My co-operation with the neutral editors of Wikipedia

In December 2007 I found an article called Da Costa's syndrome which had been in Wikipedia for about fifteen months, and yet it had only four lines of text, and absolutely no references.

It also had an invitation to help improve it so I began adding information.

However, almost immediately two arrogant individuals started insulting me and criticising and deleting almost every word I wrote almost every week for a year. One of them also hounded me to every other topic page and made sure that everything was criticised or deleted there as well. See here.

However, in September 2008 two neutral editors joined the discussions and suggested that the issues could be settled if each of the three of us produced an essay outside of Wikipedia where we would all be free of interference, and thenn submit them to the previously uninvolved neutral editors and let them make an unbiased decision about which one was the best, or which aspects should be merged into one to represent the neutral point of view of the topic.

I was more than happy to do that and began soon after, but my main critic was fond of 'playing dumb', and typically pretended not to notice or act upon the suggestion, and her constant tag-team mate arrogantly refused by saying that he was 'fed up' with the whole matter.

When I completed the essay and submitted it to a subpage the first comment by the neutral editor was that it was a lot better than the existing one.

I then began co-operating with him in a courteous, friendly co-operative manner, to improve it and ensure that it met all of the requirements of Wikipedia's standards and rules.

However, when my main critic saw the comment that my version was better than hers she became furious.

She had been controlling the article like a dictator and had no intention of letting anyone other than herself decide anything, so instead of attempting to write a better essay, she cut and pasted mine onto one of her own subpages, and subjected to 80 trivial nitpicking criticisms. She then started arguing with the neutral editor and telling him and other editors in many other discussions a massive amount of lies about me and the topic.

I could see that she was telling such a massive number of lies at such a rapid speed, in so many places, that it would be impossible for me to defend myself properly, and that she would soon manage to get me banned.

I therefore kept copies of all of the discussions so that I could deal with her later.

In the meantime both of my critics told their lies to a group of about fifteen arbitrators when an administrator barged in on the dispute and banned me before the neutral editors had time to make the decision.

Amongst their large number of lies was their claim that I was a rude and unco-operative person who had been disrupting their attempt to turn the topic into a little gem of an article which represented neutral point of view. They also argued that I was exhausting the patience of the entire Wikipedia community.

After I was banned the subpage where I was politely and happily co-operating with the neutral editor was deleted.

Conveniently for them, none of the future editors, administrators, arbitrators, readers, or members of the public were ever likely to see it.

I have therefore pasted a copy of that discussion for everyone to see below.

Da Costa’s Syndrome Subpage talk page from 28th September to 9th November 2008

A period of about 6 weeks

User talk:Posturewriter/DaCostaDraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Posturewriter
Contents [hide]
1 Response to Avnjays Solution to the Da Costa's Syndrome Rfc discussions
2 Your Article
2.1 History section
2.2 Introduction


Response to Avnjays Solution to the Da Costa's Syndrome Rfc discussions
Avnjay; Thankyou for setting up this subpage on 30-8-08 here [[1]] and for providing the reference window on 26-9-08 here [[2]]. I have just added the text for a Da Costa’s syndrome article as I advised three weeks ago. It is consistent with the layouts that I have seen on similar medical pages. The history section is provided in chronological order to present the outcome of heated debates and conflicts of opinions, and advances in medical research findings from 1864 through to 2000 when, despite criticism from some authors, the diagnostic term fell into disuse in the general literature. I have therefore commented on the links with modern terminologies in the summary. The painting of a typical Da Costa’s patient in Paul Wood’s book would be ideal for the page, so if you can’t access it I could provide a copy for you to check in relation to copyright etc and load it onto the page. The painting is probably over 100 years old. I hope you find the article acceptable, and if you have any comments on how to improve it in relation to content or policy I will respond next Sunday Posturewriter (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)posturewriter


