|
"STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES
MOUTH"
The
real meaning of the phrase
(it
does not mean 'go straight to a person in authority to get the
truth' as defined in many dictionaries)
The phrase actually refers
to the idea that a person should not wait around while other
people pedantically nitter and natter about a problem, but should
look for the answers themselves in the OBVIOUS PLACES © 10-5-09 M.B. That definition is derived from an old story something
like the one below from 1432, and probably also before then,
and will always be a useful axiom, now, and in the future.
"In the year of our Lord 1432, there
arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of
teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation
raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were
fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was
never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the
beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing
asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and
straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep
wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner
coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse
and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity
being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining
in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and
thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan
hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of
ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers.
After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat
on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to
be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical
and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down."
Reference: Mees, C. E. K. (1934). Scientific thought and social reconstruction.
Electrical Engineering, 53, 383-384. (A quote from Francis Bacon
(1592)
?)
Many writers censor themselves
to avoid confrontation with authority groups
*******
When I was involved in Wikipedia
I had two critics who were treating it as a sort of horse race,
as if I had won all previous races , and they had lost all of
theirs, so they needed to make things difficult for me in order
to give themselves a chance of winning. For example, they always
worked as a team of two, and they told me to obey all
the rules while they were ignoring all the rules, and they
kept on moving the finish line each time I won 9 of the 10 distances
(or disputes), from 1000 yards, to 1100, 1200, and 2000 yards,
and in the last instance when I asked the judges where the real
finish was (thinking that it was 2100 metres), the two ponies
ran past and one of their friends told the judges to go home
and declared them to be the winners at the 2050 mark.
|
|
Facts are Superior
to Opinion
The facts; "The first world war saw an amazing degree
of concern for the syndrome described by Da Costa. Some of the best medical brains
in Britain were recruited to study the problem". Reference: Paul O. (1987) Da
Costa's syndrome of neurocirculatory asthenia, British Heart Journal, Vol 58, No.4, p.308
The opinion; This is what one of my two critics wrote . . .
Da Costa's syndrome is " a vague nineteenth century
syndrome . . .It's overall an
unimportant article for Wikipedia,
so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy
turning it into a
little gem of an article."
etc signed WhatamIdoing 2:25, 18 May 2008.
|
|
Soldier's
Heart?
There
have been
more than a hundred different labels used as alternatives for Da Costa's syndrome
On page 545 of the April
12th, 1941 edition of the British Medical
Journal, in an article called "Effort Syndrome in Soldiers",
British researcher John Parkinson wrote . . . "we are well rid of the terms 'Soldier's Heart'
and D.A.H . . . "An expression of this idea is seen in the
term 'neurocirculatory asthenia' (N.C.A.) applied in
the United States to the term we call effort syndrome".
Forty six years later Oglesby Paul wrote a review of the history
of Da Costa's syndrome in the 1987 edition of the British Heart
journal Vol.58, No.4, and included these words on page 308 .
. ."A vague waste basket term
'disordered action of the heart', had also been used in the British
Army, and the equally unsatisfactory term 'soldier's heart' was
used . . . but in his series Lewis reported that 161 of 277 patients
should be reclassified as "effort syndrome".
***
One of my two critics,
named Gordonofcartoon, amended
the Da Costa article to give emphasis to the lable of Soldier's heart, with these words of explanation . . . "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 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2008
. . . and AS ALWAYS,
my other critic, WhatamIdoing,
joined in with the next statement. . . "That looks good to me . . . Also, do you think that we should put the
synonyms in bold
face at their first appearance?"
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2008
*****
My two critics are offensively arrogant
know alls, and were trying to convince every other editor in
Wikipedia that my sources of information were poor quality and
unreliable, so I have provided one from John Parkinson in 1941which
states that the label of Soldier's heart is something 'we are
well rid of'. The other reference to Oglesby Paul was provided
by WhatamIdoing, and it states that the term Soldier's heart
is as 'equally unsatisfactory" as a 'wastebasket' label.
|
|
The
No Win Trickery used by my two critics
I spent twelve months in Wikipedia where
I had two critics who were trying to block me by using every
trick in the book. One of their methods was to produce 'no-win'
situations. For example, when I added information about my own
research to the Da Costa page they said it took up too much space,
so I abbreviated it, and when they said that I was violating
the 'conflict of interest' policy, I didn't agree with their
interpretation of policy, but I stopped adding the information
for 'polite' reasons, 'obviously' to 'keep the peace'. However,
they deliberately misrepresented that by telling the other editors
that I had "given up" adding my own research?????
I then started writing the history of the
topic, but they continued to criticise and delete every word
and every independent reference that I added. For example, when
they criticised my references for being written by one person,
I provided the same information from a 'review' paper, and when
they criticised the references for being 'old' I provided 'modern'
ones. However, they described that response as being 'disruptive'
or 'edit warring'.
In other words, if I complied with policy
by not adding information, they said that I was 'giving up',
as if I had 'caved in' to their pretentiously' 'powerful'???
'authority'????, and if I provided information that met the appropriate
requirements, they said that I was being 'disruptive'. i.e. According
to them, everything I did, regardless of whether I did what they
wanted or not, had something wrong with it.
I have had thirty years of experience at
dealing with disputes and there are many ways of dealing with
'simple' 'no-win' 'stunts'. One way is to describe the trick,
so that 'everyone', without that experience, can 'easily' 'recognise'
it.
|
|
Evidence
that my critics tell lies and break the rules of Wikipedia and
have been Deliberately Disruptive
I spent 12 months contributing to Wikipedia,
during which time I was not interested in responding instantly
to all of the incessant lies and nonsense that were written about
me by two main critics, so I took notes and have spent the last
six months responding, but the volume of information is getting
so large that it would be difficult for the casual reader to
follow.
Some correspondents have argued that I
am unfairly criticizing some respectable editors in Wikipedia,
as if all editors in Wikipedia are supposed to be respectable,
and as if I am criticising Wikipedia itself. My critics would
like that idea because they would want everyone else in Wikipedia
to defend them.
However, I actually started contributing
because I thought it was a good idea to have the principle of
getting ALL information from ALL sources, not just from scientific
experts from one tobacco company, or politicians from one party,
or official websites of one government, or comments from one
class of people, or one culture, or from only modern opinion
(as if everything published in this mornings edition of their
favorite journal or book is correct, and as if every statement
made by everyone else now or in the past was wrong???? etc.
To follow the evidence that my critics
were being disruptive I recommend that you look at one window,
or one section at a time, and if you have any doubts about what
I say, I recommend that you read the links, and the references
which confirm everything I have said.
In the meantime
in order to view the evidence:
That my critics were lying when they say
I am not co-operative see here
That my critics use foul language see here
That my critics were arrogantly and deliberately
breaking the rules of Wikipedia and rewarding other editors for
breaking them see here
That my critics were telling lies about
the relationship between Da Costa's Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome see here
That my critics were telling lies about
the subpage process for resolving neural point of view issues
see here
That my critics were rewriting, or altering
history to suit themselves see here
and here
That my critics were deleting information
to make their own opinions seem credible see here
That my critics were doing everything they
could to annoy me see the section on their trolling by scrolling
down almost to the end of the page you are now reading here
That my two critics were working as a tag
team and taking turns against me on virtually all discussion
pages (like runners changing batons in a relay race), and that
they started an edit war against me - see here.
My two critics have told a lot of lies,
and broken a lot of rules, and been hostile and disruptive, and
I have all the evidence to prove that for anyone who is interested,
and who is willing to look at it without bias. It is not practical
to assume that my critics are honest and respectable just because
they are editors in Wikipedia. That is the equivalent to believing
that all politicians are honest and beyond reproach.
People who spend their time being critical
of others don't develop problem solving skills. People who spend
their time trying to solve problems can very easily become superior
critics if their critics become a problem. The practice might
even be useful.
|
|
A
silly Question?????
This was a question asked by an editor named
WhatamIdoing .
. . "I'm also not sure why you are bothering to leave messages
for me here" signed WhatamIdoing, 6:55 on 2nd January 2009
This was my reply
about four hours later . . . "because I found this section
on your talk page with the title of "Requests for comment/Posturewriter"
signed Posturewiter, 11:34 on 2nd January
A lot of WhatamIdoing's
questions were meant to be deliberately stupid and annoying, such as (in paraphrase) . . .
'Why does Posturewriter want to leave comments on a discussion
called Request for Comment/ Posturewriter? . . .
or . . . "Why
does Posturewritere want to come here and defend himself from
1500 words of hostile insults and criticism????? . . . Answer?????
Maybe I just thought it was a good idea at the time?
Here is another
silly question: There is an editor in Wikipedia who has chosen
the name "WhatamIdoing"??? For the answer see here
|
|
The
reliability of my old history references????
When I started reading the research journals
for information about Da Costa's syndrome I eventually reached
the limits of knowledge, beyond which nothing more was available,
and there wasn't an effective method of controlling the symptoms
or curing the problem, so I started looking elsewhere for 'clues'.
At some stage I bought an old medical book at a garage sale that
was printed at the turn of the century, and I noted that it had
information that was widely accepted as fact at that time, but
has since been completely forgotten, such as the fact that the
majority of nineteenth and early twentieth century women wore
extremely tight waisted corsets, and would often experience palpitations,
breathlessness, and faintness, and would become faint and exhausted
in response to the slightest exercise, or during hot weather,
and that they would relieve their fainting spells by unlacing
their corsets and laying on 'chaise lounges'. I naturally became
interested in the history of medicine and began buying more old
books from antique shops or sales, and by borrowing them from
the crypts of state or university libraries. I spent some time
reading 17th century books and translations of older and ancient
texts. I used that information to solve some of the mysteries
of the condition.
When I saw Wikipedia I noted that it invited
people to add useful information that was not already there,
so I did, but I soon had two critics who started complaining
that my sources were out-of-date and obsolete, and that
the only thing they would accept as references must have been
published in the mainstream literature in the most recent five
years.
They say that there are people who are
more foolish than that who believe everything they read on
the front page of this morning's newspaper, or that it is a good
idea to bulldoze some piles of old rocks called the pyramids.
|
|
The
history of criticism
While I was involved in Wikipedia all information
about my own research had been deleted from the Da Costa's page
in January 2008 so I started writing the history of the subject
and putting the dates of publications in bold, and as I added
more reviews I placed them in chronological order to show how
the ideas and labels were changing from 1871 through to 2008.
I provided 65
top quality references as sources for
verification.
I was banned a year later because the same
two critics were always complaining about my edits like this
. . .
"he listed the same thoroughly outdated
(1951) text book 18 separate times . . . The most recent
reference is eleven years old . . . and it is about Chronic
fatigue syndrome not Da Costa's . . . Medicine-related articles
do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors
when discussing research work . . . We don't blather on about
a '1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul (who) presented
a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart
Journal' . . . This is an effort to tell the reader 'You have
to believe everything this
guy said. He's important. You should
know his name. He published in a decent journal. Paul's paper
was a routine review . . . We can't even get him to quite bolding
the years (to conform with WP:MOSBOLD), despite repeated
efforts on that single, small point . . . The few modern references
frequently have nothing to do with DCS. One person - a person
that does not represent the scientific or medical consensus on
this point . . . publishes his personal theory (in an editorial,
not a peer reviewed article) that DCS is kinda sorta an
early description of chronic fatigue syndrome." (end of
extracts - for examples see WhatamIdoing's edits starting at
16:15 on 5th October 2008)
Note that the supposedly "outdated"
"1951" "text book" was written by Harvard
Professor Paul Dudley White, and it contained a chapter which
is one of the best sources of information on the topic, and I
linked to it eighteen times because it was a very efficient
way of summarising thirty
years of his experience, and several hundred of the research
articles that he wrote, and the thousands that he read. Oglesby
Paul was
a graduate in history
and medicine,
and a Harvard
professor, and a president of the American Heart
Association, who wrote a history
of the topic in 1987. Also, the last editorial mentioned was
a review by David Streeten, and was published in the Journal
of the American Medical Association in 1996. You will therefore
see that my two critics were going to extremes to find fault
with every contribution I made, and that their manner was "kinda
sorta" ridiculous.
|
|
Details,
Details, my two fussy critics don't like details?????
Da Costa's syndrome includes brief stabbing
pains in the lower left side of the chest which may occur once
every few months when the person is relaxing in a chair and reading
a newspaper, or in other similar situations, and the symptom
of sighing occurs more frequently than usual and is different
from normal sighing. There is also a tendency to faint when standing
up suddenly, and sometimes the person may feel dizzy when bending
down to tie up their shoelaces, and they may feel abnormally
tired or fatigued throughout the day. Those symptoms sometimes
occur separately in entirely different situations, or together
during strenuous exertion. I included that type of detail in
my essay for Wikipedia and supported it with 65 top quality medical
references.
One of my two critics, named WhatamIdoing,
wrote this at 17:37 on 6-10-08 . . . "I tried making things
that need repaired, but it's basically a disaster. The history
section is much,
much, much too detailed" (end of quote). They deleted my essay and
replaced it with their version which was only a third as long,
and was supported by only 17 references, including websites.
One of their references was 'whonamedit.com', and they used it
to represent reliable modern mainstream opinion???, but it had
only three very small paragraphs of information including these
words . . . the "Symptoms and signs of this syndrome
closely resemble those of emotion and fear, rather than those
of effort in a normal subject"???????
Needless to say they are completely different
to the ordinary symptoms of effort or emotion.
******
My two critics were busy removing details
and justifying their actions by calling it cruft (and
they were using that word deliberately for it's dual meaning
of rubbish). However, the reason that it is important
to know that the pain can occur when relaxing in a chair, and
that dizziness can occur when bending down to tie up shoe laces,
is because it is evidence that it is not always due to anxiety,
worry or stress (or the fear of battle???).
Also, these are Sir Maurice Cassidy's words
from the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine of April
22, 1941 . . . "the symptom of left sided chest pain is
"produced locally in muscles, fibrous tissue, or fascia
of the chest wall" . . . and . . . is associated with tenderness
over the area of pain . . . and . . . "is not referred from
the heart" . . . and . . . "the difference between
left infra-mammary pain and angina has been recited again and again."
The reason that such a small detail was
repeated 'again and again' in research papers etc was because
it is important to know the precise difference between chest
muscle pain and heart disease pain, otherwise the problem would
be misdiagnosed, and patients would worry unnecessarily about
their hearts.
|
|
"So
many rules"???
When I added my own research it was deleted
for violating COI policy, and when I added independent research
it was deleted for being a violation of OR (original research
policy), and when I added reviews they were deleted for being
old, and when I added more recent ones they were deleted for
being op-eds etc. It became obvious and PREDICTABLE that I had
two critics who were going to find or invent a policy reason
for deleting every word I wrote, so I described their tactics
as a 'wild goose chase', which has it's equivalent in Wikipedia
of 'moving the goal posts' so that it would NEVER be possible
for me to add anything acceptable because they would just keep
inventing more reasons for deletion.
Here are WhatamIdoing's
words at 21:35, 10th March 2010 . . ."IMO Wikipedia has so many rules that nobody can really
be expected to know them all"
Note that I was a new contributor, and
my two critics falsely and frequently accused me of deliberately
ignoring the rules "that nobody can be expected to know".
This is what I did know; my two critics
were deliberately manipulating the rules to block me, because
they couldn't win any content based arguments.
****
This is what I told the arbitrators before
I was banned. . . "Please note that you can see the pattern
of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon changing the jargon, and
changing the policy, and changing the forums each time I comply,
which is a form of disruptive editing called 'moving the goalposts'"
signed Posturewriter 8:32,
27 January 2009
This is TYPICAL of the excuses
that WhatamIdoing used to justify that OBVIOUSLY DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR
. . .
"The goalposts haven't moved during
this time: I just didn't post complete explanations of all of
the relevant standards in the first message: I also didn't tell
him not to shove beans up his nose, and I doubtless excluded
other important instructions in my first message." signed
WhatamIdoing 20:25,
27 January 2009.
******
Note that Wikipedia has a page called WP:
Don't stuff beans up your nose. It basically gives advice
not the give other editors ideas. For example don't tell people
how to crash Wikipedia or someone might do it.
It relates to the fact that my two critics
were incapable of winning content arguments against me, and didn't
want to tell me about all of their policies because they knew
that I would then start winning all of the policy arguments.
Their own ability to win arguments was pitiful. re; they couldn't
win a chook raffle if one of them bought the only ticket and
the other one drew the prize.
|
|
The
ICD-9 Code
Introduction: According to Wikipedia of 15-1-10
the term ICD is a code for the "International Classification
of Diseases and Related Health problems". It provides classifications
for the signs, symptoms and other aspects of diseases etc. and
. . . "The ICD-9 was published by the WHO in 1977.
According to the World Health Organization Department
of Knowledge Management and Sharing, the WHO no longer publishes
or distributes the ICD-9 which is now public domain".
There
is a website is called "icd-9/health information",
and the sub title is "Index 0-9" and the next words
are "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
*******
I started adding information to the existing
four lines of text on Wikipedia's page about Da Costa's syndrome
on 9th December
2007.
At 6:20 on 19th December 2007
an editor named Arcadian added an information box to the top
right corner which included the codes ICD-10 F45.3, and ICD-9
306.2 with links to the lists.
During that time two editors named Gordonofcartoon
and WhatamIdoing started criticising almost every word I wrote,
and at 00:54 on 29-12-07 Gordonofcartoon deleted everything about my own
research and theory and left an article of about 1409 words.
There were 225 words in the introduction and overview that had
been significantly altered from the way I wrote them, but the
remaining 1184 words were almost exactly as I wrote them in the
sections of history from 1861 to the end of the page.
Since that time the same two editors criticised
and hounded me relentlessly to ensure that every word I added
which hadn't been deleted by someone else, was deleted by themselves,
and then they told all of the other editors that I was an "uncivil"
and "disruptive" editor with a conflict of interest"
who was filling Wikipedia with "nonsense" and "crap"
from "unreliable sources". They continued in the same
way for a year until they eventually managed to get one of their
friends to ban me on 29-1-2009, and then they deleted everything that I wrote
on the final page except for some of the information in the much
smaller "Treatment" and "history" sectons.
In fact they removed the description of 135 years of research
history from 1876 to 2009 and replaced it with the following
ridiculous sentence. . . "Since then a variety of similar
or partly similar conditions have been described" . . .
They also deleted my subpage which contained an improved version
of the essay from a year earlier, and they deleted my UserPage
and my UserTalk page.
However, shortly after Gordonofcartoon
deleted information on
29-12-07, which is two
years ago now, I checked the ICD
records and found that someone had copied the information from
Wikipedia and placed it on the ICD-9 website for Da Costa's syndrome.
That article is slightly modified with at total of 1409 words,
but the history sections from "1861 to 1950", and "After
1950", and the sections called "Related to", and
"Treatment" contain a total of 1184 words that I wrote
for Wikipedia, and they haven't been changed.
The end of the ICD-9 page states this .
. . "This article is based on an article from Wikipedia
the free encyclopedia and is available under the terms of GNU
Free Documentation License. In Wikipedia there is a list with
all authors of this article available".
If you want to find that list you can go
to the Da Costa's syndrome page and click on the history tab
at the top of the page. It will take you to a page called Revision
history of Da Costa's syndrome. About five lines from the top
you will see numbers 20, 50, 100, 250, and 500. If you click
on the 500 link it will open a page that has all the edit history
of the topic, and you can go back to December 9th 2007 where
I began editing it with the ID of Posturewriter.
If you go to 00:54 on 29th December 2007
and click on the (prev) link you can see the page and text that
Gordonofcartoon deleted and left behind. You can also see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=180714637&oldid=180703608
If you want to see the article in the ICD-9
website then go to this address here
http://www.lumrix.net/health/Da_Costa's_syndrome.html
It has been regarded as reliable information
for that website for 2 years, and the ICD is regarded as a reliable
source for Wikipedia. I suppose my two critics will find a way
of dismissing it or deleting it now that I have mentioned it???????
Time will tell!!!
|
|
Precisely!
I had two critics in Wikipedia and I will
later describe how they argued, but to introduce the issues I
will give two typical examples.
Fact 1. I provided information for an article about Da
Costa's syndrome from 60 top quality research papers and medical
books, including some that were written by the most knowledgeable
experts in it's history including J.M.Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie,
Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Wood O.B.E., and Harvard professors Paul
Dudley White and Oglesby Paul.
This was what one of my critics told the
arbitrators to get me banned . . . "Posturewriter's use
of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet
Wikipedia's basic standards" signed WhatamIdoing 4:42, 28 January 2009.
