, political campaign offices, and propaganda agencies, where individuals or groups could be employed to control content by adding information that was favorable to their products and to delete information that was negative, and by doing the reverse to their opposition.

They could edit widely and do a lot of routine tasks to establish the image of altruism and neutrality, and only come together when issues related to their own cause. They could then pretend to be completely independent, uninvolved, and objective individuals, when in fact, their sole purpose was to get rid of new editors by falsely accusing them of adding disruptive content that was against consensus, and therefore needed to be blocked.

Such editors would be very resistant to the idea of deleting that policy, because without it they would lose most of their power.

Some time after Larry Sanger made his comments another editor added a section called "Ignore all rules: serve all gangsters" and included these words . . . "it is absurd to enshrine the principle of civil disobedience as a rule itself. This promotes, in the most literal sense, anarchy" . . . "In practice anarchy is a chaotic mess" . . . "If the gangsters are successful, they often grant themselves titles, and through sheer tenure, assume the mask of respectability and order". singed Xiong 11:01, August 20, 2005


The "Petition against IAR abuse"

On the 20th January 2010 I wrote some brief information about how to copy the edit warring methodsand "ignore all rule" practices of my two critics and posted it near the top of one of my webpages. In the next day or so, at 19:59 on 21st January 2010, a Wikipedia editor named MickMacNee set up a "Petitions against IAR abuse", and over the next ten days more than 100 editors signed it and left comments and almost 2000 people visited the page. On the following day (22nd January) another editor set up a "Miscellany for deletion" discussion to get the petition deleted, and about a dozen editors left their comments with the result being to keep the petition. There was no indication about that petition being a response to my comments, or a coincidence of timing.


The petition states that : "We the undersigned, condemn in the strongest possible terms, any administrator that invokes IAR as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism in Wikipedia".

Some of the editors were arguing that the IAR should be kept, but only used in special circumstances, or when there is a consensus to use it.

However, other editors believe that the IAR policy is inappropriate and should be deleted in it's entirety and never used under any circumstances, so there could be a separate petition for that purpose, and I understand that the "ignore all rules" policy only exists in the English language version of Wikipedia, so the project should be able to continue without it.

My two critics arranged for one of their friends, who they referred to as the cavalry, to use that rule to barge in on an orderly consensus based arbitration page and ban me on his own, which means that they ignored all of the rules, andconsensus, for the purpose of militancy.

Criticising a policy like that may offend some genuine editors, which is not my intention so I apologise for any problems that my comments create. Also, where there were 120 comments on that petition, mine is just one comment from an outsider, not a violation of policy, not anarchy, not militancy, not activism, not disruptive, not uncivil, not anything but one comment. However, as long as the IAR rule exists anyone can find it, and anyone can copy it, and anyone can use it and claim that they are doing so in good faith.


At 15:57 on 12th February 2010 Gordonofcartoon edited a page about Blackguards which refers to the dictionary definition of Blackguard as "an archaic term for scoundrel". He added these amusing words . . . "Black Guards, armed anarchist groups formed after the Russian revolution".


What other editors think of 'ignoring the rules' policy

Here is a selection of what other editors of Wikipedia have said in the petition against the 'ignore all rules policy"

7. "Because Power corrupts" (by an editor whose ID is Power.corrupts) 21:43, 21 January 2010

8. I do not see the point of having any policies or procedures at all if this kind of 'wikianarchism' is allowed to continue." DuncanHill 21:55, 21 January 2010.

10. IAR was never supposed to mean 'Screw you suckers. I'm the one with the big stick'". Apoc2400 22:04 21 January 2010

13. Invoking IAR to justify large numbers of actions is always a bad idea. This is especially true of administrative actions Hut 8.6 22:38, 21 January 2010

18. Per Duncanhill especially, and because if IAR is justifiable on more than one side of a debate, it becomes justifiable on no side. Resolute 1:01 22 January 2010.