Your Article
Hi Posturewriter. Firstly: Well done, this appears to be an excellent article, well sourced, and a lot better than the one that is already up there in format and detail. A few little things I picked up on my first read through:
In the 1950-1999 section, third paragraph the second quotation needs closing quotation marks at the end, not sure where this is otherwise I would have added it myself. Is this paragraph all sourced from the book by White?
In the 200-2008 section I got slightly confused by the immediate references to 1916 and 1956 and generally a little lost in that paragraph. Do you think you could restructure it a little? You also link to a number of Wikipedia diffs rather than to pages - this also happens in the Symptoms page. Wasn't sure what it was you wanted to link to so haven't changed anything!
Will ask for some other opinions but I think this is a neutral article with no evidence of COI or synthesis or anything! Well done, again. AvnjayTalk 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had any more recent sources as well as the most recent one I can find listed is 1997. I appreciate much of the references are to do with your history section and so are bound to be from quite a while ago. However, it would be good to have one or two sources from recent years, especially as there is a section on 2000-2008. Although you do point out that the term has fallen into disuse and so finding a source might be difficult. AvnjayTalk 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Avnjay; Thank you for your edits and suggestions.
In the past week I have added a small paragraph on prevention, and have linked the statements about symptoms and causes etc. to the references.
I have also included the edits of yourself and the anonymous editor.
Regarding your question about the 1951 paragraphs in the history section, all of the comments are derived from chapter 22 of Paul Dudley White’s book [1].
Regarding your suggestion about the 2000-2008 section I have amended the title and description in response to your request for clarification.
Also, in response to your request for a more recent reference I have added a definition of neurocirculatory asthenia from the Merriam Webster Online Medical Dictionary which is consistent with the descriptions from the history of Da Costa’s syndrome research [3].
Thank you again for your comments. If you have any further suggestions or questions I will respond to them next Sunday 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Hello Posturewriter. I am sure you will see that I've made a fair few changes, mainly to the style of the article. I have collated all the references that were cited multiple times and changed a couple of formats to come in line with the Wikipedia manual of style. I have also added a few references that were in the current article that fitted neatly into yours, mainly because they were a lot more recent. I asked WhatamIdoing to have a glance over the article and two things she picked up on were: not enough up-to-date sources (WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence) and that some of the quotes were very short and so can have their context questioned. I would definitely recommend finding some more sources from the last few years - have a look at the current article as I think there are some there.
Also in the second half of the history section there are a few orphaned quotation marks that need some attention - I'm not sure where they are meant to be. It might be worth reviewing your use if quotations to check that they are accurate and referenced so that people can look them up. I think this is mostly the case already though.
This article may well come under more scrutiny than many other articles written on Wikipedia so do be prepared for lots of suggestions. However, at the end of it all I really believe we can produce a brilliant article. Keep up the good work! AvnjayTalk 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