Fact 2. One of my critics added the name of a "novel"
at the end of the page, and the other one moved it to the
top line at 19:07 on 29th May 2008 where
it was the first words the readers would see, so I read
it. The title was Soldier's heart" which is one of
a hundred different labels that have been used as an alternative
name for Da Costa's syndrome. It was a 128 page children's fiction
book and after I finished reading it I could see that there was
no mention of any of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome. I then
realised that neither of my two critics had even bothered
to read it, but had used it on the basis of their assumptom
that it must be relevant because of the title on the cover. I
then said as politely as possible, in paraphrase . . . 'I can't
see any evidence that it is relevant to a medical topic, so if you can't give me some precise
page numbers where the symptoms are mentioned can you please
delete the link'.
They argued about it with other editors,
including myself, and six months later, on 22nd December 2008 another editor
deleted it, and then left a note on the talk page telling them why it was wrong to use it.
They would have seen that explanation, and
they reverted the topic page twice each between 25th and 27th January 2009, and therefore had
at least two other opportunities to see
that it had been removed from the top line.
i.e. they would have known that it was deleted because they were wrong.
However, these are the
words that WhatamIdoing
wrote on the arbitration page the next day, on 28th January, to give the ridiculous impression that I lost the
arguement . . . "There's a
novel named Soldier's heart, so we provided a link to the article
about the book. PER WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote
instead of a See also section. Posturewriter complained at length
and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being "in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter never
seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became
a regular disambiguation page."
signed WhatamIdoing 4:42,
28 January 2009.
Summary: I used top quality medical journals and books as
references but my two critics continued to describe them as unreliable
sources of information, but they put a link to an irrelevent
children's fiction novel on the top line of the page and found
a way of justifying it, and WhatamIdoing used both ridiculous
arguments in the same section of the arbitration page at 4:42
on 28th January 2009, a day before one of their friends banned
me.
Note that their
attempt to make the disambiguation page "appear" regular
by adding poems, plays and movies with the same title (Soldier's
heart) did not solve the problem that they created. It was solved
because another editor deleted the link and nobody has put it
back in the 12 months since. Note that they also put the word 'Soldier's heart' in
the first line of the first sentence, and it was highlighted
in blue color to indicate that they had added a link (to the
children's novel), but four days after I was banned another editor
deleted that link as well. More information can be seen on this
website.
|
|
WhatamIdoing's
misrepresentation of facts?????
An editor named
WhatamIdoing has had four years of experience in Wikipedia and
has written some of the sections of policy, and spends a lot
of time telling other editors that they must do things properly,
but often does the exact opposite.
For example there
is the general principle that editors should not take another
persons words out of context, or misrepresent them,
or their references. They should not tell lies to mislead
other editors, and they should not deliberately create false
impressions about another persons contributions.
One of the references
that I used was about Sir James MacKenzie who was knighted for
his contributions to medicine and was appointed to determine
the future course of research into Da Costa's syndrome. He chaired
a meeting in 1916. WhatamIdoing told the other editors that he
was just an ordinary doctor who walked in from the street and
made a few comments at an ordinary meeting that were published
because the minutes of the meeting were always published in those
days. Similarly Paul Dudley White was a Harvard professor, and
a founding member of the American Heart Association who published
a book that was distributed to universities and medical schools
around the world and used as a reference book by cardiologists.
Chapter 22 in that book was about Da Costa's syndrome so I used
it as a reference in the history section of the Da Costa's page,
and then WhatamIdoing told the other editors that it was just
an out-of-date 1951 text-book, and the name of the author wasn't
mentioned, so it left the impression that I was using an old
high school text book as a reference. A third example is where
WhatamIdoing provided a reference to an article by Oglesby Paul
but didn't comment on it . Oglesby Paul was a Harvard professor
and the article was a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome
published in the British Heart Journal so I also used it as a
reference, and then WhatamIdoing told the other editors that
he was just "this guy" who wrote "a routine review
paper".
Another example
is where a medical consumer provided a list of 80 alternative
labels for the chronic fatigue syndrome which included Da Costa's
syndrome. It was compiled in collaboration with four doctors,
and I used it to give medical consumers some input on the page
for 'neutral point of view' reasons, and I supported it with
12 other references that had at least five lables in their title
or introduction. She only had one website, and it was about her
pet iguana lizards so she put the information on one of the pages
on that website. WhatamIdoing then told the other editors that
I was using a website about iguana lizards to 'prove'? that Da
Costa's syndrome was the same as the chronic fatigue syndrome
(I wasn't trying to "prove" anything).
********
This
is what that editor wrote on the Administrator's Noticeboard
to get me blocked from a discussion about me on their own talk
page . . . "The editor is an agenda editor (standing
up straight cures disease, and now Da Costa's syndrome is
a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome because someone that runs
an iguana website says so) . . . and all the editor has done
this month is complain that he's not getting his way
because I don't agree that a 1951 book or
www.anapsid.org are reliable sources for current
information. His last mainspace edits were in July 2008
(and nearly all of them were reverted as biased, incorrect and/or outdated), so we're not talking about a particularly valuable
editor here." signed WhatamaIdoing 2:42, 11th January 2009.
In that short
paragraph WhatamIdoing misrepresented me at least ten times.
For example, by misrepresenting
my 1000 page book on posture and health and giving the offensively
oversimplified impression that all I said was that you could
cure diseases by standing up straight?????
Note also that I linked
to the medical consumers webpage about the chronic fatigue syndrome
by using the address of www.anapsid.org/cnd/diagnosis/names.html,
but WhatamIdoing deliberately misled the administrator by linking
to www.anaspid.org which was the main page about lizards, so
it made me look ridiculous because it gave the false impression
that I was a fool who was using a page about lizards as a reference
for a medical topic called the chronic fatigue syndrome.
As another example, I provided
a reference to Harvard professor Paul Dudley White's international
cardiology reference book in the history section, and
WhatamIdoing deliberately failed to mention those details and
misrepresented it as a '1951 book' and combined it with a link
to the website about iguana lizards to make both references look
irrelevant and ridiculous.
Their misrepresentation
of previous discussions
Note also that my last
Da Costa page edits were not in
July 2008, but were in fact two months earlier
in May when I was advised to stop adding
to it. Prior to
then I had been contributing to the page from December 9th 2007 to May 12th 2008,
and during that time I made most of the contributions with 35
edits. My two critics did most, if not all of the criticising,
deletions, and reversions with WhatamIdoing making 11 edits and
Gordonofcartoon making 14. There was only one editor who added
ten edits in one day, and the rest were adding only one or two
each.
In fact between July and September
2008 two RFC editors
suggested that I write a version of the Da Costa's topic on a
subpage where neutral editors could assist me in ensuring that
it complied with all policies, and where my two critics would
not be able to interfere, so I started writing it again. All
editors on the RFC page were invited to do the same but my two
critics refused.
When I finished that essay
and posted it onto the subpage a few week later, on 28th September 2008, a neutral editor named Avnjay
said it was "a lot better" than the existing one (i.e.
a lot better than the version that was edited and preferred by
my two critics). I then proceeded to improve it, and Anvjay provided
assistance with policy and rewrote the first section. I later
learned that Avnjay had gone to WhatamIdoing's talk page on 5th October to discuss the changes, and that is where all
the trouble started.
Later, in the period that
WhatamIdoing referred to as 'this month", which means January 1st to January 11th 2009, I added a total of seventeen edits.
Eleven were my responses to criticism on WhatamIdoing's
User talk page, five of them were on the Disruptive editing talk
page where I reported WhatamIdoing for disrupting my contributions,
and one was a note to the Editor's Assistance/Requests page where
I reported the problems I was having with my two critics etc.
My two critics relentlessly
misrepresented my book, my references, and my edits until they
got only one of their friends to barge in on an orderly
arbitration page and ban me.
|
|
This
window contains more examples of how my two critics misrepresented
the same facts in previous discussions and on other pages, so
you may wish to skip this window and move to the next topic which
is called "Take a break"
Some other details for
those who may be interested:
In the seven months between May 12th 2008 and 11th January 2009
there were only four other editors making significant changes.
The first one was Guido den Broeder who made thirty two edits
for just over a week between 20th and 29th of May. The second
and third were my two critics, where WhatamIdoing made ten edits,
and Gordonofcartoon made eight. They were the main ones to argue
with Guido and delete and revert his edits, and to get him blocked.
In fact, the 10 day discussion between those three spanned forty
five edits and only one of them was by another editor . There
was another contributor who made only five edits in one day,
and one edit shortly after, and one named Aunt Entropy who made
two edits, and Napoli Roma, Circeus, CharlotteWeb, and RonronMexico
who made one minor edit each. However, WhatamIdoing was trying
to give the false impression that dozens of other editors were
reverting my edits???, and that they were doing it because
they all thought my references were biased, incorrect,
or outdated??? (note that if you wish to verify this in the history
of edits Guido's ID has been changed)
There were some other
discussions on other pages, but I didn't make any changes to
the topic page until I transferred my subpage text there between
25th and 27th January 2009, and the same two critics were the
only editors to revert it. (I added it four times, and Gordonofcartoon
reverted it twice, and then WhatamIdoing reverted it twice).
|
|
They
misrepresented me multiple times on an another talk page about
"Disruptive editing"
I reported WhatamIdoing
for inappropriate use of policy on a talk page associated with
"Disruptive editing", and the following response was
made to convince that group of editors that I was using unreliable
references.
Posturewriter . . . I know
that you are mad at me because I oppose using your iguana website to 'prove' that Da Cost's syndrome is a
subtype of Chronic fatigue syndrome, and that I've been insisting
that you quit relying
on a 1951 book,
and so forth. But you're going to lose: the sources
that support your POV simply are not reliable signed
WhatamIdoing 19:05, 10th January 2009. (end of quote). Note that
WhatamIdoing deliberately chose the words "your iguana
website" to convince the new group of editors that I
had written a website about lizards, and that I was using it
to promote my POV???????
I didn't have such a website,
and I was using someone else's webpage about CFS which
had nothing to do with the rest of her website, and I wasn't
trying to 'prove' anything, and I wasn't just using one book
to show that Da Costa's was 'widely regarded' as the same as
CFS, but provided 12 top quality modern references.
|
|
They
misrepresented my references on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard
WhatamIdoing started a
discussion on a page called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard
between 26th to 27th January to convince another group of editors
that the same medical consumers reference was about iguana lizards and that she had no medical knowledge,
and therefore didn't meet Wikipedia's basic standards for sources
of information. However, again, WhatamIdoing deliberately misrepresented
the facts by exaggerating those aspects, and by deliberately
failing to mention that it was compiled in collaboration with
four doctors, and that the single reference was supported
by 13 others from top quality independent medical research journals
and books, and that it was only one of a total of 65 references,
and that it was the only one from a medical consumer. I was
simply using it as one of at least a dozen good examples
which showed that Da Costa's syndrome was such a confusing condition
that the label had changed more than 80 times in the last 140
years, and that "opinions"on cause changed regularly.
I described those facts
and then wrote these words . . . "Reliable source editors,
I have considered
your comments and would like you to know that if you want the
Melissa Kaplan page of CFS synonyms removed as a source I will
do so. However,
let me first explain . . . etc" signed Posturewriter 8:21,
27 January 2009. I was essentially telling them that I
would be happy to remove it if sensible editors like themselves
were made aware of all the facts and then asked me to, but not
if my two critics deleted it as part of a pattern of deleting
everything I wrote. I then started by deleting the main link
to the comment about 80 different lables at 8:50 on 27-1-09,
which still left the other 13 medical references as support for
the same statement.
Despite knowing that
I had started deleting the links WhatamIdoing reverted my essay on the topic page
with these words "Rv
POV version of COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such
as the personal webpage of a patient" . .
. WhatamIdoing 18:12, 27 January 2009
At 18:26 on the same day
WhatamIdoing told those editors that I had been blocked for COI
violations and edit warring (including edit warring to restore
this source after
being told that 100% of editors here
opposed it. He
will therefore be unable to respond for a while" signed
WhatamIdoing 18:26 27 January 2009
At 20:25 on the same day
WhatamIdoing told the arbitrators that I was arguing against
a consensus of 100%
of editors on the reliable sources noticeboard, which would give the impression of a dispute that
was started by another editor, and then involved dozens of editors
that went on for several weeks. However, it was started by WhatamIdoing only two days earlier,
and only lasted for a day and a half in which only four editors
agreed. When I gave
my second response and offered to delete the links there were
no further comments until
WhatamIdoing ended the discussion by telling them I had been
blocked.
I was due to give the arbitrators
my final response to all of those ridiculous misrepresentations
on Sunday 1st February and was banned on 29th January. 2009.
********
WhatamIdoing's
response to the change
At 13:06, 26th January 2009 I added a version
of Da Costa's syndrome which contained this sentence. . . "The name of Da Costa's syndrome
has changed so often from one specialist[3][14][36],
or from one country[35][43][10], or one year to another[14][43][10] that it has created confusion in the study and
diagnosis of the condition [34] as is evident from many research
articles which mention four or five in their introduction,[29][32][14][4][33][36][34][58][56][2][44][10]
[9] and from a recent website which lists what it claims are
more than eighty synonyms.[15]" (end of quote) (note;
each of the numbers in brackets is a reference to support the
statement, and the medical consumer's webpage was reference number
15).
At 18:57, 26th January 2009 Whata and mymIdoing
reverted the essay with that sentence.
At 8:50, 27th January 2009 I deleted
the main link to the medical consumer's webpage and changed
the same sentence to these words. . . "The name of Da Costa's syndrome has changed
so often from one specialist[3][14][36], or from one country[35][43][10], or one year to another[14][43][10] that
it has created confusion in the study and diagnosis of the condition,[34]
as is evident from many research articles which mention four
or five in their introduction,[29][32][14][4][33][36][34][58][56][2][44][10]
[9]." (end of
quote) (note that
the last sentence and reference number (15) are gone.
At 18:12 on 27th January
2009 WhatamIdoing reverted the essay again and was still using
the reason that I included RSN banned references.
At 18:26 on 27th January WhatamIdoing continued to misrepresent the facts by
implying that I had never
provided any other
references for that
statement, and that I still
hadn't. These were the words that WhatamIdoing wrote on the
Reliable sources noticeboard where other editors would see them
. . . . "Posturewriter, this source does
not meet Wikipedia's standards. All sources must meet the requirements
of the basic policy. This
one does not. If you can provide a
reliable source that includes this information, then the information may be included. But this
source itself may not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 27 January
2009.
Note that WhatamIdoing was protesting
that all I needed was only one reliable source
to show that there were many different labels used for Da Costa's
syndrome and yet I provided sixteen. However, in a previous discussion Guido den Broeder
accused WhatamIdoing of providing unreliable sources to show
that there were five different labels. One of them was Paul Wood
from 1941 and this was the response . . . "See this information
from NORD, which lists several terms . . . as exact synonyms.
Many original scientific papers such as this one,
and this one name several of these as exact synonyms. So
I have good reliable sources - both original research and
independent, third party reviews - that all assert that these
names are synonymous" signed
WhatamIdoing 19:49, 28th May 2008.
(Note that the words "this
one" in red were linked to
Paul Wood's 1941 paper which I used as reference number 14 above,
and I was the editor who actually put it on the Da Costa's page
months earlier. The reference that WhatamIdoing referred to as
"this one" in green
was linked to an article by Cohen and White, and my reference
number 35 above was by the same authors.
|
|
TAKE
A BREAK????
How
my two critics twisted their interpretation of policy to suit
their own purposes
The Wikipedia guidelines for discussions
recommend that heated arguments can be more effectively settled
if all of the individuals involved take a break
of a week or two to allow things to calm down before resuming
the attempt to resolve the issues. These are the words from Wikipedia:
Etiquette of 22:19 on 10th
March 2008 . . . "Principles
of Wikipedia etiquette . . . If you're arguing take a break.
If you're mediating, recommend
a break . . . Take it slowly. If
you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come
back in a day or a week".
However, on a "Conflict of interest
discussion" (COIN), one of my two critics named WhatamIdoing
started relentlessly arguing about me at 19:20 on 15th May 2008,
when two days later, at 19:06 on 17th May 2008, an
administrator named EdJohnston placed the word BREAK in
bold print at the end. I was very pleased to see an administrator
take that initiative, but to my surprise WhatamIdoing completely
ignored the advice and just kept on writing. I didn't get involved
in the discussion, partly because I was expecting the administrator
to block that editor for disregarding instructions, but instead
of that happening he eventually accepted the criticism and blocked
me. (without even seeing my side of the story???).
Some time later another editor named Avnjay
spent "several hours" reading the discussions and recommended
that all individuals take
a break from the Da Costa's page
for awhile to calm down, and in the process gave me the impression
that WhatamIdoing had a reputation for being temperamental and
hostile in disputes. Here is an extract from Avnjay's suggestion
. . . "Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic but instead
of starting another long, protracted debate here as has happened
at COIN and talk pages could I humbly suggest that the
involved editors take
a break from each other for a while.
If all could agree to stay away from and remove any controversial
material from the relevant article and talk pages etc. then perhaps
we could draw a line under it all . . . As an outside and
completely neutral editor (who holds you all in high
esteem) I plead with you all for peace". signed Avnjay
18:32, 21st July
2008.
I didn't want the same thing to happen
as before so I watched with interest, and then saw that, within a day,
at 22:39 on 22nd
July 2008, Gordonofcartoon had
added one small word "here", at
the end of the existing words "externally linked here", so I clicked on it and it led to an online copy
of a three page criticism of my theory in the Skeptics magazine.
i.e. Gordonofcartoon tried to hide his actions by adding
only one small word that most people wouldn't check, and he effectively
rigged the argument by making it three large pages
to nil against me during
a period that was supposed
to be a break
where nobody made
any comments at all.
About two weeks later at 20:36 on 3-8-08
Avnjay left a message on my talk page which made the meaning
of the word 'break' perfectly clear with these words . . . "Hello
Posturewriter . . . From reading through all the comments I really
think this could be cleared up if everyone was willing to be
humble and step away from the battle lines. There is a particular
line in a song which says, 'We all talk a different language
talking in defense' and this seems rather appropriate here. This is why SmokeyJoe and I have suggested a break . . . So, Posturewriter are you willing to take
the first step by: . . . agreeing not to edit Da Costa's syndrome and similar
articles for while? . . . and .
. . Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing, if Posturewriter
agrees to the above would you be willing to: . . . also agree not to edit
Da Costa's syndrome and similar articles for while?". signed Avnjay 20:36, 3 August 2008.
Eleven hours later, at 11:31 on 4th August
Gordonofcartoon replied . . . 'Short
answer no." and then gave
some 'typically' 'evasive' reasons.
At 13:02 on 4-8-2008 Avnjay wrote these
words to Gordonofcartoon . . . "I hear you Gordon . . . I made the suggestion
of you not editing Da Costa's more as a way to resolve the article dispute than
the user problem - give a chance for another editor to combine
your ideas with Posturewriter's according to quality of sources.
However, I also think it
will be hard to get Posturewriter to agree to stick to a break
if he sees those he feels are his 'critics' making changes he
disagrees with". signed Avnjay
13:02, 4 August 2008.
I discussed those issues with Avnjay between
27th July, and 3rd
August , and during that time,
at 8:45 on 30-7-08 I mentioned that Gordonofcartoon had ignored his advice to take
a break, but then I looked back
on those discussions and noticed that someone had inserted the
word "BREAK" in the middle of some comments
on my Usertalk page and made it look as if I had ignored Avnjays
advice to take a break. I checked the details and found that
it was WhatamIdoing
who put it there at 20:39
on 1st August 2008, and it was an obvious retaliation against
me for accusing them of ignoring similar advice two days earlier.
When I discussed that devious way of doing
things WhatamIdoing gave this response
. . . "About breaks in talk page discussions . . . When
a talk page discussion gets long, or seems to have two or three
separate ideas being discussed together, it's common to split
the long text block into multiple sections. The standard
convention is to insert a level 3 header (===Something===)
at any arbitrary point, and
to label it with words like "Break" or "Arbitrary break" or some
such phrase. If you had wider experience with Wikipedia,
I'm sure you would have seen this before" signed WhatamIdoing
16:58, 4th August 2008.
I don't want to appear
to be arrogant like my two critics, but my experience is a lot
wider than that and I know how to identify "obvious" deviousness and misrepresentation
of the discussion that is intended to be "offensively"
blatant. (It is the equivalent of boasting like this . . . "we
have so much power and influence around here that we can say
and do anything we want and there is nothing that any new contributor
can do about it" - the theme of 'power corrupts; absolute
power corrupts absolutely').