20. Admins are subject to policy too. At least I keep hoping that's the case JohnWBarber 3:10, 22 January 2010

23. Per Apoc2300. Falconian 3:43, 22 January 2010

33. Per Apoc2400 and DuncanHill. GRuban 13:09 22 January 2010

34. Hell in A Bucket (the editors ID was Hell in a Bucket) 16:17, 22 January 2010

35. Sole Soul (the editors ID was Sole Soul) 17:23 22 January 2010

36. I think it's a bad and poorly written policy, contributing to all manner of problems Zaereth .17:39 22 January 2010

48. If you push against anything it will push back, this is not very conducive to a colloquial atmosphere. If it is your way or the highway then the highway starts to look very inviting. Off2riorob 21:57 23 January 2010

60. Sounds like a no brainer to me the way its stated. I've seen people use IAR as an excuse to not AGF, or even to go so far as to have sockpuppets. Luminifer 7:19, 24 January 2010

67. The abuse of IAR has been taken not only by admins, but by many editors in general. bahamut0013 19:15 24 January 2010

68. Further there are enough 'rules' in place . . . that an abusive Administrator can find an excuse to look like their actions are justifiable. And deeper still, Administrators will support their own kind. Everybody thinks their own opinion is right, but someone with power is more right. Remember the Cold War. 'Might is right'. Trackinto 19:55, 24 January 2010

70. Democracy rules. Let's end the Wiki-Fascism Coldplay Expert 4:01, 25 January 2010

85. The unruly militant rabble needs to watch their ignorance of rule abidance. Jack Merridrew 23:35, 26 January 2010

92. I have not really come across the same type of admin behaviour in other language versions. I find it extremely divisive, and if you clearly demonstrate an attitude as admin that you're above the rules that apply to other editors, my opinion is that you have shown yourself undeserving of admin status. Tomas 21:30, 27 January 2010

93. Certainly. In 1.5 years of editing Wikipedia, the recent abuse of IAR - and arbcom endorsement of it - is by far the most upsetting thing I've witnessed. ThaddeusB 22:17, 27 January 2010

96. I'm sick of people using IAR to get their own way. Steven Zang 8:31, 28 January 2010

100. I do certainly feel that IAR isn't a license to crush, kill, maim, and destroy Frank 1 2:47, 29 January 2010

117. Support. Like any human organization, Wikipedia is in constant danger of becoming ruled by those editors who enjoy ruling more than editing. Administrators need to be reminded that their powers are not earned rights or badges of superiority, but merely tools that will be ended only as long as they are properly used. Jorge Stolfi 18:28 5 F3bruay 2010


How 'ignoring the rules' became policy

Only six editors were needed

There are thousands of regular editors in Wikipedia, so you would expect that there were many weeks of thorough discussions involving hundreds of editors when determining each of their five major policies. However, the 'ignore all rules' idea was presented early in it's history when there weren't many rules and common sense would be needed to determine some issues, but since then hundreds of pages of essays, guidelines, and policies have been written, so it shouldn't be necessary any more. Nevertheless, between 8 and 10 April 2008 only six editors discussed it with only four supporting it, one abstaining, and one strongly opposing it, when another editor wrote these words . . . "Made official policy - clear consensus" --A101, 11:08, 13 April 2008. After that decision was made another three editors supported it and one strongly opposed it but retracted his statement. However, it would only require four editors to revert the original decision. see here

There are some editors who were arguing that some 'newbies' don't understand the fact that the rules can only be ignored if it is for the best of Wikipedia and if common sense and consensus are included in the decision, as well as the general idea of not needing to stick to them blindly or rigidly. However, just because someone is new to Wikipedia does not mean that they are 'young', or that they are criticising that policy because they are ignorant of those facts. It is because they have had enough experience to see how easily it can be used by unscrupulous editors as an 'excuse' for ignoring the rules. They would argue that they did something because there is an exception to every rule, or because they were being rude because the other person deserved it, or because they have common sense and the other person doesn't, or because they have consensus from a biased group of editors who all agree with them so the rules don't matter etc etc.

A better policy would be this -you may use common sense when applying the rules, but you should never 'ignore them' to get the outcome you want. Always remember that Wikipedia was set up to get all knowledge from all people, not just your opinions that are supported by your sources, or your best friends, even authority groups. In the past, knowledge would have been more accurate if Negroes were able to dispute the white scientists mainstream claim that blacks should be slaves, and if women were able to dispute the claims that they were intellectually inferior because their brains were smaller than mens.

If any editor wants to dispute that suggestion then they should argue with negroes and women.


Summary: Abuse of the ignore all rules policy

The basic justification for the ignore all rules policy is that it can be used to solve disputes when all other methods within the rules have been tried, and failed. Therefore anyone who ignores the rules for the sole purpose of winning disputes, while other 'rule abiding' processes are active, is considered to be an abuse of the ignore all rules policy.