History section
I've done quite a bit of work of the first of these sections to try and provide a chronological history of the syndrome with as many sources as possible. The whole section needs to be slimmed down somewhat as it is a little long and over-detailed. Also some of the stuff could be moved to the symptoms or predisposition section. AvnjayTalk 09:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to have a huge amount of time over the next few weeks to tackle the remaining sections so it would be brilliant if you could. They need generally to be slimmed down and to tell the historical story of the syndrome. See if some stuff can be moved to the other sections if you find yourself in a lengthy discussion about a symptom for example. A couple of other things that need attention which have been pointed out to me is the current diagnosis of MVP being something different from DCS though in the 1950s it was thought to be part of DCS. Some of the symptoms, pre-dispositions are therefore related to MVP and not DCS. Secondly, beware of your Streeten reference (no. 29) which is in an editorial rather than a peer reviewed article and so may not be accepted as a reliable source. Thanks for you continued hard work. AvnjayTalk 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Just to explain what I did to the introduction. The first line was "Da Costa's syndrome is a disorder of unknown origin" which then had three sources. The trouble is that two of the sources were from a long time ago and the other was relating to CFS, with a tiny mention of Da Costa but was still 12 years old. Seeing as the WHO does list a cause for it I felt the intro should be re-worded. Also when talking about people it's best not to hype them up at all, especially if they have a Wiki link, but let the user check for themselves if they want to - that's what the ref is for. This ensures that the reader is not led to give one source undue weighting. I'm sorry if I seem to be chopping up and changing your article but I hope you see it as positive and helpful contributions. If we are ever to get other editors to accept it these are changes that have to be made. Have a good day. AvnjayTalk 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Avnjay: thankyou for the improvements to the reference section and the wording of the introduction and 1863-1899 history section.
My comments are that there were many nineteenth century studies on the relation between tight clothing and health with the evidence eventually demonstrating that they were a cause of such problems e.g. here [[4]]. Also please note that the WHO category of ‘Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction’ is not included in the latest 2007 editions of the Dorland’s, and Merriam Webster’s Medical Dictionaries, whereas many of the synonyms directly related to the Da Costa study have prevailed for almost a century, and are still listed in Dorland’s.
Also, prior to starting the draft for this page a few weeks ago I had a look at some of the policies on sourcing and layout etc, and how they were applied to other medical pages, to make this a similar or better standard. Other pages are sometimes shorter but many other pages are much longer than this one e.g. the asthma page which is constructed with a very large number of primary sourced information with a total of 94 references, and other pages have a varied choice of primary, secondary, and tertiary references e.g. the varicose veins page, and there are some pages some where the majority of contributors are unaccountable anonymous contributors, with non-existent, or very few, or poor quality references, most of which are not linked to the text, and where there are a large number of non-typical sections included without being edited, changed or deleted, such as the Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome page
I note in particular that policy specifically provides for history sections to be verified from reliable sources of the period, and I have highlighted the dates of research reviews or findings to provide a chronological, and therefore convenient way for readers to review and check the progress and context of ideas.
I have also already made considerable abbreviations of texts to shorten the page to encyclopedic length, such as comments on Oglesby’s study being reduced by 90% from here [[5]] to paragraph two here [[6]], and similarly with MacKenzie and Caugney. I aimed at minimising duplication of synonyms and research observations, while at the same time keeping the information which distinguishes this syndrome from many others which overlap to cause confusion.
I therefore don’t wish to abbreviate it any further, but you can have a go at it if you wish, and I will comment later.
Regarding the latter half of the page, I have used general section titles, based on the recommended ones, with additional sections useful to this topic to show important aspects of the condition in a practical modern context, with the information derived from, and linked to the history references for verification.
I have also amended, or added new reference links to some which you deleted as problematic, for you to check if necessary.
I appreciate the many hours that you must have spent verifying the information and improving the page. If you have any more suggestions please let me know and I will respond next Sunday Posturewriter (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Avnjya; P.S. Just a quick note on your comments today; the cause of Da Costa's syndrome has still not been discovered, proven or accepted convincingly, hence it is generally stated that it is "considered to be" caused by such and such, depending on the writers opinion, and I have mentioned that Paul Dudley White etc were from Harvard, because the reviews could otherwise be portrayed as out of date and insignificant, which isn't true. His credentials are impeccable. Your current editing of this article is excellent Posturewriter (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Avnjay; I have added some more links between the text and the references today.
In response to your request for more information about MVP I have amended the Charles Wooley article which introduces that topic which is also covered more fully on another wiki article page by that title, so it isn’t necessary for me to discuss it further here. I have also added some references on the incidence of DaCosta syndrome in relation to pregnancy.
In response to your other request for some more modern references I have added one from 2008 which describes the history as including Da Costa’s syndrome, Neurocirculatory asthenia, Mitral Valve Prolapse syndrome, Orthostatic intolerance, and the Chronic fatigue syndrome. I have added another one on orthostatic intolerance and CFS to support the first.
Thankyou for your suggestions for improving the page. If you have any more questions I will respond next Sunday Posturewriter (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter


Hi Posturewriter. We need to tackle the subject of CFS in this article. It's stated in a number of places in the article that Da Costa's Syndrome is a form of CFS. However, we need to take a more careful look at the sources:
? The ORTHOSTATIC INTOLERANCE source says "It is similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome" but falls some way short of actually saying they are the same.
? The conclusion of the Is chronic fatigue syndrome synonymous with effort syndrome? paper is that patients exhibiting "effort syndrome caused by chronic habitual hyperventilation" should be diagnosed as such and NOT with CFS, ME, or PVS. It doesn't deal with any other kind of effort syndrome and doesn't mention NCA/irritable heart/Da Costa.
? The The Nature of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome editorial starts with "It has been speculated that the severe fatigue associated with neurocirculatory asthenia, termed irritable heart syndrome by Da Costa and soldier's heart by Lewis during World War I, were early descriptions of the symptoms of orthostatic hypotension" and then doesn't mention Da Costa's again. Needless to say this cannot be considered a definitive source.
The only other source quoted is the Heart Disease book by White, which is not available online and so I cannot check. I'm going to re-work the article a fair bit to allow it to reflect this. If you can find some modern sources which categorically state that Da Costa's can be considered a part of CFS then we can re-consider it. I appreciate this is a large change so I hope you are happy with it. It's things like this that will stop other editors agreeing with it. AvnjayTalk 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Avnjay; Thankyou for your questions about CFS links with Da Costa’s syndrome. Please consider the following matters if you reword the article.
Da Costa studied more than 300 soldiers with a set of symptoms (a syndrome) that included (fatigue) which started with a viral infection etc. and persisted for many years (chronic) after the infection subsided (post-viral).
Paul Dudley White studied this subject for more than fifty years before, during, and after two world wars, and is the most prominent and credible authority in the history of this research. In his 1951 book, on page 578, he wrote “it constitutes a kind of fatigue syndrome” . . . and . . . ”it is more or less a chronic condition.”
The fact that this condition is a “chronic” . . . “fatigue” . . “syndrome “ is clear enough, however the modern label of “chronic fatigue syndrome “ has been defined by many different groups but there has been confusion because, as has often been reported, several similar conditions are being considered together.
I have therefore refrained from saying that they are the same, but that Da Costa’s syndrome is a condition that has been “absorbed into” the complex CFS group, and is in effect a subtype.
Regarding Streeton’s article: I used it because his paper was published in JAMA which is recommended in Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source for medical articles here [[7]]. His paper is supported by 10 references, including Da costa’s and Lewis’s who coined the term “effort syndrome” which related directly to the effort and orthostatic intolerance of the chronic fatigue syndrome studies.
Regarding Rosen’s article; please note that he used the words CFS, ME, or PVS (post-viral fatigue syndrome) as synonyms for the “effort syndrome” in his first two paragraphs, but recommended that they “be withheld until ‘chronic habitual hyperventilation’ . . . has been definitively excluded”, but his ideas have not been universally accepted. He has also used the papers of Lewis from 1916 and 1933 in the reference section as numbers 9 and 10, and one has the term “irritable heart” in the title, which was the label originally used by Da Costa in the title of his 1871 report. To relate these to the intervening history you can view Charles Wooley’s paper where DCS , the “effort syndrome” and NCA have all been used synonymously in the title here[[8]]
As another aspect to consider please view this general comment that the actual words “Chronic fatigue syndrome” have “the distinct advantage of not ascribing this disease to an incorrect cause”, here [[9]] and that the same comment of neutrality (re; NPOV) has previously been said about the word Da Costa’s syndrome.
Please also note that the Da Costa page was started 18 months before I saw it as four lines of text with a general invitation for members of the public to improve it, and the terms “hyperventilation syndrome” and “chronic fatigue syndrome” were used in the “Related” section here [[10]]
Also please check the current Da Costa page which has the following description provided by another contributor . . . “The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and mitral valve prolapse syndrome. [11] in the 21st century”. here [[11]], and it uses the same reference[2]