I later found that WhatamIdoing had been criticising me relentlessly
for a month on their own Usertalk
page between 16:15
on 5th October 2008 and 18:29 on 3rd November without telling me, so when I found out
about it, I went there to defend myself. The discussion
continued for awhile when I noticed that WhatamIdoing had gone
back to the place where I joined in, and placed a bold heading
"Fit the second". However, by then I was familiar
with how that editor argued, and it was obvious that the word
"fit" was used because of it's dual meaning of "fit
it in that place where the second part of the discussion starts",
and "fit of criticism starts for the second time" to
imply that I was being tempermental for a second time???? (in
fact I was always calm in my responses and it was my two critics
who were losing their tempers and using foul language and on
the verge of 'tearing their hair out'). I responded at 8:46 on
10th January 2009 by replacing the words "fit for the second"
with the words "WhatamIdoing's attempts at undermining
NPOV policy". (i.e. WhatamIdoing had been undermining
neutral point of view policy by discussing me without telling
me about the discussion and thereby not giving me the opportunity
to present my side of the story), and then, when I did start
defending myself I got this typical response . . . "But
I say again, "You are wasting your time. You cannot
change Wikipedia's policies by leaving messages on my talk page"
signed WhatamIdoing 18:30,
10th January 2009. (INote; I wasn't
tryng to change policies, but was accusing WhatamIdoing of violating
existing ones). WhatamIdoing then reverted the heading and I replaced it again at 1:16
on 11th January 2008 with this
explanation . . . "Wikipedia is not a one way street",
and then WhatamIdoing reverted it again, and on the third
occasion went to an administrators noticeboard and accused me
of making personal attacks against them on their own User talk
page, and told them that I had started an edit war by violating
the "three revert rule" (WP:3RR), and asked them to
block me for edit warring?????? (I was just defending myself
from more than a month of one-sided criticism) However this is
how WhatamIdoing explained the situation to the administrators
about an hour later at 2:42 on 11th January , . . . "I have
asked the editor to stop posting on my talk page in general,
and specifically to quit posting personal attacks. This behaviour,
as I pointed out to him before this last edit, violated the talk
page guideline (specifically, see the fourth bullet item in this
section) as well as WP:NPA . . . we're not talking about a particularly
valuable editor here" signed WhatamIdoing 2:42 on 11th January 2009. (note; the fourth bullet linked to the "Wikipedia:Talk
page guidelines" in the section about new topics and headings
on talk pages, which included this advice . . . "Never use
headings to attack other users".
WhatamIdoing reverted and I reverted again,
and this was the response . . . "He did it again, of course.
That makes four times in less than 24 hours that I've had to
remove this attack from my user talk page, so now it's also a
3RR violation" signed WhatamIdoing 17:15, 11th January 2009
Gordonofcartoon then set
up an arbitration page at 17:48
on 14th January
to get me blocked.
I wrote a brief defense
and then told the arbitrators this . . . "note that this
has been going on for 12 months and I prefer to contribute on
Sundays only so if that is a problem please let me know, but
I don't think anything I say will change the way they do things"
signed Posturewriter 8:32,
27th January 2009.
At 20:25 on 27th January 2009 WhatamIdoing wrote by far the largest essay of
criticism.
I was banned by an editor
named Moreschi at 20:39
on 29th January,
which was a few days before Sunday
1st February 2009,
and a few days later Gordonofcartoon thanked him, and a few months
later WhatamIdoing gave him an "Outlaw halo award"
for breaking the rules to ban me.
Summary; The words "take a break" mean
"take a few days off and stop contributing to the discussion
for awhile". However, WhatamIdoing
ignored EdJohnstons word "break",
and in the process got me topic banned on the second "conflict
of interest" page, and Gordonofcartoon
ignored Avnjay's advice to "take
a break" on an RFC page by
adding a link to a three page essay, and then, while I was taking
a break on the arbitration page they both arranged for one of
their friends to ban me. etc.
Their diversionary argument was that
the word "break"
did not mean "take a break",
but was just an arbitrary way of adding a large bold word
in the middle of a long discussion to make it easier to read.
|
|
WIKIPEDIA
POLICY - "Never use headings to attack
other users"????
"using
headings to attack other users by
naming them in the heading
is especially egregious, since it
places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading
in the edit summary of the page's edit history . . . and damage
their credibility for an indefinite time period" (end of
quote) from the Wikipedia talk page guidelines as at 17-9-2008
WhatamIdoing criticised me in a discussion
on their UserTalk page which had a main section heading with the title . . . "WIKPEDIA:Requests for comment /Posturewriter" . . . It was presented in large print which was highlighted in blue and linked to an RFC discussion page. They later positioned it as the first
discussion at the top of the page which
made it the most prominent "discussion heading". Clicking on the link in the title leads to the
RFC page where WhatamIdoing's tag team mate Gordonofcartoon accused
me of violating more
than fifteen policies.
That discussion continued
from 5-10-08 to 3-11-08, and included almost 2000 words
with almost 1500 of them being written by WhatamIdoing who
was making relentless insulting remarks about me, and criticising
the subpage that I was writing in co-operation with a neutral
editor. I eventually found out about it because WhatamIdoing
had cut and pasted that subpage and subjected it to more than
80 items of criticism and was telling Avnjay that there were
more things wrong with it.
I went to the discussion
for the first time at 21:56 on 31-12-08, and WhatamIdoing
later inserted a small
sub-heading with only three words - "Fit
the second" at the start of my comments, and I replaced
them with only six words - "WhatamIdoing's attempts at undermining NPOV
policy" and
WhatamIdoing told the administrators that I had violated the
policy that said you can't use headings to make personal attacks
on other editors.
Here were the words
used by WhatamIdoing on the Administrators Noticeboard in
a second discussion . . . "Previous version reverted
. . . Note that this involves partial reversions, plus additional
comments, the edit war is over his determination to restore a
subsection head that attacks me" signed WhatamIdoing 17:45
11th January 2009.
Summary: An editor named WhatamIdoing wrote fifteen
hundred words to
criticise me for
a month in a section at the top of their Usertalk page
called "Requests for comment/Posturewriter, and linked it to a page where
I was accused by their tag team mate of violating more than fifteen policies. I then joined the discussion and
made it a two sided discussion, with 1800 words of mine,
and 900 words of reply from WhatamIoing, and during that time
I changed three words into six on a minor sub heading
four times in one day, and mentioned only one policy violation, and then WhatamIdoing went rushing
off the the administrators and asked them to block me for using
a section heading for the purpose of making personal attacks
on them?????.
*****
Number
1 - The top discussion on WhatamIdoing's User talk page for more than three months
The Requests for comments/Posturewriter heading was first placed on WhatamIdoing's
Usertalk page by an editor named Wizardman at 20:18 on 18-9-08
where it was item
number 15 at the end of a small list of 15.
It was still number 15 on a list of 31 at 8:43 on 24-10-08, and then
at 18:08 on the same day WhatamIdoing moved half of the items to an archive so that the "Requests
for comments/Posturewriter discussion appeared at the top of the page as
item number 1 in a list of the remaining 17.
I found that discussion
and started making comments there at 21:56 on 31-12-2008 when it was still number 1 in a
list of 70 and
that proceeded until I left my last comments at 7:43 on 11-1-08
and was blocked.
At
that stage it was still number 1 at the top of the page and the list had grown to 102 discussions involving other editors
on other topics.
At 1:15 on 11-1-09
I wrote these words . . . "WhatamIdoing; you have positioned
a section with the title of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Postuewriter
at the top of your User Talk page so that all of your friends
will see it, in the hope that they will assist you in your relentless
efforts to insult me for the purpose of discrediting my contributions"
At 1:23 on 11-1-09
WhatamIdoing gave this reply . . . "the reason this section is at the
top of my talk page is because I archive in date order. Like all normal talk pages, new
items go on the bottom. If you would quit adding to this section
(as I've suggested several times now), then I'd be able to archive
it during the next regular round. If you don't like having
it at the top of my user talk page - - then stop posting here!"
WhatamIdoing expected
me to believe that a list of 31 was reduced to a list of 15 as
part of a routine archiving process arranged in date order, and
that the discussion about me was placed at the top of the page
as the result of sheer co-incidence, and that it was still
number 1 in a list of 70 when I started adding to it five weeks
later, and that it was still number 1 in a list of 102 when I
was blocked from that page, and it was still number 1 on a list
of 97 on the day I was banned - 28-1-09, and that it was then
archived along with 98 other articles as part of a routine
process only nine days after I was banned, when it
was still number 1 on a list of 103 at 20:50 on 10-2-09, leaving
a new page with a total list of only four at 20:53 on 10-2-09.
i.e. WhatamIdoing
expects me to believe that the discussion was put at the top
of the page on 24th October 2008, and kept there for more than
three months, as the list of discussions grew from 17 to a massive
102 items, and was then archived only nine days after I was banned
because of routine archiving practices related to date order????
It was obviously put on the top of the page so
that it would be the first item that all of WhatamIdoing's friends
would see, in the hope that one of them would eventually find
a way to ban me, and it was always going to stay on top until
that happened. However, after I was banned, it had served it's
purpose, and was not in the least bit necessary, and so then,
and only then, was it "routinely" archived?????????
As they say . .
. If is looks like a duck, and it swims like a duck, and it quacks
like a duck - it's probably a duck.
*******
Note that I had previously
responded to six months of constant criticism from the same two
editors by writing an essay about the tactics being used against
me, complete with links to the evidence. They called it an attack
essay, and kept arguing about it until I was banned and it was
deleted. That essay was called "The Motivations, Strategies,
and Tactics of my Critics", but I did not put their name
in the heading, and I didn't mention their names in the text,
but linked to their discussions to show evidence and to
verify the way some editors were violating their own principles
and policies. I was new to Wikipedia and I didn't know all the
policies, so I wrote in plain English that they were using "wild
goose chases" which is the Wikipedia equivalent of "moving
the goal posts". etc. Another word that I used to explain
the way they were editing was "policy tactics".
|
|
The
ridiculous Conflict of Interest argument presented by my two
critics
When another person provided an article
about my theory to Wikipedia, everything was accepted until 28-11-07
when, within eight hours, seven editors recommended that it be
deleted on the grounds of breech of copyright or non-notability.
When I found out about it I responded the next day by informing
them that I was the author of the book and had given that person
permission to use the material. On 30-11-07 an editor named Someguy1221
wrote these words . . . "Did anyone who isn't you and didn't
collaborate with you, ever publish on this theory"(end of
quote). I then spent a few days providing information about where
my theory and research had been presented and reported on, and
then on 1-12-07 the same editor said . . . "We just need dates, titles (and most preferably online versions of all of this) so
that it can actually be
verified
that everything you said is true.
I can only
verify that which is available
online" (end
of quote). I then provided them with the names of some of the
publications, and the dates and page numbers where my theory
had been reviewed, and contacted the newspapers where
reports of my research had been published but they told me
that items published thirty years ago were not available online
and that I would need to go to the various state libraries
and get the actual newspapers from their crypts. I then explained
those facts to the editors of Wikipedia but on 5-12-09 an editor
named Fang Ali deleted the article with this explanation . .
. "The result was delete".
I then found that anyone was welcome to
set up a new discussion if they wanted to, and that they could
provide evidence of notability at any time in the future,
and then ask for a review of the decision. However, I
had already discussed the issue for about a week, and didn't
see any urgency in it, and I knew that I had copies of articles
that were published in several local newspapers, and about four
major interstate newspapers, somewhere in my records, so I decided
to look for them and add the information in the next few weeks.
In the meantime I looked through the pages
of Wikipedia for topics where I knew that I had proven factual
information from old books that most authors would not be aware
of, and which I could add to improve the encyclopedias range
of knowledge. I then found a page about Da Costa's syndrome so
I started contributing to it on 9-12-07 and about a week later,
on 18-12-07, I added some information about my own theory and
research. An editor named WhatamIdoing then added information
to it on the same day, and three days later, on 21-12-07, set
up a talk page to criticise me. To my surprise my real name was
placed at the top of the page in bold print. The opening words
were "No
copyright material this time",
and the first words describing my contributions were by WhatamIdoing
who said that it was just about "garden variety orthostatic
intolerance and hyperventilation syndrome".
The second comment was by Gordonofcartoon who wrote "Nothing
I can find in real
medical literature sugests it merits
such undue space." (note the
spelling of the word "suggests" was wrong and has never
been corrected).
I then offered to abbreviate that section
so that it took
up less space, but WhatamIdoing
responded by using my own personal first name?? and these words
. . . "Max, I apologise if my previous comments weren't
clear. I don't want your made-up theory shortened: I want it
removed entirely from this article" signed WhatamIdoing
18:42,
27th December 2008, and then Gordonofcartoon
wrote these words . . . "I agree, and am removing it . .
. I've also posted it to WP:COI/N" (the Conflict of interest
noticeboard) signed Gordonofcartoon at 1:05, 29th December 2007.
At 1:56 on the same day (29-12-08) I
addressed the following words to WhatamIdoing . . . "I
understand that Wikipedia policy allows for a person to present
a reasonably arranged set of facts, so long as each of them can
be independently verified from multiple quality sources".
I then went through my old records to find
a copy of a newspaper article from 1982, and scanned it onto
my computer. However, I couldn't find a postal address for Wikipedia,
and although I knew how to add text to articles, I didn't know
how to add images, so
I placed the copy of the newspaper article on my own website.
I also explained to
Gordonofcartoon how aspects of my own research were similar
to the findings of many others since, which had been favorably
reviewed, and I included these words
. . . "I
have added a scanned copy of one of the newspaper article jpegs
to my website ref.16 for
verification
of the project". signed Posturewriter 00:41,
14th January 2008. (I also included
that reference to show other editors where to find a copy of
the article to verify that I actually was involved in a research
project, and that it was reported in at least one major interstate
newspaper, to fulfill
the only
outstanding requirement
for notability).
Within less than an hour WhatamIdoing deleted
the information anyway with these words . . . "Posturewriter,
did you 'forget' that promoting your own non-notable research
ideas constitutes a conflict of interest, or were you just hoping
that no one would notice when you added the information again"
signed WhatamIdoing 1:34, 14th January 2008.
(Note that I didn't 'forget' anything, and if fact, I made it
obvious by clearly explaining what I was doing, and why I was
doing it. !!!!!)
As a result of that criticism I haven't
added any information about my theory or research since that
day, but proceeded to write the history of the subject., so I
only actually added it once in full, and the second time it was
abbreviated, and it was then deleted for the second and final time
on 14th January 2008.
Nevertheless the same two critics kept
complaining about it and tried to convince the other editors
that I was adding it every week for the next twelve months.
For example, four months later,
at 21:13 on 13th May 2008 Gordonofcartoon set up a "Conflict of interest" number
2 discussion to get me topic banned after "Conflict
of interest" number one discussion failed, and this is what
WhatamIdoing added a few thousand words later on the 18th May
to get me topic banned . . . "I
think we can all agree that describing your own clinical research
in an article, complete with reference to a newspaper article
about yourself is a clear cut violation of WP:COI. Of course the first time could have been an innocent
mistake, but sticking it back in there after it's been deleted
according to the agreement of every independent editor who has
looked at his additions cannot be construed as an unknowing mistake,
especially since he's been repeatedly warned on his talk page
and elsewhere about WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:COPYVIO concerns"
signed WhatamIdoing 1:39,
18th May
2008.
As a matter of interest, that newspaper article was published twenty five years earlier, in 1982, and I have had more than 180 letters
and articles published in newspapers, journals, or magazines,
and no other editor has ever asked for a copy of it, and I haven't
seen any reason to put it on my own website before, and as such,
if the Wikipedia editors didn't ask me to provide it online,
I wouldn't have put it there.
WP:Notability
The
Reliability of references about my own involvement in a research
programme
Several reports about the research programmes
were published in the Adelaide
"News" where the articles
were part of the process of the request for volunteers, and after
the third programme was completed a freelance journalist wrote
a summary which was sent to, and, published by at least three major state newspapers, which included 'The West Australian',
The 'Sydney Morning
Herald' and 'The Courier Mail'
in Brisbane. All of the journalists asked me to provide
the phone number of the research institute because the editors
of major newspapers require them to verify the accuracy of
all reports before they will publish them.
Here is a statement by one of my two critics
. . . "Wikipedia uses secondary sources, but ones that are
reliable as defined by WP:RS: ones with known reputation as sources
(e.g. quality newspapers
where there's known editorial oversight and fact-checking)" signed Gordonofcartoon 23:50, 17 February
2010
Here is a statement by my other critic
about notability requirements . . . WP:ORG clearly
requires the existence of one
non-local reliable source . . . Wikipedia explicitly defines itself as a
worldwide encyclopedia . . . If no reader outside of a tiny geographic
area is likely to be interested in the subject, then it is probably
not appropriate for a worldwide encyclopedia" signed WhatamIdoing
8:16 17 February 2010
Here is another statement by the same person
about the requirements for meeting the notability guidelines
. . . If something . . . "has received attention outside of it's local area, then that's enough".
signed WhatamIdoing 00:27, 17th February 2010
Here is part of an argument presented by
WhatamIdoing to an editor named MASEM at 1:23 on 15 March 2010
. . . "I can assure you that anyone who has worked his (or
her) way up to national desk editor would be very unhappy to
have their professional skills dismissed as 'trivial distribution'
or not really editor-level work . . . and . . . the action that suggests notability is the action of the person choosing
to distribute the content."
Here
are extracts from some of the articles
"Fitness
helps in therapy": from
the Adelaide News dated August
5, 1982, page 5
"SA could have a world
first with a fitness research programme into a medical complaint
that causes abnormal tiredness and depression . . . Soviet research
assessed the fitness level of people suffering the complaint,
and in Sweden experimental courses were held for sufferers. But
neither assessed the physical effect of exercises comprehensively
. . . Programme co-ordinator Max Banfield said the condition
was difficult to diagnose"
"Research
Matches Russian Results": from
the Adelaide News
dated December 20,
1982, page 18
"Research into a complaint
which causes abnormal tiredness and depression is matching results
of a similar Russian programme. In both countries, sufferers
of neurasthenia have experienced breathlessness, faintness, dizziness
and heart palpitations, although tests show no heart problems
. . . the non-competitive course would enable individuals to
exercise at their own level. The programme aimed at relieving
the chest pain, fatigue and depression of sufferers while researching
the effects of exercise. "
Study lifts
fitness levels: from
the Adelaide News dated August
11, 1983. page
13
"The pilot study at
the SA Institute for Fitness Research and Training may be a world
first . . . Mr. Banfield said Soviet and Swedish research into
the complaint matched initial findings in SA. . . . the fitness
course was an extension of initial research . . . The majority
of people who undertook fitness training at the Centre gained
measurable benefits."
Eight years
earlier: This is
a quote from a 1974 book called The Heart, by J.W.Hurst . . .
"Attempts by Cohen and his associated to alter these abnormalities
by physical training were unsuccessful since the patients
could not or would not follow the prescribed training programme".
To solve that problem I
designed a training programme, in 1982, that some
patients could and did follow. M.B.
|
|
Conflict
of Interest Decisions
If you read an article in Wikipedia that
said that your favorite football player was a cheat, you could
register with them and edit that page to say that he wasn't.
If an argument started another editor might say that you were
just an ordinary person who didn't know enough about the subject
to change anything, and that, as a member of the same football
club, you were too closely involved to give and objective opinion.
If the argument continued the other editor could set up a "Conflict
of interest" discussion to get you blocked.
Ten or twenty editors could then see that
page and leave their comments, and if fifteen agreed with you,
and five disagreed, then a neutral editor would make a decision
in your favor. If, however, fifteen disagreed and only five agreed,
then the deciding editor would probably tell you that you have
been banned from writing about football, and any form of sport,
including horse racing, the Olympic games, swimming, ski-ing,
or anything even remotely related to physical activity, but you
would be welcome to add useful information to pages about other
totally unrelated subjects such as flower arrangement and poetry.
In my case the topic was Da Costa's syndrome,
and because I have a knowledge of that subject, two editors kept
losing arguments against me, so one of them set up a 'Conflict
of interest' discussion to
prevent me from editing that page.
Their first attempt failed, so after they lost some more arguments
they set up Conflict of interest number 2. More
than 3000 words of discussion followed, and then an editor
named EdJohnston made a decision that I should not write about
that subject anymore or I would be violating COI policy, and
be banned.