My two critics set up an arbitration discussion to get me blocked, but I noticed that they had told many lies there so I advised about a dozen independent arbitrators that I would give them my final response at the end of the week.

My two critics knew that I would be preparing the links as evidence to prove that they were lying, so they deliberately disrupted the orderly, rule compliant procedure, by getting one of their friends to disregard the rules and rush in and ban me before I could give that evidence.
Their behaviour use of the "ignore all rules" policy to disrupt an orderly arbitration discussion was therefore an abuse of the ignore all rules policy.
Proof that one editor ignored all the rules to ban me can be seen here


Take some responsibility and Permanently Ban the hypocrite

Here is an example of my main critic trying to act respectably by suggesting a change to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia which are called the five pillars, or WP:5P . . .
"Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. WhatamIdoing 03:38, 27 September 2010

See here

Note the extreme hypocrisy of that editor who has previously had the cheek to describe the five pillars page as "just and essay", that has no more value than "a grain of salt", and who actually uses the 'ignore all rules' policy to ignore every principle and policy of Wikipedia

Somebody in Wikipedia needs to take some responsibility and ban that individual permanently


The Ignore all Rules policy as it is actually used in practice

The Ignore all Rules policy appears to have been written with good intentions such as this . . . 'Anyone can ignore all of the rules at any time, to suit any purpose, as long as they honestly believe that it is for the good of Wikipedia, and they can get a consensus of other editors to agree.

However, in actual practice it is a magnet for double talking rogues who will simply use it as an excuse to cheat when they haven't got enough brains to win a dispute on the basis of merit.

It provides a massive advantage to editors who have been involved for several years and have established a network of friends and allies who share the same objectives or prejudices, and who keep WP:IAR a closely guarded secret from new contributors, and use it to ambush or sabotage the proper arbitration process if it isn't going to get the outcome they want



What the public has a right to expect about honesty and rules in Wikipedia

There is an essay in Wikpedia called "WP:Honor system" which makes the following statement that is supposed to apply to all editors . . .

"On Wikipedia, much of our editing is an honor system. This means that editors are trusted to obey all the rules and do the right thing. There is no central authority and no police force, just the assumption of good faith" (end of quote). See here

However my main critic ignores all the rules, and encourages her friends to ignore all the rules, and rewarded the editor who banned me for ignoring all the rules. She wants the Ignore all rules" policy to be the major policy in Wikipedia, and she told me that I was violating the "Assume good faith" policy for criticising her lies.



The predetermined ambush tactics of cheats

For 12 months my two critics told me that everyone in Wikipedia had to obey all the rules, but from the very start they knew that if they couldn't win any disputes by obeying the rules themselves that they would routinely cheat and ambush me by instantly using their favorite "ignore all rules" policy which of course revealed them as being ridiculous pretenders of respectability. The following quote reveals that my main critic is a pompous hypocrite who advises other editors about the unethical nature of 'last minute electioneering'. See here

That individual arranged for an administrator to barge in on an arbitration discussion and ban me, and complete the process almost immediately so that I didn't have the opportunity to reply to their litany of lies. See here

The banning process was disgusting and offensively ridiculous.

It is obvious that some of the experienced editors are insisting on keeping the "ignore all rules" policy to give themselves an unfair advantage in disputes by using it to subvert all of the rules, but hey expect everyone else to believe that it has a respectable purpose.



Does "image" have more power over "your" mind and attitude than "reality"

My main critic wants you to believe that she is one of the most respectable "rule-abiding" citizens of Wikipedia, who has won all all of her disputes on the basis of the intellectual superiority of her arguments.

However, in reality, she is an ill-mannered, and short-tempered woman who gave an Outlaw Halo Award to the administrator who banned me, which is a reward given to editors who used Wikipedia's ignore all rules policy. In fact, she recommends that the "ignore all rules" policy be considered to be the major rule.

The following words come from the Wikipedia article called "Cheating".

"Circumvention of rules . . . can also be considered cheating" See here

My full report on her deliberately ignoring any and every rule at any time she wants, can be seen below.


The control of world knowledge

I don't think it is appropriate for the knowledge of the world to be under the control of anonymous individuals with hidden agendas, or the highly paid agents of major corporations, political groups, or governments who use "attitude readjustment tools", and conduct covert "edit wars", and use the "ignore all rules" policy to selectively eliminate contributors and content from Wikipedia.