I hope these explanations assist you in rewriting the relevant sections, and if you have any more questions I will answer them in due course Posturewriter (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Just a quick note explaining my edits as I've got a lot to do today. The JAMA editorial might be a good source but it still only speculates that Da Costa's is an early form of CFS. It also only provides one explanation as to the cause of chronic fatigue where there are many, see Pathophysiology_of_chronic_fatigue_syndrome. It doesn't really fit in the history section therefore as a moment of understanding of the cause of chronic fatigue, especially as it's not a research paper. I've left it in a couple of places where it acts more as a reference than a presentation of research. I've removed the discussion about hyperventilation as it didn't really fit. The Rosen article only really mentions Da Costa's in passing and seeks to distinguish effort syndrome caused by hyperventilation from CFS, which didn't strike me as saying effort syndrome was the same as CFS. It also is only dealing with "effort syndrome caused by hyperventilation" which your next source then said wasn't the same as Da Costa's. While those sources may be linked to Da Costa's they are not important enough to have a paragraph on. I've kept the fact that Da Costa's causes chronic fatigue and hence is linked to CFS in the article but have re-worded where I felt that it was being suggested that Da Costa's should be diagnosed as CFS, which seems to be against the sources. Hope this makes some sense. The edits are probably still a little rough and could do with some smoothing. Will keep working on it as and when I have time. Have a good day. AvnjayTalk 13:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Avnjay; Regarding your recent comments about the chronic fatigue syndrome, and further to my reply last Tuesday, please note that CFS has been listed in the “Related” section or mentioned in the body of the text ever since the page was initially placed in wikipedia in May 2006. I first saw it in December 2007 when it was still there, and it has remained until now without any editor questioning it’s relevance.
However, in response to your request for more recent reliable sources: The current edition of Harrison’s Principle’s of Internal Medicine (Published in February 2008) links it to “effort syndrome” which was the term Lewis coined in 1916 to describe Da Costa’s syndrome. Lewis used a graded exercise regime for treating the condition and Harrison’s reports that such a regime has “proven” beneficial.
I have also added some more links between text and references
P.S. Thankyou for the improvements that you made to the page yesterday. I have made some changes with this edit, and will give an explanation for those later today if possible re; hyperventilation, “delayed” orthostatic hypotension” etcPosturewriter (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Avnjay; Regarding your question about the Streeton article; it refers to “delayed” orthostatic hypotension where a DaCosta’s patient may feel faint after standing for ten minutes. A healthy person has normal circulation and will occasionally feel faint if they stand up suddenly, but a Da Costa’s patient has weak circulation (neurocirculatory asthenia) so when they stand up suddenly the blood gravitates toward the lower limbs and the weak circulation takes a few seconds longer to drive the blood up to the brain, so they feel faint more often and for longer than normal. They sometimes stand up slowly to prevent the problem. The article also provides a modern link to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins described by MacKenzie in 1916. I have therefore replaced Streeten's article for you to consider again in relation to that “delayed” feature which also influences the response to exertion.
Regarding the Rosen article; Please read the second paragraph where it states “the symptoms are similar to those found in chronic habitual hyperventilation “or” effort syndrome, followed by a link to reference number nine by Lewis who coined the word “effort syndrome” for Da Costa’s syndrome. I reviewed three items to show that some researchers find evidence of hyperventilation and some don’t. Some say it is “the same as”, or “similar to”, or “a type of” or “different to”. I agree that the actual summaries are not necessary in an encyclopedia but the references can be used as citations to show the differences of opinion.
Regarding the link between CFS and Da Costa’s syndrome. If you look at any of the CFS definitions provided by many groups you will find lists of up to twenty or more symptoms [12] and if you scroll down you can often find the same, or close similarities to the Da Costa’s syndrome classic symptoms and you can see that it has been “absorbed into”, or is “similar to”. or is “a type of” CFS, which is why it has been on the existing wikipedia Da Costa page for two years without any editor questioning it. It is obviously there.