I would like you to spend a few seconds
guessing how many uninvolved editors contributed to the second
discussion prior to that decision being made, so please stop
and do that now. Please think about it and form an honest opinion.
For example, would it be none, five, ten, twenty or fifty, or
some other number. After you have made an estimate you can start
reading again because I will tell you the answer shortly. First
of all, I was the person being discussed, and the decision was
made before I presented my side of the story, so I wasn't even
one of them.
Now that you have had time to make a guess
to compare with, I can tell you that there were only four editors
in the discussion. Most of the words were written by my two critics.
The third editor was Guido den Broeder who told them that there
was no evidence that my contributions were being affected by
a conflict of interest. The only other editor was EdJohnston
who eventually made the decision after the relentless barrage
of criticism from my two critics. In other words there was only
one neutral editor who agreed with me, and only one who eventually
agreed with them. The outcome was actually one for, and one against.
Although EdJohnston was only one editor, he made
the decision about the topic ban, and therefore unwittingly left
the false impression that it represented the consensus of opinion
of dozens of neutral editors, and that the majority of them were
involved in the decision against me.
After that discussion was over other editors
would take a quick look at the decision and agree with the closing
admin without reading all of the details. My two critics then
continued to lose more content disputes on the DCS talk page,
so they set up more discussion pages and always started with
words like this . . . 'we have a disruptive editor with
a 'conflict of interest' which has been discussed by many
editors who have told him this repeatedly in COI
1. and COI 2. etc., and the entire Wikipedia community
is thoroughly disgusted by his behavior and we are all losing our patience with him so we want him blocked. They continued
relentlessly and always exaggerated the outcome in their favor,
and even when I won by a clear consensus, and they lost, they
would never concede defeat, but would tell the other editors
that the discussion
failed. It was part of their general strategy to look
for, and invent faults in me, and exaggerate them out of all
proportion, and to understate any major faults that I found in
them.
Have another
guess
Now that you know how my two critics exaggerate
everything I would like you to have another 'educated' guess.
Here are your clues. I started adding to the Da Costa's topic
on December 9th 2007, and continued throughout a period which
spanned twelve full months plus fifty days until January 28th
2009. At that time I was banned on the basis of their allegation
that I had a conflict of interest and was using Wikipedia to
promote my theory with every word that I added. I was actually
adding information from 65 independent sources, including direct
quotes from people who did their research on a dozen other theories
before I was born, and Harvard professors who wrote the history
of the topic decades ago, and whose findings were reported in
international research journals. Here is your question: Was all
mention of my own research and theories deleted from the topic
page in January 2008, or January 2009????? Stop and guess now,
without reading any further, because I am about to give you
the answer. It was January 2008.
Have a third
guess
Most authorities on Da Costa's syndrome
would say that if the patient does not have the typical type
of breathlessness which involves abnormally deep and frequent sighing,
then they do not have DCS. In fact, in 1956 Paul Wood
was the top authority in the U.K. and he provided statistics
that it affected
93% of DCS patients and was the most
common symptom. The cause was a
complete mystery for seventy years until researchers such
as S.Wolf, and Cohen and White etc, found and reported, in
the late 1940's, that it was due to an abnormal function of the
respiratory muscles. Why did my two critics delete all of
that information????? Was it (a) because it was wrong, or (b)
because it wasn't scientifically proven, or (c) because the references
were old, or (d) because the other four main symptoms are more
important, or (e) because the authors weren't reliable, or (f)
because they weren't published in top quality peer reviewed medical
journals, or (g) because, in their contrived opinion, I was using
those references to support my theory about posture and breathing.
If you guessed a, b, c, d, e, or f, you
would be wrong. They deleted it because they argued that I deliberately
cherry - picked those references to support my own theory about
posture, chest shape, and breathing, and they expected me to rewrite the article on Da Costa's
syndrome without mentioning anything about respiratory research. These were Gordonofcartoon's words . . . "but
as I've said . . . everything you add spins the subject toward
a focus on breathing, breathlessness, the diaphragm etc - funnily
co-inciding with the Banfield theory" signed Gordonofcartoon
at 13:17 on 23-3-08.
Have a fourth
guess
How did the information
that I gave Wikipedia end up on my own website. Was it (a) because
I thought it was a good idea at the time, or (b) because I wanted
to use Wikipedia to promote my own theory, or (c) because one
of my two hostile critics asked me to????? Please guess now,
and then read on.
Here were WhatamIdoing's
words . . . "Posturewriter,
why don't you put all of this specialised material on your own
website? It would
be a more appropriate place for such specialized material".
signed WhatamIdoing 20:34 on 8-2-08 (end of quote) . . . Gordonofcartoon
saw all of that discussion and agreed with it and made the next
edit within half an hour. He later played dumb, and pretended
that he didn't know about that request. These were his typical
ill-mannered words advising me to keep things brief in the
future . . . "It's meant to be an encyclopedia article for
the general reader. Liposuction
time?" signed
Gordonofcatoon 20:51, 8-2-08.
I soon put any deleted
material on my own website, and started a reference section,
and added more references and began writing full reviews there,
and then started selecting articles on the basis of
which ones complied with all policies - which included neutral
point of view (WP:NPOV), and then I abbreviated them before
adding them to Wikipedia.
This is what Gordonofcartoon
wrote about me on the Conflict of Interest number 2 page three
months later . . . "he's
adding large verbatim dumps of material from his own website: not neutral stuff, but summaries
of papers selectively collated and commented to support Posture
Theory. He's turning Wikipedia into an annexe of his own reference
section, and it needs to stop" signed Gordonofcartoon 10:55
on 14-5-08.
Summary of
their spin: When
I put all information on my own website because they asked me
to, and then when I reviewed and abbreviated it so that it complied
with all of their requests for neutrality and conciseness, they
spun it around to make me look disruptive by saying that I was
dumping stuff from my website onto Wikipedia.
Have a fifth
guess
I made contributions to
the Da Costa's article for about fourteen months between December
9th 2007 and January 29th, 2009, during which time I had two
critics who would take turns at finding reasons for deleting
everything I wrote. i.e. I would add something on a Sunday, and
on Monday Gordonofcartoon would say that it violated a policy,
and on Tuesday WhatamIdoing would delete it. I would add another
paragraph on the following Sunday, and then WhatamIdoing would
say that it violated another policy, and Gordonofcartoon would
say 'Yup, I agree - therefore 'we' have consensus'', and then
delete it. They then tried to create the impression that dozens
of other contributors were complaining about me being constantly
disruptive every day of the year by using such words as . . .
'"we" can understand why "all" of the other
respectable editors on that page are becoming "thoroughly
disgusted" with this disruptive editor.'
Here is your question:
How many editors were arguing with me on the Da Costa's page.
Was it more than a million, five thousand, several hundred. ten,
or less than five?????
Answer, There was a grand
total of approximately 206 edits made to the page while I was
there. Of those, 27 editors made one edit each, and were mainly
routine spelling corrections etc. There were 8 editors who made
2 edits each, and one editor made three. Four editors made four
edits each. One editor made 6 edits in 1 week in early June 2008,
and another person made 11 edits in 3 days during December 2007.
An editor named Guido den
Broeder came to the topic page and made 33 edits in ten days,
and also made other edits on the DCS talk page, mainly agreeing
with me, and supporting me, and arguing with my two critics by
telling them that I was not violating COI policy. This was one
of his comments . . . "
I don't care what he may have done half a year ago. He does not
need to be stopped, since he is not promoting anything or adding
any original research to the article now". Guido den Broeder
(talk) 17:29: 20 May 2008. (end of quote). However my two
critics then started arguing with him and insulting him, and
accusing him of violating various policies, and then one of them
came to my User talk page and left these sarcastic remarks .
. . "Guido's been blocked for a week over edit warring,
and claims he is going to be off wiki for a month, so the
talk page should return to normal for awhile" signed
WhatamIdoing 00:52, 30-5-2008. (The name Guido den Broeder has
since been changed to Roadcreature on the edit history).
The topic page had an associated
talk page with the following edits. The grand total was about
260. Ten individuals made one edit each, four made two each,
one editor made five, and a auto edit made 9. Guido den Broeder
made 51 edits in three weeks starting in July. There were only
three other editors. WhatamIdoing made 69 edits and Gordonofcartoon
made 60, and most of their 129 edits were aimed at criticising
me or trying to convince other editors that I should be blocked.
I defended myself only 49 times because they would find fault
with every word I wrote anyway, something like this . . . WhatamIdoing
would say . . . 'Oh yes, you have complied with policy a, b,
and c, but you have violated policy d', and then Gordonofcartoon
would reply . . . 'Yup, we have consensus on that'.
In essence there were only
three people editing that page throughout most of the year. I
made 40 contributions (less than one a week), and WhatamIdoing
did most of the arguing with 30 edits, and Gordonofcartoon collaborated
with 24 criticisms (i.e. a total of 54 between them). They criticised
me more times than I made contributions.
When the topic page, and
the discussion page were combined, the total number of edits
was 470, and of those I made 90 edits, and my two critics together
made 190, and they set up and continued to argue on at least
ten other pages to block me. The majority of their 190 comments,
even with other editors, were critical of my editing.
Did you guess right?????
(less than five - in fact, only two) Perhaps you might like to
answer this question? Would you be able to defend yourself from
a relentless onslaught of 190
criticisms, with only
90 replies???? Here is a tip. If I replied
to their criticisms every five minutes, they would have "predictably"
criticised me fifty times a day, so I tried to keep it down to
one contribution per week, and they would keep arguing until
they deleted everything, or until they had talked another editor
into blocking me or banning me, generally in a hurry, before
I had time to respond. They would then build up a tally and say
'look at all of the other editors who agree with
us'.
Have a sixth
guess
On the conflict of interest
page (number two), EdJohnston wrote these words of advice to
WhatamIdoing . . . "There are several other editors active in this COI report who should
be able to review any changes. If you have any ideas for improvement of the
article, just start making them and see what happens". signed
EdJohnston 19:06 17th May 2007.
Here are your questions:
EdJohnston said their were
"several"
other active editors
on the COI page. How many were "several"; was it ten,
five, three, one, or none??? . . . Also why didn't WhatamIdoing
like that advice?????
Answer: Gordonofcartoon
set up the COI page to block me, and WhatamIdoing wrote the
largest volume of criticism to convince EdJohnston that there were vast numbers of other editors
arguing against me so that he would block me. EdJohnston
actually did
believe that there
were "several"
"other" editors involved in the COI discussion. However,
at that time (17-5-08), there were only three editors on the
page besides EdJohnston, namely WhatamIdoing, Gordonofcartoon,
and Guido den Broeder. i.e. besides my two critics there was
only one "other" editor. The decision was made
before I gave my side of the story, so I wasn't even there.
The reason that my two
critics didn't want to let "several" "other"
editors review their additions, was because there was actually
only "one" "other" editor, named Guido den Broeder,
and he was telling them that they were both wrong, so they arranged
for him to be banned.
Here is a quote from another
editor named Father Goose on the Consensus policy talk page .
. . "When it's a close split like 3 to 2 or something, that's
'no consensus'" signed Father Goose 5:25, 14th February
2010 . . . which means that my two critics were repeatedly claiming
consensus on COI when they knew that they didn't actually have
it.
Have a seventh
guess
There were about fifteen editors discussing
whether to ban me or not on the arbitration page. How many of
them influenced the decision???? . . . Was it one, five, ten,
or fifteen.
Answer: It was one, named Moreschi, who
had lost one brief argument against me five months earlier; on
an ANI page that was started by one of my two critics at 11:29
on 25-8-08. The only other editor in that discussion was anonymous,
and he agreed with me.
This was a section heading in bold print
at the end of the arbitration page . . . "Arbitrators
opinion on hearing this matter" . These were the first
words in that section . . . "Awaiting statement from
Posturewriter" signed Carcharoth at 22:08 on 26-1-09.
Twelve other arbitrators then left their opinions and were aware
that I was preparing a response to their comments, and would
be presenting it on Sunday 1st of February 2009.
Moreschi barged in on the discussion and
wrote these words four days before I was due to make that final
statement . . . "I've banned Posturewriter, as I should
have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to this sooner.
This will save you a case I think" signed Moreschi
at 00:24 28th January 2009. (i.e. Moreschi took the
case away from the twelve independent arbitrators and made
the decision to ban me on his own). On the next day he threatened
to argue with anyone who challenged his decision. Here were his
words" . . . "I would take extreme issue with
the overturning of" (the ban). signed Moreschi 20:39, 29-1-09.
A few months later WhatamIdoing rewarded him with an Outlaw
Halo award for being the only administrator who was
willing to break the rules and ban me.
In the Wikipedia guidelines
on consensus there was a discussion about what was required
and at 3:29 on 14th February 2010 WhatamIdoing made this comment
"If you want a practical answer . . . you need a four to one ratio to
enforce any proposed change".
|
|
One
of the conflict of interest arguments
On December 9th 2007 I
started adding information to the Da Costa's syndrome page, and
increased the number of references from nil to six, and then
at 05:58 on 18-12-07 I mentioned my own research and theory.
Sixteen hours later, at 21:33 another editor named WhatamIdoing
added the statement that the ailment was a type of anxiety disorder,
but did not provide a reference. However, two hours later the
same editor added another sentence after it, and supported it
with a reference to a 1987 research review by Oglesby Paul. That
reference was added without the proper coding and had to be corrected
by another editor the next day. By January there were fifteen
references, and WhatamIdoing and another editor named Gordonofcartoon
had become two constant critics who would find fault with almost
every word I wrote, and they had deleted information about my
own research twice, on the grounds of a conflict of interest
policy that says a person should avoid adding information about
their own ideas. All information about my research was deleted
for the second time by WhatamIdoing at 1:34 on 14-1-08. That
did no bother me, so I started adding information from other
researchers in other decades and other countries. However, when
I added information about respiratory research from the 1940's
they said that I had chosen it to support my own theory, and
deleted it on the grounds of a policy called 'Synthesis".
I continued to add references but it didn't matter where I got
them from, the same two critics would find some reason for deleting
them. At that stage, I decided to look at the references provided
by other editors, and noticed the article by Oglesby Paul, and
I found that it was put there by WhatamIdoing. That particular
editor was claiming to be a strict rule-abiding expert on Wikipedia
policy who only used top quality references that complied with
all guidelines, so I assumed that I could review it for Wikipedia
without someone telling me that it was 'nonsense' or crap' (their
words). When I read the ten page article I noticed that it discussed
at least ten different ideas, and concluded that the cause was
unknown because for every scientific study which showed a particular
cause there were others which showed it couldn't be. For example,
If one study showed a virus as the cause, another researcher
would find patients who didn't have a virus at the time of contracting
the ailment. However, it also showed that for each study that
showed anxiety as the cause, there were other researchers who
found patients who were not anxious, and didn't develop any of
the other 'so-called' anxiety diseases. That, of course, meant
that WhatamIdoing had deliberately misrepresented the article.
However, when I mentioned that DCS was a disorder of unknown
cause, my two critics would delete it and replace it with the
words "Da Costa's syndrome is considered to be an anxiety
disorder", and use Oglesby Paul as a reference. When I told
them that they were misrepresenting his article they started
a hostile argument with me and other editors. Of course, WhatamIdoing
was the person who added Paul's research paper to the reference
list, but obviously forgot (or thought that I wouldn't be able
to find out), and tried to convince the other editors that I
had "cherry-picked", or carefully gone through many
research papers and specifically chose only those studies which
supported my ideas????? - Note, it was WhatamIdoing's choice,
and my research wasn't mentioned in it.
Here are the exact words
that WhatamIdoing wrote on the Conflict of interest number 2
page to get me blocked . . . "As for cherry-picking:
He lists a BMJ (Heart) paper that
discusses the history of the syndrome, but skips the letter
published in response that says it's all a bunch of
garbage . . . I'm at the "give up" level with this
editor. I do not
think that Posturewriter has an interest in contributing
anything other than
his original research" signed WhatamIdoing, at 19:20
on 15-5-2008.
Two months later, when
I criticised them on an RFC page for misrepresenting Oglesby
Paul's article again, I wrote these words . . . "Oglesby
Paul was a Harvard researcher whose history of all of the important
research controversies of Da Costa's syndrome was presented in
the British Heart Journal . . . and another editor had placed
it as a reference number 1 . . . before I reviewed it"
signed Posturewriter 10:39 27-July
2008
WhatamIdoing gave the following
response . . . "Oglesby Paul's paper is a review . . . .BTW
(by the way) I
added it".
signed WhatamIdoing 00:50, 28
July 2008 (note
that WhatamIdoing
acknowledged adding it to the reference list which means that they knew all the time that it was not
put there by me, and
that my use of it had
absolutely nothing to do with cherry-picking, original research,
or conflict of interest.
WhatamIdoing also knew that the reference was not 'garbage'.
********
Here is a quote
from the Wikipedia page on Civility (good manners when dealing
with others) "Editors should always endeavor to treat each
other with consideration and respect" . . . and it gives
some examples of uncivil behavior . . . "Lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false
information".
Incidentally, when an editor
makes a comment, especially a harsh one, they are supposed to
verify it, but WhatamIdoing did not provide a citation to support
the statement that someone else called Oglesby Paul's article
garbage. However, in a later edition of the British Heart Journal,
Volume 59, p.727-8 Jenny C. King and P.G.F. Nixon wrote a letter
in the Correspondence section, that was critical of his article,
but did not use the words "all a bunch of garbage".
|
|
Conflict
of Interest in my two critics
At one stage I learned that my
two critics had been in Wikipedia for about four years and had
accrued 20,000 edits between them, so I had a closer look. I
noticed an example when WhatamIdoing did more than 300 edits
in one day that spanned 16 hours, and that it was not uncommon
for that person to do more than 100 edits in one day. I therefore
considered the possibility that such a person would be highly
paid to do that, or have a staff of 3 to six people to assist
them with that volume of edits.
Also, on 20-7-08 Gordonofcartoon
added 15 edits in five and a half hours to set up an RFC page
against me.
I think that it is extremely
doubtful that anyone would spend that amount of time editing
for free so I asked them to tell me their conflict of interest
but they argued that I was violating the policy that says I have
to assume good faith in them.
I think that anyone who assumed
good faith under those circumstances would have to be called
naive, unless of course there was some independent investigation
to verify it.
Note that they were quite liberal
in their questions to me about who I was, and my research and
publications, and they even asked me to tell 'more' about myself
on several occasions, and I answered them politely, only to be
told over and over again that I had a conflict of interest. They
even used my personal sir name in the title of sections where
they criticised me, and they kept telling all of the other editors
those personal details to build prejudice against me.
However when I asked questions
about who they were and what conflict of interest they had they
acted with hostility as if I was being deliberately offensive?????
Their double standards were extreme and objectionably ridiculous.
|
|
The
control of content in Wikipedia using puppets????
After I started adding information to the
Da Costa's syndrome page it soon became apparent that I had two
critics who were trying to control the content by deleting everything
that I added and replacing it with their own biased opinions.
About six months later two neutral editors offered me the opportunity
of writing the entire essay a second time on
a subpage where they would assist me in making it comply with
all policies. I therefore spent several weeks rewriting
the article, and posted it to the subpage. One of the neutral
editors was intelligent, articulate, co-operative, constructive,
and genuine, and described it as "a lot better" than
the existing one, and the process of improving it continued harmoniously
until the first section had been satisfactorily rewritten by
him, but then he asked me to slim down and rewrite the remaining
history, and transfer some of the information to other sections.
Essentially, he asked me to rewrite most of the article for the third time. During those discussions I was responding to
a lot of his questions and became suspicious that one of my earlier
critics had suggested the ideas to annoy me and waste my time.
I soon found that the editor called WhatamIdoing had cut and
pasted my whole essay onto another page and invented more than
80 faults in it, and was then using their own talk page as the
venue for telling Avnjay that everything I wrote was 'a
disaster'.
I then knew that WhatamIdoing was trying
to control content by using the neutral editor as a puppet.
In other words, WhatamIdoing had a track record of inventing
a never ending series of objections to my contributions, and
by later providing a page of 80 things to change, and another
page of relentless criticisms, Avnjay would read them and then
ask me to rewrite everything, without knowing that the intention
was to annoy me and ensure that my article was never finished
or accepted.
In an earlier discussion with my two critics
an anonymous editor deleted the whole page of text and replaced
it with the words "I love cheeseburgers". I suspected
that one of them had gone to their local library and deleted
the article without using their Wikipedia ID. However, when I
mentioned it they both denied it, and made various plausible
excuses. I later found out that such anonymous editing by one
person trying to hide their ID is a common problem in Wikipedia,
and is called sock puppetry. Also, they could have sent
private emails to their interstate or international friends and
asked them to do the deletions anonymously, or with a different
ID, in which case the recruited editors are called Meatpuppets.