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato


The content is being controlled by a policy cheat

My two critics told me that the brief description of my theory on the Da Costa's syndrome page took up undue space, so I abbreviated it, and then my main critic said she didn't want it at all and deleted it again so I didn't put it back. I then started writing about the history of the topic, including the discovery of the cause of the breathlessness, and I was told that it was a violation of the synthesis policy, where. It was obvious to me that they didn't care about the accuracy of the article, but were just using the policies as a way of beating me in arguments so that everything I wrote was deleted, and the only information remaining would be their opinion.

My main critic is now rewriting the policies so that 'editorial judgement' and 'editorial discretion' can determine if policies are applied. For example, supposing you are an honest person and join Wikipedia to add factual information to a topic. If my man critic doesn't like you or the information, or if a major company is paying her a lot of money to keep the information out, then she will tell you that you are taking up too much space, and violating the synthesis policy, and then, if you prove that you are not she will say that, in her editorial judgment you are. Of course, she always exaggerates her own personal opinion by saying something like this . . . 'We the entire Wikipedia community of several million editors are using our editorial judgment to delete your contribution. If you then win every argument against her for the next six months she will get one of her friends to ban you by using the 'ignore all rules' policy.

In other words she is writing and using ambiguities and double talk, and every trick in the book to give her 100% control of all disputes and content. e.g. see here and here

Her ideas can be contrasted with to the road rules where you are either exceeding the speed limit or not. The judge doesn't give a dam about what excuses the driver presents.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Up until the time of Charles 1 of England the kings considered themselves to be above the law. However social protests brought about changes which allowed him to be put on trial. He was found guilty of tyrranny and exectued by an axeman who chopped off his head. Soon after that judges started to act as if they were above the law, but nowadays civiliised society has ways of preventing that type of magalomaniacal behaviour.

Nevertheless Wikipedia was started with very few rules, so it was deemed necessary to ignore them in difficult situations. However the intitial members would have thrived and survived, and gained positions of power or influence by abusing that principle.

As time went by thousands of pages of rules or policies were invented to cover the trivialist of situations.
Despite that fact many editors have tried to write plausible reasons for keeping the redundant and superflous "ignore all rules" policy.

While those principles may appear to be written with the best of intentions, in practice it can be, and obviously is often used as an excuse for experienced editors to act as if they are above the rules and can arrogantly do anything they want.

For example, while recommending that the rule be kept secret from new contributors, my main critic was advising friends and associates to treat is as the major policy, which literally gives an unruly gang of experienced editors absolute control over any 'newbie' and any content.

Furthermore the administrator named Moresci who banned me, has left this comment on his User talk page . . .

"I'm a sysop. Sysops, or admins, are trusted members of the Wikipedia community. This means I'm supposed to obey the rules. However, there are a couple of circumstances under which I may find it appropriate to ignore the rules . . . 1. I feel the encyclopedia will be improved by doing so . . .2. The need to protect Wikipedia, both the encyclopedia and the community, is so great that ignoring the rules is justified . . . 3. I really want to." signed Moreschi see here


While that "ignore the rules" rule exists, Wikipedia will always be perceived as, and will actually be an 'uncivilised tyrranny' controlled by the encumbants.

See more about Moreschi's ideas and interpretation of the rules, and his actual behaviour here


Wikipedia is becoming a secret society outside of public control

When I joined Wikipedia I was made aware that everything that was written would be on the permanent record, so I was always polite, and complied with all of their rules. By contrast my main critic was an ill-mannered pig and a prolific liar who had been there for four years and knew that the statement wasn't true. She was always ignoring the rules, because she knew how to use and abuse the 'ignore all rules' policy, and she knew all about the secret tools which enabled her to delete information, entire articles, either as an anonymous vandal, or by Wikipedia processes, or by using secret tools which enabled editors or administrators to archive or 'hide' evidence and proof of her 'guilt'. She keeps on adding ways of keeping information and evidence a secret, and is an expert at abusing those tactics to suit her own personal agendas. e.g. see here



Contradictions in the guideline and policy interpretation

Wikipedia has a page called "The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays". Just before it was edited by my main critic it contained the words on the left, and just after the words on the right.