If you have any more questions I will reply next Sunday. However I think the text is complete and only details need considering Posturewriter (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Avnjay; Further to your questions last week about the thread of history between Da Costa’s syndrome and the modern term of “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”, the links to the past involve a consideration of the fact that the 1871 research paper by Da Costa is unchangeable. By contrast there are currently many groups who have provided several different definitions for the chronic fatigue syndrome which are the subject of constant controversy and review and hence vary considerably. Only those modern definitions which are consistent with the symptoms described by Da Costa’s are directly relevant to the history.
For example, Da Costa described a condition occurring after excessive marching, or after a viral infection where the fever ceased but the symptoms, including the abnormal fatigue, were chronic. The fatigue is related to abnormal pooling of blood in the peripheral veins, and hence reduced blood flow and oxygenation of the brain etc. Some of the modern definitions of CFS are consistent with those features, such as those which include orthostatic intolerance, which is one of several links from history.
Regarding your request for some links from old to modern references I have added two from the 1940’s to match an article by Rowe in 2002 which refers to Da Costa’s term “irritable heart”, and later “neurocirulatory asthenia” as “the synonyms for what we now call CFS.” The article is from one of the top three paediatric journals in the world and therefore meets wiki MEDRS standards, and is an editorial which summarises three papers in that journal, and, refers to the history of the topic, and is therefore a Secondary source, and is modern. It discusses various subtypes of hypotension. Another OI article by Rowe, published in 2007, is available if you wish. I have also wikified the subtypes for readers to go to other pages for more information.
I have also added some more info and refs on the typical left-sided chest pain.
If you have any more suggestions or questions I could answer them later today or next Sunday Posturewriter (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Avnjay: Some time ago you provided this subpage for me to contribute an article for the Da Costa page. I suggested that I would need a few weeks to prepare the page, and could give you four weeks of opportunity to comment with me responding each sunday [[13]]. That time has passed and I have answered all questions, and in that regard have added some more information and references today.
Regarding MVP the topic branches off to another wikipedia page where it can be discussed further. Regarding Orthostatic Intolerance; it is common to [Da Costa’s Syndrome and CFS. Regarding Hyperventilation Syndrome; it involves panic followed by rapid breathing and tingling of the fingers and lips, which is not the same as Da Costa’s Syndrome which involves chest pains, sighing, palpitations, faintness and fatigue occurring in response to exertion, where it is a physiological feature.
There are now more than a dozen references from reliable medical sources linking Da Costa’s syndrome to some of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome definitions, and there are symptoms that are common to old and new definitions, and there are some references which use the old and new labels as exact synonyms[3]
If you have any more questions I will be happy to answer them if you need more time, otherwise the article is ready to be merged with any other subpage, or to replace the existing text, as it complies with every aspect of policy.
However you may note that the controversy relating to this topic continues nowadays in the area of The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome so there will always be differences of opinion, but I would like you to consider that information from history is irrefutable.
In completing this page I would appreciate your assistance in fixing the links to the reference section where the same reference has been used to verify multiple statements in the text. I would also like you to view the portrait of a typical patient on page 941 in Paul Wood’s book of 1956 , and assess it’s copyright etc in relation to usability on the page [[14]].
Thankyou for you suggestions aimed at improving the article and making it compliant with the necessary policies. As you haven’t commented for two weeks your feedback will be appreciated
P.S. I will add some more references later today Posturewriter (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2008(UTC)posturewriter