Another example is where one person is having difficulty controlling
content on a topic page, so they will go to six of their local
libraries and register six different ID's and then edit the same
page to create the illusion that there is a consensus of seven
people who think that their opponent is wrong, and then use that
consensus as an excuse to make deletions. When groups of 'experienced'
editors or administrators do that they are called cabals.
The whole purpose of using puppets is to hide what is actually
going on behind the scenes, but as they say 'if it looks like
a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably
a duck'.
********
Another example would be where other websites
are used as internet puppets to make their content look
consistent with the descriptions on a particular topic page in
Wikipedia so that it could be used as a reference. Such websites
invite anyone to help them improve their content, so they could
be influenced, or directly edited by my two critics who often
do more than twenty edits a day in Wikipedia, and could easily
do an extra few edits on other sites. One such website that they
used as a reference was 'whonamedit.com'. This is a quote from
it's home page . . . "We need your help . . . Many biographical
entries are incomplete . . . We are grateful for any help in
filling in the gaps and getting things right. You will reach
the editor through the Contact function on the left side of this
page" (end of quote). Of course the editors on that site
may not be aware of the motives behind the people who are 'helping'
them.
|
|
Winning
Arguments
I
present the facts, and let other people argue against them. It
started as an amusing thing to do and became a useful skill.
M.B.
History repeats
itself
One of the first arguments that I participated
in many years ago was when someone claimed to know a friend of
a friend who could predict the future by looking at the pattern
of tea leaves in the bottom of an empty tea cup, so I asked them
to find out the winner of the next Melbourne cup and give me
a thousand dollars to fund my trip to Melbourne where I could
place a bet on the horse and give them half the winnings. They
were very confident in their idea when it was my money, but when
their own money was at stake they came up with all sorts of weird
and wonderful ways of explaining why they couldn't do it. If
you want to test the reliability of someone who claims that they
can determine the location of underground water with a divining
rod, then bury a bottle of water in your own backyard and ask
them to find it, and wait for all of their bizarre explanations
as to why they can't do that. In the meantime consider this:
When I was in Wikipedia I had two critics who would come up with
all sorts or policy reasons for deleting my contributions so
I asked them to apply the same policy requirements to other editors
on similar topic pages, but they couldn't do that because they
knew that they would find themselves being accused of disruptive
editing by every editor on every page they went to, so they came
up with some 'predictable' reasons for not doing that, such as
they didn't have time?????
My sense of
humor is often effective in arguments
One of the ridiculous statements made by
my main critic in several discussions, including the arbitration
page, was this . . . "I see that he "forgot" to
mention that DCS appeared in cavalry (with their non-restrictive
clothing and gear) just as much as infantry (who complained about
their belts), and that the British Army did a massive redesign
of their gear specifically to prevent DCS -- and that it did
not work" signed WhatamIdoing 17:27 6 Oct. 2008 . . . and
this . . . "Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount
of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive
clothing causes DCS; rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not
seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself
for a century now)" signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27-1-09.
Here are the facts to replace WhatamIdoings
lies. The tight uniform debates were an important part of military
history, and I only mentioned it as about 1% of the text that
I provided for Wikipedia, which is not 'inordinate'. Also, J.M.
Da Costa did not reject the idea of the tight waist belt being
implicated, but suggested that it 'undoubtedly' aggravated the
problem, rather than being a cause. Also, many nineteenth century
soldiers were required to wear uniforms that looked 'neat and
trim', so their clothing was typically tight. In fact, the tight
tunics prevented the expansion of the chest, so the soldiers
drew in less air with each breath, which is why the became breathless
and exhausted more easily, and the heavy knapsacks were held
to their bodies with straps that squeezed the abdomen and, or,
the chest, and made breathing even more difficult, and some soldiers
wore 'military corsets' which made the problem even worse. Also,
some people told jokes about soldiers fainting on the way to
battle because of their tight collars, called 'chokers', which
reduced the blood supply to their brains. It was obvious to some
military doctors that the tight clothing was causing chest pains,
breathlessness, dizziness, faintness, and fatigue on long marches
and in man to man combat which required extreme effort. The same
problems effected women who wore corsets where garments with
14 inch diameter waists were available of the rack as a standard
size in London dress shops. They relieved their palpitations,
breathlessness, faintness and fatigue by unlacing their corsets.
Here is a challenge for my two critics
(who read this website), I would like them to phone their local
fitness club tomorrow morning and ask to speak to the person
in charge to organise a race between two groups of 100 men of
equal age, weight, and fitness level, over a five mile cross
county obstacle course. The first group will put on a 14 inch
diameter corset, and then add tight collars, tight tunics, and
have tight straps around their chests attached to 60 pound knapsacks
on their backs, and tight garters on their legs. The second group
will be wearing loose clothing. I will give my two critics seven
days to organise this, and I want them to tell me the results.
I will not tolerate any excuses whatsoever, and will expect nothing
short of an admission that they were wrong (i.e. even over such
a short distance the group wearing tight garments will become
abnormally dizzy, faint, and exhausted, while the other group
is still sprinting off into the distance). I also demand an apology.
Here are my final words of advice - Remember you have seven days
to do this - Ready, set , go.
*****
For another take on the theme, I would
like to organise a race between myself and my two critics: Here
are the rules; each person must have their legs tied tightly
together at the ankles with sturdy ropes, and their arms tied
behind their backs at the wrists. They must then carry an egg
on the end of a spoon while holding the other end in their mouth
and then hop along a course for a distance of 100 yards to the
finish line. They MUST OBEY all of those rules AT ALL TIMES or
THEY WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Meanwhile, I will be using their favorite
rule from Wikipedia, the WP: Ignore all rules policy, so I will
not be tying my legs and arms together, and will carry the egg
in my shirt pocket. Place your bets ladies and gentlemen, we
are about to start; Ready, set, go.
Why my two
critics can never win a fair argument
I have been involved in arguments for the
sheer entertainment value of it for as long as I can remember,
but I essentially stopped many years ago because it was sometimes
anti-social, so I became more amiable in my general approach
to conversations.
However, when I went into Wikipedia I had
two critics, which is "only"
two, and they started arguments
and thought that they could easily beat me with jargon or policies.
They were soon getting frustrated, losing their tempers, lying.
cheating, and breaking all the rules to beat me, and describing
me as angry, upset, and hostile????, when I was simply responding
to their arguments and being amused by their word play.
They were also trying their hardest to
delete evidence, and misrepresent the facts about the topic,
and in that regard they were the instigators of argument, and
I decided to respond politely. However, they tried to escalate
the discussions into a heated argument at every opportunity,
in the hope that I would respond in an uncivil manner so that
they could ban me for violating WP:CIVIL.
Their problem was that the basis of all
my arguments is knowledge of the topic, so they couldn't say
anything without me noticing the difference between what they
said, and what the facts were. i.e. they could very easily deceive
people who were not familiar with the topic, but they couldn't
deceive me.
There are other methods that I use but
I won't discuss them because my opponents would try to spin everything
in their favor, and what they don't know, they can't spin.
The heated
debates about Da Costa's syndrome are nothing new
Da Costa's syndrome has been the subject
of heated debates for 140 years, ever since it started, about
whether the symptoms were real or imagined, physical or mental,
or due to heart disease or not, or due to 100 other causes. However,
my two critics tried to create the impression that the history
of research has always been an objective and harmonious pursuit.
In fact the controversies are still evident today, and a good
example is where my two critics have revealed their strong personal views on this topic, which
was only exceeded by their extremely hostile prejudices which motivated them
to start arguments with me, and to lose their patience, use foul
language, and break their own rules.
They tried to justify losing their tempers
by inventing the idea that I was a disruptive contributor who
was using unreliable sources of information and writing nonsense
in Wikipedia. Needless to say, confident editors would not lose
their tempers, or use foul language, or need to break the rules.
Also, they should have been able to write
an article about DaCosta's syndrome by finding all of
their own references instead of cherrypicking from my sixty which
included ten modern ones. One of my references was J.M. Da Costa
(1871). The most frequently used arguments by my two critics
was that all references must be from top quality, independent
peer reviewed medical journals that were published in the past
five years????, and that everything else was old and needed to
be deleted for policy reasons????. They were quite incapable
of wrtiting a version of the Da Costa's article based on their
own personal interpretaton of policy. i.e. they completely
failed to match the standards that they set for me. Their
very small list of 17 cherrypicked references included seven
that were more than fifteen years old.
My two critics
were overheated and out of their depth
My two critics tried to insult me at every
opportunity but denied it. The following quotes give some brief
examples. On 15-5-08 on the DCS talk page WhatamIdoing described one
of my suggestions as stupid and gratuitously linked the word
stupid to the Wikipedia page about levels of intelligence, and
then a few days later, on 18-5-08 set up the
Civil/POV/pushing page and described my contributions as nonsense
and cruft (which means rubbish), and said that the "attitude
readjustment tools" had "left me unscathed". Two
months later, on 15-7-08 WhatamIdoing followed me to my own Usertalk page
to insult me repeatedly and then responded to one of my criticisms
with these words . . . "I am not by nature a sarcastic person,
and I have never written anything on this talk page, or in any
other conversation with you, that I intended to be sarcastic."
(end of quote). However that was typical of the offensive double
talk that I had to deal with all the time, and five months late
on 1-1-2009 WhatamIdoing made the following ridiculous statement
. . . "I have not violated WP:CIVIL: I have not called you
names, I have not taunted you, I have not used profanity, I have
not impugned your race, religion or other personal characteristics,
I have not improperly accused your of impropriety. You may have
confused CIVIL with WP:WikiLove and wiki:friendless". (end
of quote)
WhatamIdoing called me names by referring
to "attitude readjustment tools" which are applied
to "Lusers" to deliberately "taunt", bait,
goad, inflame, and provoke them, and was being sarcastic by playing
dumb and pretending not to understand that it is being sarcastic
to refer to their own snide remarks as wikifriendliness.
The insults continued on the CIVIL/POV/pushing
page on 3-2-09, after I was banned, with Gordonofcartoon describing
my contributions as "continual griping" . . . "procedural
nitpicking, obfuscation, lying by misquotation" and saying
that other editors described it as "crap" . . . "and
so on and on and f***ing on". (end of quote)
I have had thirty years of experience at
dealing with controversies so their ridiculous ill-mannered twaddle
flowed over me as easily as water flows off a ducks back.
The Unreliable
and sub-standard article provided by my two critics
The Da Costa's article provided by my two
critics can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214
It is so unreliable and sub-standard that
you will not be able to find the answers to the simplest and
most basic of questions. For example, what is the cause of the
chest pains, and what is the cause of the breathlessness. Also,
what is the cause of the fatigue, and when was it first known,
and can it's severity be measured, and what was the result of
long term follow up studies. Also, when were exercise programmes
first used to treat the condition and what type of programmes
were involved. When you have failed to find the answers to those
obvious questions then see if you can determine if the condition
is a civilian or military ailment, and then if it is more common
in men, or women. When you have come to the conclusion that their
article is a sub-standard, and almost completely useless, and
worthless source of information then you can find the answers
to all of those questions and 100 more in the article that I
prepared here,
but they deleted.
The Argument
that my two critics started in Wikipedia
Here is the basic question: was I being
disruptive by adding verifiable information to the history section
of the Da Costa's page, or were my two critics being disruptive
by selectively deleting some of it to justify their own interpretation.
i.e. why were they removing a complete balanced account of all
of the history, and replacing it with their own narrow,
and biased view.
Their methods
My two critics had a complete and utter
lack of confidence in their ability to win any arguments against
me, so they tried their hardest to get decisions made in my absence,
or before I arrived at the page to discuss my side of the story.
For example, they lost the arguments that they started about
Rosen's research paper, and about the naming of the Da Costa's
page, and they wrote great volumes of criticism in a hurry to
get a decision made before I presented my side of the story on
their 'conflict of interest' number 2 attempt, after their first
attempt failed. They also lost their case on the Wikiquette Alerts
page, and on the Miscellany for Deletion page, and they lost
their argument about the appropriateness of their link to a children's
fiction novel. They were conducting a discussion with Moreschi
on an Administrative noticeboard incidents page, and it ceased
almost immediately when I found out about it and went there to
give a response, and they left comments on a Civil?POV/Pushing
page without inviting me to defend myself, and they left criticisms
on the Reliable sources noticeboard where my final comments were
excluded. They also arranged for a decision to be made on the
RFC page before I completed my subpage, and they started the
Arbitration page and arranged for one of their friends to ban
me before the other 12 editors had a chance to make a decision,
and they did that a few days before I was to present my final
statement. They went to other editors for help and acted as if
I was a disruptive editor who had started the arguments, and
as if they had won most of the time, and that the previous discussions
had failed because they were the wrong forum. In fact, they were
so hopeless that they ultimately had to tell the arbitrators
lies, and knew that I would be able to prove that, so they urgently
arranged for one of their friends to break the rules to get me
banned.
Their Ad hominem
method
Their are two distinct ways of arguing.
I use facts and evidence as the basis, and my two critics use
ad hominem, which essentially means that they try to create so
much prejudice against me that no-one watching the disputes will
notice the facts, or assess the evidence properly. For example,
if a man has a clean white hat, a white shirt, and white trousers
he will appear to be the good guy, and if someone has a dirty
black hat, a scruffy black shirt and torn black trousers he will
appear to be the bad guy. "Image" determines the way
strangers are judged, so if I am new to Wikipedia, and my two
critics don't like the top quality verifiable information that
I am providing they will try to clothe me and the information
in black. Hence when I use a reference from one of the most reliable
sources of information in the history of the topic, they will
describe me as an ignorant and stupid person who doesn't understand
the MEDRS policy for up-to-date evidence, and as being deliberately
disruptive for using an out-of-date 1951 text book. Their objective
is to lead other busy editors to the conclusion that I am an
unworthy contributor who doesn't deserve consideration, so that
they won't bother to read chapter 22 in Harvard professor Paul
Dudley White's internationally distributed university reference
book.
They were
devious deletionists
In 1987 a researcher named Oglesby Paul
reviewed the history of Da Costa's syndrome and concluded that
the cause was unknown, and described about ten unproven ideas
on cause such as tight straps about the chest, thyrotoxicosis,
anxiety, hyperventilation, and abnormal function of the autonomic
nervous system, etc. However, my two critics showed their obvious
bias by deleting everything (about nine of the ideas)
and replacing it with a statement such as . . . 'Oglesby Paul
said the cause was anxiety". They then gave an excuse which
I paraphrase as . . . 'we did this for the purest of pure reasons
to tidy up the page and remove posturewriters rubbish'. (they
were actually violating policy by deliberately misrepresenting
a reliable source).
My two critics were trying to argue that
the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome did not have a physiological
basis so when I added some comments about Sir James MacKenzie
from 1919 I predicted that they would invent some devious reason
for deleting it. MacKenzie essentially said that the fatigue
was due to a reduced supply of blood and oxygen to the brain
caused by the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and
leg veins. My two critics did not want to make it obvious that
they were deleting that comment specifically so they removed
it with a batch of other information, and then left the following
impression . . . 'we did this for the purest of pure reasons,
to separate the history into big round numbers from 1871 to 1900,
and we then very briefly summarised everything from 1900 to
2009, to tidy up the page and remove posturewriters rubbish'.
I knew exactly what the were doing,
but they were trying their hardest to hide it form everyone
else. Their removal of verifiable information to prop up their
own version was a violation of several policies including the
neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV, and POV/Pushing, which
they accused me of to divert attention away from their own culpability.
The Policies
of Wikipedia
Wikipedia has some very sensible and flexible
guidelines about how to make it become a reliable source of information,
and their policies are not rock solid rules, but general comments
to be interpreted with common sense. All people are allowed to
add anything they want, but if there is some dispute about a
conflict of interest it is best to accept it. However you are
allowed to provide information about the reliability of information,
or about notablily, and to put it on line to make it easy for
other editors to verify, and you are also invited to supply information
from reliable independent sources. You also have a responsibility
to report on other editors who are violating the spirit of Wikipedia
and removing reliable information and making it narrow and biased,
and less accurate. However, when I added information, or provided
evidence of notability, or gave information that was written
by other authors, my two critics treated it as a crime to be
punished, and when I told them that they were destroying the
spirit and objectives of Wikipedia by deleting verifiable information
they wanted me punished and banned for being disruptive??????
They were interpreting policy to suit their own best interests
instead of Wikipedia's basic principles.
My contributions
to Wikipedia
When I started adding to Wikipedia all
I knew was that anyone was invited to add useful information
to help the online encyclopedia become a bigger and broader source
of knowledge than printed versions, so I scanned through some
pages until I found a topic that I was familiar with and then
stopped to take a look at it. I soon noticed that a page called
'Human position' had a 'See also' section which mentioned the
Alexander Technique that I discussed in some detail in my book,
and that it had an external link to a website called 'The Posture
Page' where the owner had exchanged links to my website many
years earlier, so I added an external link to my website. I later
noticed that the page on 'chest pain' did not have anything
about postural compression disposing to occasional stabbing and
cramping pains in the chest so I added it with a link to my website
for more information. I then found a page about the chronic
fatigue syndrome and gave a one paragraph summary of my theory
on cause. I also found a page about 'kyphosis' (stooped
spine) which did not have anything about nutritional cause so
I mentioned that vitamin D deficiency in childhood could cause
the deformity and linked it to my own website where I have more
information on that aspect. I later noticed that a page about
'varicose veins' did not have anything about tight garters
blocking the veins to cause varicose veins below the garter line,
so I added it. I then started contributing to a page about Da
Costa's syndrome which I have studied, researched, and written
about, so I added information about my own theory etc, and when
I was told that it took up too much space (WP:Undue Weight) I
abbreviated it, and when that was deleted in January 2008 I didn't
put it back, and started adding information about the history
of research on that topic based on independent verifiable sources.
I was simply adding useful information
that had not been provided by anyone else because Wikipedia invited
people from all walks of life to do that, but I later found that
my two critics had gone to all of the pages with my ID and ensured
that every word I wrote was deleted, and then they told all of
the other editors that I was a disruptive editor who was causing
the entire community of Wikipedia to lose their patience and
become disgusted by my never ending self-promoting nonsense??????
They started arguing with me and they provided
a link to an irrelevant children's fiction novel and expected
me to take them seriously????
Criticism
of me promoting my own theory???
I added a few paragraphs of information
about my own theory and research to the Da Costa's syndrome page,
and abbreviated it between December
2007 and January 2008, and didn't
mention it again because of the
generally ill-mannered criticism by my two critics. I also added
a sentence or a paragraph of information to five other
pages. Since then I have added more than 60 references about
the history of Da Costa's syndrome from top quality independent
sources that comply with Wikipedia policy. However, the criticism
continued and never ceased. Here is a brief example of WhatamIdoing's
attempt to argue with an editor who said that my contributions
were very good quality. The typically hostile comments are
from an MFD page on 27-7-08 (six months later) . . .
"All of his contributions
outside of Da Costa's syndrome have been reverted. Here's the
complete list . . . Human position -- add his own website
(where you can order his self-published book). It's removed as
spam. (March 2007) . . . Chest pain -- add his
personal theory. It's removed. (Nov 2007) . . . Chronic
fatigue syndrome -- add his personal theory. It's removed
within minutes. Repeat. (Nov 2007) . . . Varicose veins
-- add, and claim non-existent "ref.26". It's removed.
(Dec 2007) . . . Kyphosis -- add his personal theory.
It's removed. (Dec 2007) . . . Da Costa's syndrome -- Add his personal theory. Cite
self. It's removed. Add personal website. It's removed. Add some
history and parts of his personal theory. Cite favorite primary
sources. It's heavily edited. Complain. Add exhaustive catalog
of every single primary source that might support personal
POV. It's
deleted. Complain.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat . . . WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008
(UTC)"
I continued to add information
from top quality 'secondary' sources for the next six months but the more reliable they were, and the more
independent they were, and the more modern they were, the more
hostile my two critics became until they wanted me blocked from
every topic and then banned from Wikipedia.
Note that WhatamIdoing tried to create and inflate the illusion that I was causing trouble for
many other editors
continuously for six months
by mentioning all five articles that I had added a sentence of
paragraph to six months earlier, and then wrote "It's deleted. Complain. Repeat. Repeat.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat". There were only five other pages, and only one
comment was added to one of them in the recent six months, and
most of the newer references were secondary sources, not primary
sources.