Before - "Don't ignore guidelines and essays just because they aren't policy." After - WP:Ignore all rules is a major policy"


See here and here,_guidelines_and


My main critic is trying to establish the ignore all rules policy as the major basis for the relatively new internet encyclopedia, which will make it as lawless as the early stages of the wild west. My two critics together are the modern equivalent of the teaming up of the outlaws Jessie James, and Billy the kid.


Another contradicory statement by my main critic - The statement on the left contradicts the one on the right

"Um, since 5P was written in 2005 (you know, four years after the project started?) I don't think that it's reasonable to describe it as having "always" been anything. For the historical perspective, you might like to take a look at the essay's own talk page archives, paying particular attention to the comments by its original authors that clearly state that 5P is neither a policy nor was ever intended to be one." :WhatamIdoing04:09, 25 November 2010

"WP:Ignore all rules is a major policy"

Note 5P is an abbreviation of the five main principles of Wikipedia, called the five pillars, and WP:IAR was one of them.


Here is a quote from the top line of the Wikipedia article called The Five Pillars "The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are summarized in the form of five "pillars"

The first pillar is a general introduction to the nature of the online encyclopedia,

This is the second pillar states "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" with a link to the NPOV policy

The top lines of that page have these words "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

The third pillar refers to it being free but having respect to copyright and is linked to "Wikipedia:Copyright violations" which has the following words on the top line

This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations"

The fourth pillar starts with these words "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner" with a link to Wikipedia:Civility which has the following words near the top line "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy

This is the fifth pillar

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules"

Those words are linked to a page called "Wikipedia ignore all rules"

The top lines of that page have these words "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.


See here

and here

and here

and here

and here

and here


According to the Wikipedia page which describes the five pillars they are the founding principles which are generally regarded as the basis for everything else, and four of the pillars are policies.

According to my main critic it isn't a policy page, and was never intended to be one, and the major one is the 'ignore all rules' policy?

I am truly astonished by that individuals blathering nonsense.


Internet Harassment or cyberbullying in Wikipedia

In the Machiavellian principles of behaviour individuals maintain a public image of respectability which is the exact opposite of their ruthless, unscrupulous, deceitful, and scheming private attitudes that are aimed at gaining status and power over others.

Such behaviour is also regarded as a form of sociopathy and mental illness.

My two critics were Machiavellian in the way they pretended to members of the respectable rule-abiding community, when in fact it was obvious to me that they never cared about the rules at all, except for how they could use them to boss everyone else around.

In fact, whenever my main critic lost an argument she would rush off to add a loophole in one of the rules to make it easier for her to win the same argument with the same lies in the future. The most ridiculous example is where they both changed the article about tag-teaming so that, in the new meaning, when two people always took turns editing against another person it wasn't always considered to be tag teaming.

However various forms of harassment were part of their methods of driving other editors away from topic pages or out of Wikipedia and they included . . .

Watchlist's - where they put other editors on watchlists and checked every page they edited to delete any changes they made, or to add any items or comments to other lists to be used against those individuals later. See here and here.

Attitude readjustment tools, or Lart tools for "Lusers" where they would arrange for their friends to enter discussions and incite and inflame anger in them until they reacted with hostility and could be banned for uncivil behaviour. See here.

Strategic rudeness where they justified their own ill-mannered behaviour and tried to give the impression of being people of authority dealing with inferiors. (Like shysters in a courtroom harassing an accident victim until he became a nervous wreck and stopped making his claim for compensation). See here.

Edit war jargon - they used the jargon of edit wars when discussing other editors by frequently referring to them as newbies or cattle or trolls and trouting them etc. See here.

Tag teaming, where one of them would accuse another editor of breaking a rule, and the other would agree, and then delete whatever information that person had added, and continue taking turns in that manner until the other individual left Wikipedia in disgust. See here.

Forum Shopping where they would set up a discussion to get support for their criticism of another person, and if they failed, they would set up another, and another, and another, until they had enough editors to block or ban the individual .See here.

How my main critic understates the notability of an incident

If there was a hurricane which killed 100,000 people, and one man died when a branch fell off a tree and cracked his head open, the weatherman would report that the cause of death was the hurricane, the doctor would report the cause of death as a fractured skull, and my main critic would report that it was due to the maladaptive behaviour of an idiot called Bill Smith, of 22 Bloggs avenue, on a rainy day.