Hi Posturewrtier, sorry I've been incredibly busy over the last few weeks and so have had very little time to look over your article. I will attempt to sometime this week. AvnjayTalk 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


My final conclusion

While I was co-operating with the neutral editor I gained the impression that the task of checking the article may have been more difficult than he expected, especially when I discovered that my main critic was arguing with him, as relentlessly as she had been harassing me.

I therefore decided that if he ever gave up, I would simply give him permission to rewrite the essay himself without any further comments from me.

As far as I was concerned my two critics were childish and ridiculous, and anyone else's version would be acceptable, but definitely not theirs.

The absolute worst outcome for neutral point of view

With regards to the neutral point of view issue the most ridiculous outcome would be for the version written by my two critics to remain unchanged, and that is exactly what happened when the neutral editor gave up and conceded that he didn't have the time to check the facts that I provided. He then deferred to my main critics opinion with the following words left on my own User Talk page.


"Hi Posturewriter, Apologies for disappearing for a few months from the face of Wikipedia. A few things came up in 'real life' that left me with too little time to carry on looking into your article. I feel I should make a few things clear. When last I looked your draft article contained many good parts and a lot of detail. However, it also contained a lot of stuff that needed to be changed, sourced correctly, or removed. I started on this and suggested various parts that should be changed. In the end I simply couldn't spare the many, many hours it took to trawl through endless papers and journals in order to improve the article to the required standard. I apologise if my silence seemed like acceptance of the article. Whilst I still think that there are parts of your article which are better than the original it would take an editor with a lot more relevant knowledge (or a lot more spare time) than me to select them. I would defer to someone like WhatamIdoing for example. I hope this clears my position up. Have a good day (end of quote) Avnjay. 17:31, 8 February 2009


Needless to say, the reason that there were endless papers and journals to trawl through was because whenever I provided top quality references my main critic would demand different ones, or different types, or modern ones, and because she complained about my initial list of "only 24 references, assuming you count the two "references" to Wikipedia articles". See the fourth paragraph here.


i.e. On the fifth of October 2008, the complaint was that I only provided 24 references, and on the 8th February 2009, after co-operating with requests for more references for several months, the complaint was that I provided too many in my list of 60???

See my reports on the strategies used by my two critics which include "Setting up to fail", and "Moving the goalposts" , and "The Last Word." In plain English they were attempting to create a 'no win situation'.

The manners of the neutral editor compared to my 2 critics

The first response of the neutral editor was that my essay was a lot better than the existing one controlled and favored by my 2 critics, and the discussion proceeded with her making suggestions to improve it, and me providing the additional references as required etc.

However, he told my main critic to have a look at it and she became furious and began telling lies and insulting me in order to get him to stop co-operating with me, and she eventually succeeded.

In the meantime she and her tag-team mate set up an arbitration page, initially to get me blocked from one topic, but then from every topic I had added to. Nevertheless, their real objective was to get me banned and thrown out of Wikipedia so that I couldn't edit anything.


Some very brief quotes from their ridiculous arguments can be seen below . . .

Extracts from the Statement by Gordonofcartoon

"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] . . .
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.
The dispute has now been going on since the end of 2007 . . .
This has proved insoluble over multiple forums for dispute resolution, in large part due to Posturewriter's POV pushing exacerbated by incivility; refusal to accept consensus on matters of style and source reliability; repeated accusations of various forms of bad faith in other editors' actions; and hostile obfuscating approach to discussion." Gordonofcartoon 17:48, 26 January 2009

Extracts from the Statement by WhatamIdoing
"Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself for a century now) and to seriously outdated materials
Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards.
Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints.
His complaints about 'moving the goalposts' are an artifact of trying to address specific problems one at a time . . . 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 . . .
The other problems that we've encountered generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions . . .
In the end, Posturewriter puts a lot of effort into achieving very little, and requires an enormous amount of other editors' time to prevent the article from turning into objects promoting his POV. I am running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues because I no longer have any hope that he is willing to apply Wikipedia's core principles, even if he understands theme, because the actual scientific views disagree with his personal POV. His interactions with anyone that doesn't agree with him rapidly devolve into hostile sniping. (I recommend looking over his user talk page.) I'm tired of the POV-pushing and the edit wars (which he's currently blocked for) . . .
I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 . See here


My comment

In addtion to their comments above, they have told such a massive number of lies that I have produced an index to them, and their bad manners here

Also, see my report on see how my main critic hounded, badgered, and harassed every editor who showed any evidence of supporting me here