They wanted
me banned for being a 'single purpose account' with a 'conflict
of interest'???
My thousand page book discussed dozens
of different illnesses, not just one, and while I was in Wikipedia
I contributed to six different topic pages. One of them was the
varicose veins page where I added information about tight leg
garters being a cause. It was deleted on the grounds of me not
adding the reference properly. However, I was new to Wikipedia,
and experienced editors are supposed to assist me in that aspect
of editing, and they were violating another policy by deleting
an "OBVIOUS" cause without discussing it first. Nevertheless,
I didn't criticise them, but I did provide another source which
was a university and general practitioners reference book from
1951, and another editor deleted it for being 'unreliable'????.
I could have gone back to the page and explained that garters
had gone out of fashion, and that there was not likely to be
anything in modern text books about it, but I came to the conclusion
that the editors who deleted the information were friends of
my two critics or had the same attitude, and would find a reason
for deleting everything I added just because I wrote it.
My two critics started telling me that
I couldn't contribute to the Da Costa's page but could still
discuss their contributions on the talk page but each time they
lost arguments about the topic they became more resentful
and more determined to block me, and more restrictive about the
limitations. Eventually,
twelve
months after
all reference to my own research
had been deleted they told the arbitrators that I was a 'single
purpose account'????? and that
they wanted a "broad????
topic ban" on me on pages about 1. Da Costa's syndrome,
2. chronic fatigue syndrome, 3. varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to????? 4. human posture,
5. fitness, or 6. fatigue". At that time I thought that
they were being extremely petulant and childish. They were telling
the arbitrators that they wanted a broad topic ban, but their implied message
to me was that they were powerful and influential editors and
they were never going to let me contribute to any pages.
They were
rule-making, rule-abiding, tag-teaming rule-breakers??????
When I was in Wikipedia for twelve months
there were two editors who would criticise almost every word
that I wrote, often within a few minutes of me adding them, and
I had no hope of ever keeping up with their constantly changing
objections, so I generally settled back to consider their multi-faceted
arguments, and contributed once a week. They claimed that
they didn't own Wikipedia, but acted as if they did, and
did not want to be administrators, but acted as if they were.
They said that they didn't write the rules, but they must have
spent at least 10% of their time editing, modifying, rewording,
or changing the rules to suit their own issues, and they criticised
anyone who didn't agree with them. They repeatedly told me that
I must obey all of the rules of Wikipedia like all of the other
respectable rule-abiding editors such as themselves. In fact,
they must have told me about every rule in Wikipedia except the
"ignore all rules" policy???? which they were using
themselves, and which they were encouraging and rewarding other
editors to use to get me banned. Here is how they teamed up to change
the guidelines about
tag teaming, and denied it. Note that whenever I responded to their criticism
of me they referred to it as an example of me "blaming",
or "attacking" them?????, and most of the time their
idea of consensus was two against one?????
At 20:36 on 1-8-08 WhatamIdoing wrote the following words on my UserTalk page
. . . "I'd
feel a lot less attacked if you quit blaming me for policies
that I did not create and do not control. Every
editor is required to comply with all policies and guidelines
at Wikipedia. It
is not a matter of me, or any other editor, changing the requirements
on you".
(Regardless of it being
a matter of creating the actual rules, it was nevertheless,
a matter of WhatamIdoing deliberately and precisely creating and controlling the interpretation
of policies to
change the requirements on me).
At 15:44 on 4-2-09, six months later, and only a
few days after I was banned, Gordonofcartoon added a note to the Wikipedia policy page about
tag-teaming to change it, 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268486470&oldid=263995921
At 5:54 on 11-9-09, seven
months later, WhatamIdoing made the following amendment to
the same sentence in the same paragraph of the same policy page
. . . "False accusations of tag-teaming" . . . It
is often difficult to tell the difference between tag-teaming
and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to
gain consensus
for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every
editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=prev&oldid=313141652
see more about their teaming
practices here
At 21:36 on 29-10-09
you can also see how much
influence WhatamIdoing actually tries to exert on some other
policies from the following extract.
These were WhatamIdoing's exact words of advice to another
editor . . . "Since Born2cycle . . . effort to imply that
I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd like to remind him that I was one the participants in the very
long discussions about re-writing this policy, and that I'm accurately reporting what I -- and
he -- was told" [[WhatamIdoing|talk]] 21:36, 29 October
2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions&diff=prev&oldid=322806257
At 2:09 on 31-10-09 WhatamIdoing made this statement in response to the same editor.
. . "I
also want to say, as the person that originally wrote nearly
everything on this page about procedures for new proposals and
substantial changes to existing policies,
that it's kind of odd that I am being accused of never wanting
anyone to change policy and guidelines pages (while minimizing
complaints from other editors). If it were true that I opposed
changes to these pages, I wouldn't have wasted a week here last
year in telling people just how to go about it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]
([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:09, 31 October 2009 here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=323031972
At 1:04 on 16-12-09 WhatamIdoing wrote these words in
response to an editor named SatuSuro . . . "It happens that I wrote most of
the relevant sections in the WikiProject Council Guide".
At 02:35 on 16th January 2010
WhatamIdoing
wrote these words of advice to
an editor named StormRider about Wikipedia "Naming conventions"
. . . "Much
of what I have written over the past couple of years at WP:External
links, for example is focused on
reducing confusions by more fully explaining what's already on
the page, rather than changing how the 'rules' operate".
At 18:35 on 18th January 2010
WhatamIdoing gave these words of advice to another editor named
Squideshi about "Naming conventions" . . . "Please consider
the advantages (to you) of accepting the defeat of your proposal
with a litte grace, and stop trying to re-write the rules to
gain an advantage in a dispute".
At 7:12 on 20th January 2010 WhatamIdoing gave these words of advice to an editor named
Masem . . . "the
written guidelines should primarily describe and reflect the
communities already existing-view of an issue: they should not
invent new rules for the purpose of changing the communities
practices".
At 2:19 on 13th February
2010 WhatamIdoing wrote these words about another
editors attempt to change the style guidelines . . . "It
is a quotation of a section that appears to have been changed
very, very recently to say essentially the opposite of what it
has said for years, which makes one suspicious
that someone changed it for the purpose of affecting his discussion".
According to the Wikipedia
revision history statistics for
the period 3-9-2008 and 11-11-2009, WhatamIdoing was the sixth highest contributor to
the policies and guidelines talk page, and gave 91 opinions about
how they should be rewritten, and wrote 8 changes to the actual
policies page between 22-10-2008 and 17-10-2009.
It looks like an example
of the person who wants to be the power behind the throne,
but doesn't want anyone to notice who is pulling the strings.
Also, WhatamIdoing was intelligent enough to manipulate the rules, but was not intelligent enough
to match the newer standards. The method can be summarised like
this; if
my two critics were not
good enough
to win within
the rules,
then they would try to change the rules, and if
someone else wanted to change them they would argue relentlessly to stop
them, and if
that failed,
then they would use WP:IAR . . . the Wikipedia policy called
. . . "Ignore
all rules".
The average
new contributor would not stand a chance against that type of
labyrinth of argument.
How I won
the arguments that they started
1. They lost their argument about Rosen's
research paper because WhatamIdoing said that Da Costa's syndrome
(which is also called the 'effort syndrome') was a text-book
perfect description of the hyperventilation syndrome, and Gordonofcartoon
said that Rosen's paper about HVS was referring to a different
type of effort syndrome. The second paragraph of Rosen's paper
showed that it was the same. Regardless of the other issues my
two critics contradicted each other, and didn't want to admit
it so they changed the subject to avoid embarrassment.
Also, Gordonofcartoon made a mistake by
being impulsive and leaping to conclusions after reading the
first paragraph, and not bothering to read the full article,
or Rosen's reference list which included numbers 9 and 10 by
T.Lewis who coined the word 'effort syndrome' as an alternative
to Da Costa's syndrome in 1919.
2. They lost their argument about changing
the name of the Da Costa's syndrome page to Somatoform
autonomic dysfunction because, for example, I reminded them of the naming guidelines which
recommended that common names should be used and jargon should be avoided.
Of course, they were fully aware that it was inappropriate to
use jargon in an online encyclopedia for the general reader,
as can be seen on the naming guidelines talk page at 3:36 on
3-11-2009, ten months after I was banned, where WhatamIdoing
wrote these words . . . "I know what willfully obscure technical jargon means". see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions&diff=prev&oldid=323618264
3. I wrote an essay to defend myself from
their tactics but Gordonofcartoon set up a Wikiquette Alerts
page to get it deleted. He failed because the discussion
ended when and independent editor named PeterSymonds summed up
the consensus of several other editors with the following words
. . . 'the result of the debate was keep'.
4. A Miscellany for deletion page (MFD),
was set up to remove the same essay but it closed without it
being deleted, so he failed again. He responded by setting
up an RFC discussion on 20-7-08, where his objective was to get
me banned from the topic of Da Cosa's syndrome on the grounds
of another policy called WP:NOR (no original research), and on
his opinion that I was being disruptive - WP:TE (tendencious
editing), by adding independent and verifialbe information to
the page. Four days later, on the RFC talk page, he argued that
the MFD discussion had failed for "procedural" reasons.
He was supposed to accept such decisions because continuing to
go relentlessly from one forum to another until he got the decision
he wanted is a violation of the guideline which referrs to that
practice as forum shopping.
5. They
lost their argument about their use of a children's fiction novel
as a hatnote on the top line of the
Da Costa's page because an independent editor named El Imp deleted
the hatnote on the grounds that it was foolish, and another editor
named Paul Barlow deleted the link on the grounds that it
was irrelevant, and it has not been put back since. (eleven
months later).
6. They
lost their argument about my references being old or out-of-date, or from before most editors were born because
they used some of my references when they replaced my version
of the article with their own. For example, I included J.M.Da
Costa (1871), Sir James MacKenzie (1916), Paul Dudley White (1951),
and Oglesby Paul (1987), and their version included Da Costa's
because it was essential, and Oglesby Pauls was their own choice
(and I just reviewed it), and they replaced Paul Dudley Whites
1951 book with one of his 1951 research papers. They had to
use the sources that I provided because it would be impossible
to write an intelligent history of the subject without them.
7. They would have lost most of the other
arguments that they started, except that they had the decisions
made before I was able to present my side of the evidence - The
decision on the COI number two page was made before I presented
my defense, the RFC page was closed before I completed my subpage
(i.e. while it was still active), I was banned before I had time
to complete my response to the Reliable Sources noticeboard,
and I was banned on the Arbitration page before I had the opportunity
of presenting my final defense. In fact, when I notified the
arbitration editors that I would be preparing my defense for
the following Sunday, I knew that my two critics would see it,
and try to find a way of getting me banned before then - and
they did - by ignoring the rules.
An example
of the content disputes about Da Costa's syndrome
This was some of the information that I
provided to Wikipedia about the history of Da Costa's syndrome
. . . "In the 1940's there were several studies aimed
at determining the physical basis of these conditions[11][28]
and in 1947 S.Wolf studied the "respiratory distress
characterized by inability to get a full breath" and found
that the thoracic diaphragm function was abnormal, and when the
diaphragms contractile state during inspiration was such that
adequate inspiration was no longer possible, breathlessness occurred
with a feeling of inability to take a full breath. The spasm
of the diaphragm was often accompanied by pains in the chest
and shoulder, occlusion of the lower end of the esophagus, and
difficulty swallowing.[29] Also in 1947 a report by Cohen
and White noted that the complete mechanism of Da Costa syndrome
symptoms was unknown but when respiration was investigated objective
abnormalities were found, "just as when other symptoms
of N.C.A. are investigated with objective methods, which demonstrates
that the abnormalities are not all in the subjective sphere".
The respiratory abnormalities at rest were few but during exercise
the abnormalities became more pronounced and the deviations from
the normal became greater as the rate and amount of exercise
increased.[30]"
My two critics described the references
of Wolf, Cohen, and White (from 1947) as unreliable, and
argued that the information was old and out-of-date, and
they said that I was being disruptive for adding it, and they deleted it and replaced it
with the following words . . .
"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological
abnormalities. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wi/index.php?title=Da_Costa'%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750
(the Da Costa's syndrome page of 18:57 on 26-1-09)
My two critics
tried to win arguments but often contradicted themselves
They told a lot of forums, including the
arbitrators, that I supposedly used references, which according
to them were unreliable, because they contained "seriously
outdated materials" . . . including . . . "a 1951
textbook".
They were referring to a 1951 book which
was actually one of the most reliable sources of information
about this topic, and was a reference book for cardiologists
written by Paul Dudley White. Also, when WhatamIdoing deleted
my draft, and my reference to that 1951 textbook??? it was replaced
with their version which included their reference number 6. by
Cohen M.E. and White P.D. (01, Nov. 1951). I don't think
that WhatamIdoing was knowledgeable enough to know that Cohen
and White collaborated on many articles about Da Costa's
syndrome, or that White P.D. was the same person as Paul Dudley
White. I also don't think that
WhatamIdoing noticed that the book that I used and the research article that they
used were by the same author,
Paul Dudley White, in the same year -1951. When I used them
they described them as out of date and unreliable sources of
information????, but when they used them they acted as if they
were the impeccable choice of experienced editors who knew what
they were talking about??????
Their Double
talk
When I went into Wikipedia
I was an ordinary person who wanted to make useful contributions
based on the principles of common sense. I was therefore not
interested in learning all of the policies for the purpose of
becoming some sort of power broker. However, as an ordinary person,
this is the advice I was given by a policy expert named WhatamIdoing
. . . "the fact that you have spent so little time attempting
to learn the rules cannot possibly be the fault of any editor
but you" WhatamIdoing 20:36 1-8-08.
It was not
my fault, but here is my response . . .
Whenever my two critics criticised me
they argued that I
was violating policies such as WP:AGF
(I was supposed to Assume Good Faith in them), and whenever
I criticised them they argued that I was making personal attacks on them by violating
NPA (no personal attacks policy).
However the only real difference was that they knew the names
and codes for the policies, and used them, and I didn't, so I
described their actions in plain English. For example, in my
essay about their methods I gave ten examples such as number
2 - they were using policies as red herrings, and number 8 -
they were using policies as tactics, which is the equivalent
of providing evidence that they were violating WP:Wikilawyering,
and WP:Battleground. When I provided evidence that indicated
the possibility of them deleting the whole page anonymously to
avoid blame, I was providing evidence that they needed to be
investigated for violating WP:SOCK - about Sock puppetry (where
the same person adds information under anonymnous or multiple
different ID's, akin to the actions of a ventriloquist - the
same person is doing all the talking but trying to make it look
as if their voice is coming from someone else). When I provided
evidence and links to their discussions where they were deleting
verifiable evidence to prop up their own opinions, it was the
equivalent of them violating WP:NPOV. Also when I provided evidence
as a plain English description of their editing pattern being
a wild goose chase it was the equivalent of them violating the
Wikipedia guidelines related to 'policy creep' or 'moving the
goalposts", and when I provided evidence that they were
arguing incessantly until they had the final say in everything,
it was the equivalent of them violating the Wikipedia guidelines
about "forum shopping'. The fact that they always set up
discussion pages against me and worked as a team of two to get
me blocked was a violation of WP:Tag-team guidelines.
Every one of the statements that I made
in my essay about their editing methods was based on common sense,
and was written in plain English, and they all had at least one
Wikipedia equivalent in policy code.
However my two critics used their policy
codes to accuse me of violating dozens of policies - and they
twisted the policies around to describe my ten plain English
description of them as a violation of WP:NPA ('no personal attacks'
policy).
Their use of policy in that manner is a
violation of WP:Wikilawyering, WP:Battleground, WP:AGF, WP:NPA,
and WP:Own etc. They violated all of the policies and principles
of Wikipedia to disrupt my contributions which is the equivalent
of them violating WP:DE (disruptive editing), and WP:TE (tendencious
editing), and they used WP:IAR (ignore all rules policy) to get
me banned, which is the only policy that they couldn't accuse
me of.
After I was banned their criticism of me
remained, and the essay that I wrote about them was deleted.
The actual position in a real argument
with me could be an example of them being WP:H (hopeless) and
WP:C (cheats).
All of these matters are discussed individually
in more detail on this webpage.
Their personal
reasons for banning me
At one stage one of my critics tried to
impress other editors by providing a list of five alternative
labels for Da Costa's syndrome, However, I have seen at least
100 that had been in common use throughout the history of the
topic, including CFS, but I referred to a webpage by an independent
medical consumer who had provided a list of 80. My two critics
should have accepted that as a general indication of the complex
nature of the topic, but it also showed that their list of five
was ridiculously small, and an indication of their own ignorance,
so they spun it around by arguing incessantly that the author
was not a medically qualified expert and that the information
was unreliable according to Wikipedia policy. Note that the consumer
only had one website which was about her pet lizards, so, as
you would expect, she added the webpage about CFS to it, rather
than paying for the costs of an unnecessary extra site. This
is how WhatamIdoing referred to the reference in as many places
as possible, including the disruptive editing page on 10-1-09
. . . "I know that you are mad at me because I oppose using
your iguana website to prove that Da
Costa's syndrome is a subtype of chronic fatigue syndrome",
and then wrote on the same page on the next day that it was "a
webpage entirely written by a non-expert medical consumer (at
www.anapsid.com, a website that is largely about iguanas)"
- end of quotes. Note that WhatamIdoing deliberately gave the
wrong address as www.anapsid.com instead of www.anapsid.org,
in order to mislead the other editors, and that it was not "my"
website, and I was not "mad" at anyone, and that the
relevant webpage had nothing to do with iguanas, and it was not written
"entirely" by the medical consumer, but was written in collaboration with four doctors, and that I was not trying to prove anything,
but provided dozens of other references from medical journals
to show evidence that Da Costa's syndrome was widely regarded
as being the same as CFS.
Also one of my critics added a link to
a novel, and the other one moved it to the top of the page, so
I read it and found it to be an irrelevant childrens fiction
story. I knew that they would be embarrassed and humiliated if
I mentioned that, but I had a responsiblilty to ensure that information
in Wikipedia was reliable so I requested that they delete it.
Of course, instead of admitting that it was inappropriate, or
that they had been negligent for not reading past the title of
the book, or it's introduction, they argued incessantly and then
tried to spin everything around by using words to give the impression
that they were mature and authoritative editors addressing a
young and sensitive new contributor???? WhatamIdoing did it with
these typically condescending words addressed to me on the DCS
talk page of 30-6-08 . . . "I just want to add that I'm
sorry you read that book. Paulsen makes a living from writing
deliberately depressing books to promote his anti-war / anti-military
views. He has a particular talent for sympathetically disgusting
descriptions. I have read about ten of them and only found one
that was worth my time. They are, unfortunately, officially
recommended or required reading in many, many American
schools" (end of quote). Needless to say, school administrators,
principles, teachers, and librarians would have better judgment
about what school children should read than WhatamIdoing, and
my two critics know that I am older then them, so it was quite
ridiculous, and insolent, for them to try and create the impression
that I would get upset reading children' literature, but, of
course, WhatamIdoing has a particular talent for recklessly twisting
the truth.
Finally, when I produced an alternative
text for DCS and an independent editor described it as "a lot better" than the existing one that my two critics used,
then they should have accepted that fact, but they argued that
the neutral editor was incompetent in the topic and spent months
relentlessly criticising every paragraph in the draft, and never
stopped until I was banned.
Their idea
of consensus
Two independent editors recommended that
the question of bias could be resolved if each of the three current
editors of the DCS page wrote a version independently so that
the neutral editors could merge them to ensure that the eventual
text complied with ALL policy requirements, including "neutral
point of view". I responded by spending several weeks writing
a draft, but Gordonofcartoon blatantly refused when he wrote
"No. I'm fed up with this", and WhatamIdoing cut and
pasted my essay and subjected it to more than 80 points of criticism.
One of the neutral editors wrote that my essay was "a lot
better" than the existing one, and when I used it to replace
the text that had been controlled by my two critics, they reverted
it four times, and at 18:57 on 26 January 2009 WhatamIdoing gave
this reason . . . "Restore version from a few days ago to
rm (remove) unreliable sources and unbalanced POV pushing. Posturewriter,
you must get CONSENSUS before making this massive change"
(end of quote). Note that most of the time their idea of consensus
was two to one when in fact they were only one tag-team, not
two individuals, which is a violation of the Wikipedia editing
guidelines, and that they did absolutely everything they could
to interfere with any chance of getting a real consensus. However,
WhatamIdoing wrote those words to create the false impression,
in uninvolved editors minds, that the change was not expected,
and that they were trying to give polite and helfpful advice
and had a "proper" reason for reverting.
Their method
of banning me
At 5:50 on 30-1-09 on my UserTalk page
I explained that my two critics had arranged for a 'requests
for comments' page to be closed in violation of RFC closing
policy, and then they subverted the normal arbitration
process to get me banned, and I later learned that they had
thanked another editor and awarded him with an outlaw halo award
for being the only administrator in Wikipedia to break the
rules and ban me. I was banned on 27-1-09 and this was WhatamIdoings
reply a few days later at 21:55 on 1-2-09 . . . "in your
comments here you seem to be confusing Requests for Comments
about user conduct with Requests for Arbitration. The rules
about closing RFCs do not apply to ArbComm. actions,
(In this case, by the way, the Arbcomm case was tentatively
declined on the grounds that you have been blocked indefinitely
by an independent administrator: It was never officially opened and
never officially closed.) Note
also that you weren't blocked solely for abusing your conflict
of interest. WhatamIdoing 21:55 on 1-2-09 (end of quote).
Note that I was not confused about anything,
but WhatamIdoing was trying to give everyone else that impression.
Also note that I was banned by an editor who WhatamIdoing described
as independent???? but Gordonofcartoon attempted to have a private
discussion with him on an ANI page and influence his attitude
six months earlier (at 11:29 on 25-8-08), and the discussion,
involving only one small sentence by Moreshi, stopped immediately
after I joined the page, and that every word that Gordonofcartoon
wrote was carefully chosen to create prejudice against me, and
to provide excuses for avoiding the rules of evidence, breaking
the rules of RFC's, and ignoring the rules of Arbitration.
This is the essence of their argument;
The violation of RFC closing policy didn't matter, the arbitration
process never happened, and one of their personal friends broke
the rules to ban me because they couldn't do it within the rules
of Wikipedia.
The words
of the editor who banned me
The name of the editor who banned me was
Moreschi, and here are the words that he wrote on the
arbitration page . . . ""I've banned Posturewriter,
as I should have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to
this sooner. That will save you a case, I think".
He then responded to one of the arbitrators
questions with these words . . . "Actually, no, I meant
an indefinite block. As in a block that is intended to
be permanent, a block that came with no conditions to
be fulfilled, and a block that I would take extreme issues
with the overturning of. Frankly Posturewriter, the worst
type of troll, has shown nothing but contempt for basic Wikipedia
policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:DE/TE. Under such circumstances
a one-year ban would have been the only result to have come out
of an arbitration case. I, however, unlike you chaps, am fortunately not limited to block length".
Moreschi 20:39. 29
January 2009
You would get the impression from the
words used by Moreschi that he had tried to get some sort
of neutral point of view on this issue and that I had been unco-operative,
but he had never made even the slightest attempt at resolving
any issues at all????? Furthermore he did not discuss anything
with the fifteen independent arbitrators, but simply told
them that if they overturned his decision he would "take
extreme issues" with them. In other words he was threatening
them with an extremely
hostile argument if they didn't
agree with him, and yet he wanted me banned for being argumentative
when I had never had an argument with him or the arbitrators.
As I have mentioned before, my two critics
spent 12 months following me around like a couple of blood hounds
criticisng and deleting every word I wrote and going to ten or
more discussions to find editors to block me, and were using
edit warring methods of deliberately insulting and goading me to drive
me out of Wikipedia or make me respond in an ill-mannered way
so that they could ban me for being uncivil, and they eventually
gave an outlaw halo
award to the the only editor who
was prepared to
break the rules to ban me.
These were Gordonofcartoons exact
words at 6:57 on 3-2-09, a few days after I was banned . . . "Finally
I raised it at Requests for Arbitration. They were cautiously
moving toward accepting before the cavalry arrived
in the form of admins who were prepared to bring blocks, ultimately
an indefinite one for disruptive conduct". (end of quote)
At 23:08 on 26 November 2009,
ten months after I was banned, Moreschi complained about other
editors getting away with such practices with these words relating
to different topics . . . "Remember how long it took to
ban VK, for all his meatmpuppetry, sockpuppetry, edit-warring,
mentorship, personal attacks,
dozens of blocks, you
name it? For how long have Domer
and Dunc got away with flagrant tag-teaming?
Or now Sarah777 is allowed to get away with not-so-subtle attacks like this and nobody bats and eyelid?"
Moreschi 23:08, November 2009..
If Moreschi was consistent with his editing
he would ban my two critics permanently.
Moreschi's
idea of junk
Wikipedia's policy about Civility has been
compiled by hundreds of well meaning editors over a period of
several years, and these words are a direct quote from the page
of 30-11-09 . . . "The civility policy is a standard of
conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact:
editors should always
endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect".
However, at 11:29 on 15 August 2008, Gordonofcartoon
copied a sample of the Da Costa's page that I was trying to develop,
and that he and WhatamIdoing were continually trying to disrupt
and block with criticsim, deletions and alternations. He then
added the following words to the top of the incompleted page
"This is an
old version of this page as edited by Posturewriter as of :45,
23 March 2008" (end of quote).
Note that it is
ill-mannered to misrepresent the page that way. He then showed it to Moreschi who wrote these
words at 13:36 on the 25th of August 2008 "take a look at this junk" (end of quote).
This is one of the three sentences that
Moreschi wrote on his User page to introduce himself to Wikipedia,
and it was still there on 30-11-09 . . . "I also have an alternative civility policy - I hope this will become the real one some day,
as the current one
is sheer junk." (end
of quote). Needless to say that Moreschi is
being disrspecful to hundreds of other editors who obviously
have a superior understanding of what civility actually means.
If Moreschi thinks that
the existing policy page for civility is "JUNK" then
he should "be bold", and replace it with his version
and see what happens.
My two critics
attitude toward consensus and the arbitration process
On 2:25 on 18th May 2008
WhatamIdoing was complaining because the majority of other editors were
saying . . . "Y'all
play nice now. It's
a content dispute
and they were giving WhatamIdoing the following advice . . .
"you
should work for
consensus".
At 17:48 on 26 January
2009, seven months later, Gordonofcartoon told the arbitrators this . .
. "The material added is
disputed, but Posturewriter's
attitude to discourse has made it impossible to achieve consensus
by the normal collaborative
process" (end
of quote). Note that the "material added" refers to
"content", and only two critics were disputing
the content 95%, if not 100% of the time. Their idea of consensus
was two to one majority, and they refused to co-operate with the normal collaborative
process in almost
every discussion of content, and particularly when the opportunity
was specifically available at RFC.
Less than a day later,
at 10:47 on 27 January 2009, the day before I was banned, Gordonofcartoon responded to a question by one
of the arbitrators named Wizardman, and wrote these words . . . "This is emphatically
not about content
. . . Posturewriter has repeatedly stated the central bad faith
assumption that all critical responses - to content and conduct
- are 'tactics' motivated by a hostile agenda to suppress what
he's advocating". (end of quote). Note that the fact is
that their dispute
was always over content,
and that they were using every trick in the policy book to say
that it wasn't. I was writing the history of Da Costa's syndrome
based on independent reliable sources, and my two critics were
using policy as their excuse for removing any verifiable aspect
that they didn't like, and they expected me to "assume good
faith" in them, when they were secretly arranging for a
friend of theirs to break the rules to get me banned - and later
rewarded him for it.
At 19:08 on 12 November
2009 WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "What would ArbCom
do? . . . it
is nearly worthless for content issues" (end of quote). Note that Arbcom
refers to the Arbitration Committee.
My two critics
are obviously too arrogant for their own good.
Lynch Mob
Justice
As a relatively new contributor
to Wikipedia I was not aware that I could be put on some sort
of trial, but when Gordonofcartoon set up an arbitration page
to discuss the topic, I expected that it would have some similarity
to "normal" justice where 12 good men would be selected
and examined to ensure that they had no previous involvement
in the case, and no relationship or contact with either side,
and that they wouldn't be pre-influenced (made prejudiced) in
anyway. I also thought that the contributor would be given ample
opportunity to defend themselves from any accusation of policy
violations before any decision was made. Hence I was surprised
when Moreschi barged in on the page and banned me - on his own,
and he did it on a Wednesday, when I had advised the other editors
that I would be giving my final response to criticism on the
following Sunday.
This is what Moreschi wrote
at 21:49 on 3-12-09, about another situation . . . "Disingenuous,
as you then repeated the lynch mob accusation at (link),
this time quite clearly aiming it at the admins who imposed the
bans specifically the one on Zeq. That would be myself, as I
extended the initial block of a week to 1 year" (end of
quote) signed Moreschi.
Moreschi was being accused
of interfering with "normal" justice by another editor
who said that he was acting as if he was part of a lynch mob.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about lynching . . . "It
is extrajudicial punishment carried out by a mob, usually by
hanging . . . Lynchings were more frequent in times of social
and economic tension, and were often means by the politically
dominant population to oppress social challenges" (end of
quote), and it gives the example of white's lynching Negroes.
Here is another example
of Moreschi appearing to plan against a different "normal"
arbitration decision . . . "It would be good to see roughly
what line arbcom is going to take so Ottava, and everyone else,
can prepare themselves for it" (end of quote). In other
words Moreschi wants to give plenty of time and opportunity for
contributors to defend themselves, but only if he agrees with
their views, whereas he deliberately prevented me from defending
myself.
Here is another example,
where at 16.25 on 1-12-09 another editor named Sulmues reported
his observation that his critics gave "banning stars"
to other editors to promote their own views, and at 20:29 on
1-12-09 wrote "The block, as proposed by athenean and CinemaC
is part of the plan of keeping out of the Albanians from the
Albanian related issues. I did not even have a chance to defend
myself. These guys keep calling their friends to ban me, and
the admins are too busy to read carefully what they write".
In responding to that criticism at 22:14 on 4-12-09 Moreschi
acknowledges that "gang editing groups have existed"
and "doubtless still do", and they control content
in Wikipedia by blocking anyone who has different views to their
own.
The evidence is that the
experienced editors know all about edit wars, and how to conduct
them to control content on any subject, and that denying contributors
the opportunity to defend themselves, and giving gang members
barn stars for blocking them is a standard hallmark of the process.
Regardless of all other
issues, I was a new contributor, and I thought that I was going
into a "normal" arbitration situation, while WhatamIdoing,
Gordonofcartoon, and Moreschi were experienced editors who knew
exactly how to plot and scheme to get me banned regardless of
the arbcom decision. I knew that I wasn't the first person to
be dealt with that way, because they did it with the level of
skill that could only be achieved by a vast amount of practice.
The Outlaw
Halo award given to Moreschi
Some editors in Wikipedia
are rewarded for their contributions by giving them barnstars
which are generally illustrations of a star that is placed on
their Userpage. However at 23:41 on 8-5-09 WhatamIdoing rewarded
Moreschi for banning me by presenting him with the Outlaw Halo
award. The opening words were . . . "I saw this just now
and thought of you" (end of quote). It was an illustration
of the standard Wikipedia symbol of a globe covered in the pieces
of a jig-saw puzzle, and it was modified to look like
a head with horns on either side at the top, and a halo between
them????? - with ample ambiguity to allow for interpretation
as the devil causing confusion by wearing the costume of a saint?????
|
|
Gordonofcartoon's
fateful words
"DO
'WE' WANT TO UP THE ANTE"??????
When I joined Wikipedia the only thing
that I knew was they wanted to get all people from all walks
of life to add useful information to make it better than the
narrow and shallow range of knowledge in printed versions. I
soon found that you can't add your own research, and must be
polite, even if other editors are ignorant and annoying, and
I did not have any trouble understanding or complying with those
simple common sense requests or the subclause elaborations.
My own research was deleted very early,
but then I had two critics who were trying to stop me from adding
anything to any page, and continured to say that I was a single
purpose account with a conflict of interest who was always adding
my own research, and that I was hostile, argumentative, and disruptive.
They were actually following me around
and deleting everything on the other six pages if it hadn't already
been deleted by someone else, and then implied that 'everyone'
thought I was stupid. They eventually took their arguments to
my User talk page and started insulting me, and said that I was
harassing them when in fact I was just defending myself from
their ridiculous offensive hounding. At that stage I decided
to write an essay about their repetitive, and therefore predictable
tactics, and put it at the top of my page so that anyone who
came there could see it first and get everything in context before
reading their comments. They then started referring to that essay
an example of me making "personal attacks" on 'other'
editors??? and began trying their hardest to give the false impression
that they were the heroic administrators who wanted it removed
for the benefit of 'other' editors. It was OBVIOUS to me that
they planned to have my UserTalk page filled with their
criticisms, and none of my responses, so that they could make
themselves look 'good', and me look 'bad'. I had to bring a stop
to that.
I continued to be polite because I only
knew of the basics of policy, such as discussion policy, and
wasn't interested in reading all of the other policies about
how to deal with antagonistic and disruptive individuals, but
they knew all of the policies and used them against me as often
as possible.
One of the problems caused by being polite
is that you can be made to look like a weak-willed, mindlessly
obedient lap dog, and my two critics tried to create, magnify,
and exploit that false impression. Also, if they insulted me
1000 times, and I responded with an uncivil tone three times,
they would trace the three comments with one of their automatic
webtrackers, and later add it onto a list as if it was typical,
in order to create the illusion that I was the ill-mannered editor
who was repeatedly starting trouble.
However at one stage Gordonofcartoon
came to my User talk page and left a deliberately threatening
message "Do we want to up the ante". He left it in the notes at the top of a diffs
edit on my User Talk page where I would be the only one who was
likely to see it, and it would only be there until someone else
edited the page, and then it would disappear into the history
of edits. I knew that he was making a threat, and that he was
hoping that I would never be able to find that threat again,
and that if I responded in a similar manner he would accuse me
of being uncivil and disruptive for no apparent reason.
I therefore had to deal with him, and not
by being uncivil, but by making it clear that he did not have
enough brains to intimidate me, and that he should think twice
about taking the argument to the next level, because I knew that
he had not shown any hope of ever winning any argument against
me. I also knew that he would have tried the same sort of stunts
on previous new contributors and been successful for four years,
and would have arrogantly expected that he could do the same
to me.
I simply replied
in the manner of equal for equal, and ambiguity for ambiguity, on 13-7-08
with these words
. . . "Would you like
me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in hurry".
He knew that I was referring to his previous threat. However,
I also predicted, that it did not matter what I said, he would
distort it to make me look like the instigator of trouble, and
that he would try to hide his own threat, and make ridiculous
denials if I mentioned them.
Within a week, by 20-7-08,
he had started "upping the ante" by going to the Administrators
Noticeboard and telling them that I had made an "UNSPECIFIED"
threat, and then quoted my words
to make it look like a physical threat that I had made for the
purpose of intimidating him???????. He then acted as if he was
being prim and proper by telling the administators that he didn't
need them and would (heroicly????) deal with it by setting up
an RFC page. He spent 24 hours adding a dozen edits to present
his accusations, which included the accusation about me making
an UNSPECIFIED??????
threat. That page was closed by
another editor in violation of RFC closing policy, but Gordonofcartoon
later set up an Arbitration page against me, and accused me of "harrassing"
him and other?????? editors, when
95% of the time I was just defending
myself from two, including himself.
After I was banned, my Usertalk page, where some of the discussions
occurred, was deleted on the grounds that it was an example of
me making personal attacks on them????
This is a
history lesson that he won't forget in a hurry: The conversations where Gordonofcartoon started
it all by his secretive and devious threats against me, and made
his ridiculous denials, are presented below, followed by the
lies and misrepresentations of facts that Gordonofcartoon told
the ANI, RFC, and Arbitraion editors . . .
The
comments that Gordonofcartoon tried to hide, and did not tell
the ANI, RFC, or Arbitration editors
At 8:21 on 16-7-08 I responded
to a threat made by Gordonofcartoon when I wrote these words
. . . "Gordonofcartoon: Regarding your comments " False
accusations: personal attacks - DO WE WANT TO UP THE ANTE? on 13-7-08 here [12]" - That choice
of words gives the impression of intimidation, or a threat, and
incitement to escalate a discussion into a heated argument
which is a serious violation of wikipedia discussion policy that
can have you banned. Please apologise. Posturewriter (talk) 8:21,
16 July 2008.
Gordonofcartoon replied three hours later at 11:24
with the following words . . . "No; It's a suggestion that
if you are not satisfied with the current situation - and it
certainly isn't resolving things - we can take it up to the next
level of dispute resolution: A WP:RFC. Gordonofcartoon (talk)
11:24, 16 July 2008
Note that although Gordonofcartoon
pretends his innocence, you can see evidence of his use of
goading and baiting to get an uncivl response everywhere, and
when he failed, he misrepresented my words as uncivil anyway.
For example
1. He tried to hide his
threat from everyone except me by putting the words "do
we want to up the ante" in the notes at the top of the diff
page.
2. He made the threat in
the temporary diff notes at the top of my User talk page.
3. He had a six month history
of insulting me and trying to goad me into making uncivil responses
and failed.
4. A POV/civil pushing
page shows that he and WhatamIdoing were using LART tools, or
provocative methods to bait me as part of an edit war. The victim
is called bait, and the method of inciting a new contributor
is called a flamer, flame thower, or inflamer, or variations
on that theme, and the tool of punishment is a 'metaphorical'
2 X 4 block of wood.
5. He did not tell the
editors at ANI, RFC, or Abritration about his threat which preceded
my comments a week earlier.
i.e. he said "Do we want to up the ante", and I was only replying to
his threat by saying . . . "Do you want me to teach you a lesson that
you won't forget in a hurry".
7. He deliberately, deviously,
and deceitfully referred to it as an "unspecified" threat, when he knew that it was a specific response
to his deliberately provocative threat that he made, and had
been discussing with me during the previous week.
8. His use of the word
"unspecified" was chosen to create the false
impression that it was an aspect of my usual conduct rather than
a response that he was trying his hardest to get.
9. When I offered him the
opportunity to apologise for his threat in order to de-escalate
the situation - he didn't apologise.
10. Instead of giving a
straight answer to my question about his threat he 'played dumb'
and 'denied the obvious' fact that he had chosen those words
as a threat, and "playing dumb' etc. is a form of provocation
that is specified in Wikipedia discussion policy as a violation.
11. He added more than
a dozen edits over a 24 hour period to set up a case against
me on an RFC page, and he later set up a page to get me banned.
12. My user talk page has
been deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds that I was harrassing
them, but it contained the evidence that he was baiting and harassing
me.
The
argument that he wanted all of the other editors to see
At 18:20 on 20-7-08 Gordonof cartoon
wrote the following words on the Administrators noticeboard,
and then tried to act prim and proper by striking out his comments
and advising them that he was taking it to an RFC page. This
is what he told them about an essay that I wrote on my talk pages
to defend myself from their incessant criticism . . . "Could someone uninvolved
have a glance at this situation?
Long-term tendentious editing by SPA, situation escalating with his creation of a user page section that appears
in breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:UP#NOT. And now the threat "would
you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a
hurry" [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2008
in discussion number nine in ANI archive 451 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451
Seven hours later he changed his mind and
wrote . . . "Belay that; I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:20,
20 July 2008
At
18:16 on 20-7-08, on an RFC page Gordonofcartoon
presented his reasons for wanting a topic ban imposed on me,
and his words included the following description . . .
Posturewriter did this, but the tendentious and disruptive pattern
continued on the Talk page. He persists in his argument -
despite a clear SPA edit history - that it's other???? editors
(ones with a wide variety of topic interests) who have an agenda.
This has worsened recently with an
open statement of bad faith - The Motivations, Strategies,
and Tactics of my Critics asserting that multiple
policies have been invoked against him as various "tactics"
rather than for the simple reason of his breach of multiple policies.
Evidence of disputed
behaviour Number
9. Unspecified threat - "By way
of gratitude would you like me to teach you a lesson that you
won't forget in a hurry" [12]
Number 5. Breach of
WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:UP#NOT with
creation of attack essay The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of
my Critics - particularly including false accusations of
anonymous vandalism, and bad-faith assumptions about other editors' reasons for invoking policy.
Number 12. Breach of
WP:AGF - Posturewriter said . .
. "It looks as though your are finding policy reasons for
deleting things to suit your purposes".
Applicable policies
and guidelines violated. Number 7. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
Evidence of trying to
resolve the dispute. Number 4. Advice,
again to assume good faith, to stop treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest [30
[edit] Users certifying the basis for
this dispute {Users
who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}. Number 1. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon (talk)
18:16, 20 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Statement_of_the_dispute
At 17:48 on 26-1-09
Gordonofcartoon took his misrepresentation of
the situation to the Arbitration page
and made these statments . . . "Confirmation that other
steps in dispute resolution have been tried. Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop
treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation."
Statement by Gordonofcartoon
. . . I'm asking for Arbitration
attention - ideally a topic ban, covering disruption/harassment on Talk and dispute
resolution pages - on grounds of
Posturewriter exhausting community patience: this involves a
classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipedia:Tendentious
editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk)
17:48, 26 January 2000 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_Gordonofcartoon
Summary; if
Gordonofcartoon wanted to take the matter to an RFC or arbitration
page he could have done it at any time, and he has done it many
times to other editors in the past, and his comment "Do
we want to up the ante" was completly unnecessay for that purpose. He deliberately chose those words to escalate
the argument because he had lost on previous Wikiquette Alert,
and MFD attempts etc. for six months, and wanted to get a response
from me that he could use or misrepresent to get me banned on
the grounds of uncivil conduct. Note also that when
he accused me of violating WP:Battleground he was trying
to create the impression that I was violating the policy that
says Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground - in particular,
he was trying to give the ridiculous sanctimonious impression
that I started the escalation, when in fact he wanted to escalate
the discussions into a heated argument, and he goaded me to respond,
and he refused to de-escalate, and deliberately put me into an
apparent no-win situation, and thereby made it impractical for
me to ignore him - he was actually, and deliberately, and furtively
fuelling the flames of an argument.
*******
How
my two critics deceived the neutral editors into thinking that
I was ill-mannered
At 18:32 on 21-7-08 one of the neutral editors who came to sort out
the issues in the RFC dispute read the arguments presented by
my two critics and wrote this about me . . . "As far as
incivility goes there are only a couple of blatant breeches of WP:CIVIL,
most notably with the sockpuppet issue and with the "teach
you a lesson" line quoted above." (end of quote)
Note that the "teach
you a lesson" words were part of the sentence which ended
"that you won't forget in a hurry", and Gordonofcartoon
deceived the neutral editors by deliberately and skillfully
hiding his earlier
threat from them
re; he said "Do we want to up the Ante" on 13-7-08 (only a week before Avnjay's comments). His words
were intentionally uncivil and were designed to provoke
a response that he could use against me, and I knew that, so
my response was as polite as practical.
His entire purpose was to get that sort of response,
and then deceive the neutral editors
into thinking that
it was an unprovoked comment and he was obviously successful.
Here were Avnjay's initial
comments "Wow, what a headache. As a completely outside
party I have just read through all the relevant pages I can find. (User's talk pages, article talk
page, COI discussions, etc) which has taken several hours?"
(end of quote) Of course
Avnjay did not find the words that Gordonofcartoon
tried his hardest to
hide.
Here is another quote from
Avnjay . . . "Posturewriter is generally polite in his responses
and has mostly remained calm throughout this protracted affair".
Note also that the sockpuppet
issue refers to the anonymous vandal who deleted the entire text
on the Da Costa's page some time earlier when my two critics
were deleting bits and pieces just before, and just after that
instance. I therefore described the circumstances, without attributing
blame to anyone, and asked the administrators to investigate
the matter and determine who the vandal was. Some experienced
editors watch for and report on anonymous vandals as the major
part of their role in Wikipedia, and others do it regularly and
no-one accuses them of being uncivil because it is every persons
responsibility to report such incidents.
*******
My two critics
rewrote the policies to make it easier for them to control
Wikipedia content and any editor who had superior knowledge.
SPA arguments etc
Gordonofcartoon
and WhatamIdoing were very devious editors who were always hiding
information and changing policies to suit their own agendas.
For example Gordonofcartoon started with an interest in Art,
and was critical of editors who used unreferenced materials,
but after I complied with a lot of policies to meet their ever
more pedantic demands they accused me of violating policies when
I wasn't. They started harping on particular aspects and exaggerating
them out of proportion, and changing their own priorities to
give everyone else the false impression that their current 'prim
and proper twaddle' was written to stop editors writing about
Widgets, but they were changing everything to deal with me and
then telling the other editors 'this is just a minor case'. However,
they were not just changing their own priorities, changing the
policies, and rewriting the policies, and the wording of policies
and the subclauses of policies, and adding new policies, but
they were then telling everyone else such things as 'we the honorable
rule-abiding editors have been telling Posturewriter all of these
things from the very start - look at our webpage where we say
so, and look at the policies where it says so. - Their methods
of cheating were often blatant and ridiculous.
Here is an example
of what Gordonofcartoon wrote about himself on his User page
before he started losing arguments against me . . . On
10-8-07 he wrote . . .
1. "User
from way back: after long break, rejoined under fresh name to concentrate on art topics, which are under-represented
in Wikipedia. I've
a particular interest
in English artists of the late 19th and early 20th century. I dabble
in other topics, such as artist and biographical AFDs. I take a
hawkish attitude to unreferenced material. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]]
18:43, 10 August 2007
Here is the change he made about a year later, at 0:54
on 11-7-08 because he was losing arguments with me (but he
didn't want to admit that so he was deviously talking about Widgets)
. . .
2. "User from way back: after long break, rejoined
under fresh name initially to concentrate on art topics, but
I take a broad interest here.
Personally, I think generalism
should be mandatory on Wikipedia:
[[Wikipedia:Single-purpose
account|single-purpose accounts]] are so commonly [[Wikipedia:Tendencious editing|tendencious]] that I think such editing patterns ought to
be near-automatic grounds for a topic ban.
Someone with a mono-topic ''idée fixe'' about,
say, Acme Widgets is unlikely to have the perspective to write about
Acme Widgets objectively. -see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gordonofcartoon&diff=224923866&oldid=201401065
Here is his current
objectives as at 22-10-09 . . .
3. "User from way back: after long break, rejoined
under fresh name initially to concentrate on art topics, but
I take a broad interest here. Personally, I
think generalism should be mandatory on Wikipedia
because single-purpose
accounts are so seldom anything
but tendencious. . . I
also think Wikipedia would be improved by simplifying the conflict of interest system (I suggest that editing in COI areas
should still be allowed, but
with a simple and rapid veto mechanism of
a topic ban if a consensus of uninvolved
editors feels it appropriate). . . . I'd like to see far
more awareness at admin and arbcom level of the problem of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, a form of low-level disruptive editing
whose highly toxic long-term effects often go unrecognised,
simply because on short-term examination there's nothing overt
enough to merit action. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gordonofcartoon
Note that Gordonofcartoon
is trying to change the policies to push his own barrow
and manufacture his own importance by admitting that he is the type of editor 'who takes a broad interest', and in his "personal"
'opinion' anyone with specific
interest should be barred. What he is saying is that, in his
opinion. the policies should be changed to suit his type of editing
because he doesn't like losing arguments with people like me
who actually know what they are talking about.
They want the policies to be so RIDDLED
with Ambiguities and INTERPRETATIONS, that they can give their
own personal opinions about anything because, in their own personal
opinion they have common sense and good judgment???. They also
want the ability to ban anyone else who has factual verifiable
evidence that they don't personally approve of in their personal
biased opinion about the policies that they wrote and twisted
around their grubby little fingers, and that they can get approval
for from the lobbying efforts with a retinue of secret email
friends.
If they had the intellectual capacity
to beat me in any arguments, by using the existing rules, they
would have done so, and then they
could have gone back to their art pages without making any changes
to their User pages or policy.
Note that Gordonofcartoon was
being deliberately evasive and secretive about
his motives when he changed his priorities on his own
User talk page on 11-7-09 only two
days before he wrote a threat to
me on 13-7-08 on my UserTalk page . . . 'do we want to up the ante"
!!!!!!!!!, and he told everyone
that I was making personal attacks (WP:NPA), and harassing him????????.
Of course, his highly predictable and insolent response to that
would be to 'play dumb' and pretend that it was a sheer co-incidence,
and that really he was referring to dozens of other SPA's, such
as Widgets???? that all of a SUDDEN became of great interest
to him?????????.
*****
One way of ensuring that all people from
the general public can contribute equally is for Wikipedia to
revoke all policies requiring editors to reveal their real life
identity and interests and ban anyone who found out about it
and mentioned it, so that everyone could confine themselves to
discussing only the topic, and the information from independently
verifiable references. The other, less effective way is to establish
openness and accountability by requiring everyone to reveal their
actual identity. However, the idea that some editors can ask,
or demand, others to identify themselves while keeping their
own identity a secret, is likely to be exploited by the worst
type of editors, with the strongest conflicts of interest, which
they can - and will - hide and deny.
|
|
My
two critics argued that they were not Disputing content?????
When I started adding information to the
Da Costa's Syndrome page in Wikipedia, some of it was from my
own research, so two editors deleted it on the grounds that it
took up too much space on the page. I therefore abbreviated it
and they deleted it again on the grounds of an 'original research'
policy which essentially means that you can't add 'original'
research from 'any' source. That didn't bother me because it
applied to everyone i.e. nobody could add their own research.
According to Wikipedia policies all information should come from
'reviews' in journals or books where a range of studies have
been assessed and the material has been independently considered
to be reliable - rather than just being one persons opinion which
may, or may not be reliable.
However, when I started adding information
from such sources, the same two editors continued to find an
endless array of policies to use as an excuse for deleting most
of it. In particular, I noticed that whenever I added scientific
results which confirmed the physical or physiological basis for
the symptoms, it would soon be removed - sometimes within five
minutes. On one occasion they deleted my summary of a review
paper that covered about ten different ideas, including physical
and psychological studies, and then they replaced it with one
sentence about anxiety disorders. The same two critics would
always find a policy reason for deleting information like that
despite the fact that it was from reliable and verifiable references,
and they eventually wanted to get me blocked from adding to the
page. When numerous other editors told them that they shouldn't
be blocking me because of a content dispute, they would complain
about the advice, and argue that it was not about content. They
were trying to convince them that I was a disruptive editor who
was always violating the policies (or policy interpretations)
that they kept changing. On one occasion they put together a
long list of a dozen policies that they accused of violating,
such as WE:DE, WE:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc, with one violation per line
so that it occupied 12 lines than ran down the page. They went
to a lot of trouble to convince other editors that I was violating
policies, but it was essentially a list of policies that they
applied, one at a time, over a period of months, each time they
wanted an excuse to delete content.
Their editing always was a content dispute,
and they were using policies as their "excuse" to divert
attention away from the fact that they were deleting particular
types of content, and they were going to continue inventing policy
arguments as diversions until they had total dictatorship of
the content on the page. They did not give a dam about what anyone
else in Wikipedia said unless they agreed with them. When they managed to get one or
two editors to agree with them they would then 'put words
into their mouths' and grossly exaggerate and inflame
the situation to incite prejudice and contempt
against me by saying such things as 'we agree with all of the other thoroughly disgusted members of the community
who are rapidly losing
patience with this
new contributors disruptive
"behavior".
Their theatrics and hyperbole were truly astonishing to watch
but I have seen it all before - it is an example of ad
hominem ad infinitum.
This is a quote from
the main policy . . . "Wikipedia
policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe
best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise
further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia;
indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of
breadth and in terms of depth. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=320348531&oldid=320299615
The information that I provided is what
Wikipedia policy actually required, and what some of the other
editors said, but then my two critics would argue that there
was something wrong with the other editors, or that they chose
the wrong procedure, or that the policies were wrong, or that
the policies needed to be changed, which is why they had to get one of their friends
to break
the rules to get me banned.
The following quotes will give a general
view of that aspect of the discussions . . .
At 2:25 on 18-5-08
WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "what sort of support
do we get from the
broader community? We get responses
that add up to "Y'all play nice, now." "It's a content
dispute: you should 'work for
a consensus'" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=302592402&oldid=302555878
Note that WhatamIdoing
was supposed to accept the advice of the broader community (the other Wikipedia
editors) and not complain about
it, and accept
consensus opinion from the other editors, and not incessantly argue with me and everyone
else until I was blocked.
At 10:47 on 27-1-09 (seven
months later) my other critic, Gordonofcartoon, set
up an arbitration page to get me blocked, and
kept ignoring the advice of other editors and denying
that it was a
content dispute with the following
words . . ."Response to Wizardman . . .This is emphatically
not about content" Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2009
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_Gordonofcartoon
I was banned on 28-1-09 by one of their friends.
At 23:41on
8 May
2009 (three months
later) WhatamIdoing thanked
him for being the
only one who was prepared to break the rules of Wikipedia
to ban me with the following words . . . "Thanks for being the only part
of the community
that was willing to step up to the plate . . . when I was about to tear
my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter]]
. . . in January". [[User:WhatamIdoing]]23:41, 8
May 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
My
two critics; The Rule Breaking - Rule Abiding Editors of Wikipedia???
I was contributing to Wikipedia
for 12 months, during which time I had two main critics who claimed
to be respectable??? rule-abiding??? 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=226853495
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 (UTC) . . . that text can be seen at the top of
the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
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.
My two critics
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 (including IAR) in their normal editing, so he'll try to restore his "policies are
optional" idea, perhaps in a slightly different form".
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009
At 01:16 on 19-10-09
Camelbinky wrote . . . "What is
completely misleading the entire "audience"
with his continued inflammatory declarations about this. I havent 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 (talk) 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 shouldnt 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 dont have to be NPOV, but
this page
is completly on the POV of punishing those that dont 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, dont
question it, just
do it the way we've already decided on, too bad you didnt sign up earlier
when we were deciding things".
[[User:Camelbinky]] 02:09, 19 October 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=320719800
At 03:05 on 19-10-09
another editor named Kim Brunning wrote
. . . "Intentional ambiguity seems to be a common [[failure
mode]] of the consensus
system. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 03:03, 19 October
2009 - who also added . . . ''Or maybe it's not a bug, but
a feature"?' here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=320727749&oldid=320727609
At 03:11 on 19-10-09
WhatamIdong 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
(talk) 03:11, 19 October 2009 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=320732291#Rfc:_Have_grounds_been_established_for_a_change_to_the_policy_description.3F
At 03:55 on 19-10-09 WhatamIdoing
wrote . . . "Please go read the bit that says '''Editors
are <u>expected to use common sense</u>
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". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]
([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:55, 19 October 2009 here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=320734220
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 WhatamIdoings 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 includng
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 beteween
tag-teaming and consensus-based editing. "This makes "tag-team" inherently
usable as an accustaion by editors who are failing to alter an
article against a consensus" see
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268486470&oldid=263995921
The following change was made
to Gordonofcartoon's
words in the
same sentence seven months later
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=313141652&oldid=310936127
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 disrupitve 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#User:Posturewriter
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.
Here are my
solutions 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 WhatamIdoings fanciful words. WhatamIoing must
also edit pages to a consistant standard and not in a manner
that is wildly different from one contribuor 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 partonising
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.
|
|
THE
PAGES RELATED TO THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS THAT I WAS AN UNCO-OPERATIVE
CONTRIBUTOR
While I was in Wikipedia two editors did
95% of the arguing and disruption of my contributions, and went
to about ten different discussion pages to ask groups of six
or more other editors to help them get me blocked or banned on
the basis of their false allegations that I was disruptive and
not willing to accept Wikipedia policy. Most of the editors disagreed
with them, but they just kept looking for ways of being disruptive.
At one stage during an RFC discussion two editors suggested that
myself and my two critics should do separate subpage texts, so
that they (the neutral editors) could later merge them into one
article, to ensure that it complied with all of the relevant
policies and represented a neutral point of view. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay
The two independent editors who suggested
writing subpages were Avnjay and SmokeyJoe. In the following extract you can see that Avnjay's
suggestion was endorsed by SmokeyJoe, and I also endorsed it
with a clarifying comment. (I have highlighted the quote from
Avnjay's suggestion in red).
"Users who endorse
this summary: . .
1. AvnjayTalk 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 1
August 2008 (UTC)
3. Avnjay; I endorse your solution with
the regard to your comments as quoted here "As
far as the article is concerned here is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing
it directly they can put their idea of the perfect article on
a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki policy but not
the article's subject (I am happy to take the time to do this
if you want) can then read the articles and check the references
and combine the articles. After a bit of discussion on the talk
page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but
why not!!." in your 3rd last paragraph here [85]. I
am willing to prepare a sub-page on the range of research related
to a balanced view of Da Costa's syndrome and have you ensure
that it is presented as an article page which is consistent with
all relevant wiki policies, as fairly and equitably determined
by you" --Posturewriter (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008.
One of my critics, named Gordonofcartoon, rudely and bluntly refused the offer, but as
you can see, I accepted it. I then prepared an article outside
of Wikpedia, and when it was complete I added the text to a subpage.
Avnjay's original response was that it
was a lot better than the existing Da Costa's page, and, more
importantly, that it complied with all policies, and in particular
that it was properly sourced, and free of bias.
However, unknown to me at the time, my
other critic, named WhatamIdoing, had not had the time or ability to produce a
separate text, but did have the time and ability to cut and paste
mine and subject it to more than 80 items of insulting and disruptive
criticism. At the same time the same critic started a conversation
on their own UserTalk page and began criticisng and ridiculing
me and telling Avnjay that he was incompetent at understanding
the subject matter. See the first few comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
While I was initially unaware of those
pages I continued to co-operate with Avnjay who was, in hindsight,
reading them, and asking me to provide information in response
to the many criticisms, in particular that I provide more modern
references, so I added at least 10 more that were published between
2000 and 2009.
When Avnjay advised me
that he would be too busy to continue for awhile I was put in
the awkward position of having to finish the article and move
the text to the Da Costa's topic page myself.
My two critics took turns
at deleting it , and each time I put it back, so they arranged
to get me banned on the grounds of going against consensus and
being disruptive. Their idea of consensus was always two to one
against, where they were always saying "we" think this
or "we" think that, to create an inflated impression
of their situation, and when there was mostly only two of them,
most of the time. If necessary, they recruited some of their
friends who believed their spin or shared their obvious bias.
They always referred to the editors who supported me as incompetent
in their interpretation of policy, or incompetent in their understanding
of the topic, and when they lost disputes on discussion pages,
instead of accepting the consensus of others, they said that
it failed on procedural grounds etc. and set up more discussion
pages to get me blocked.
Ultimately Gordonofcartoon set up an arbitration
page and the blocking proposal was being discussed by 12 independent
and uninvolved editors when one of my critics apparent friends
came into the discussion from nowhere and essentially told the
arbitrators that they were not needed anymore because he was
going to ban me himself.
Some months later, my main critic, WhatamIdoing,
rewarded that editor with an "Outlaw Halo" award for
being the only one prepared to break the Wikipedia rules to get
me banned, which indicates that WhatamIdoing had asked several
editors to break the rules but all of them, except one, refused.
Also, soon after I was banned the subpage
Talk page where I was co-operating very amiably and productively
with Avnjay was deleted.
My UserTalk page where I was defending
myself from criticism was deleted.
The Sandbox where WhatamIdoing cut and
pasted my text and began being disrespectful and argumentative,
and doing everything possible to be as disruptive as possible
was archived and hidden from general view by WhatamIdoing.
The section on WhatamIdoings own UserTalk
page where I was being subjected to constant criticism, and where
Avnjay was being told he was incompetent, was archived by WhatamIdoing.
Now all the evidence of my co-operative
nature and attempts to provide a neutral policy compliant page
for Wikipedia are gone, and all of the pages of evidence of WhatamIdoing's
hostile, unco-operative, argumentative, and disruptive conduct
is gone.
With all the relevant facts and evidence
deleted WhatamIdoing continued to argue that I was the one who
wasn't co-operative, and that I didn't understand Wikipedia policy
and was not willing to comply with it, and that I was being argumentative
and disruptive and pushing my own point of view.
In order to present the truth of the matter
with the facts and evidence for all to see and judge for themselves,
I have cut and pasted the subpage discussions between myself
and Avnjay, and they can be seen below.
The Sandbox where WhatamIdoing was doing
everything possible to interfere with that co-operative process
is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#Da_Costa.E2.80.99s_Syndrome
The section of WhatamIdoing's own UserTalk
page where WhatamIdoing was being insulting and argumentative,
and doing everything to disrupt the process is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
|
|
My co-operation
with Avnjay to produce a neutral, good quality, reliably sourced,
policy compliant article
User talk:Posturewriter/DaCostaDraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User talk:Posturewriter
Contents
1 Response to Avnjays Solution to the Da Costa's Syndrome Rfc
discussions
2 Your Article
2.1 History section
2.2 Introduction
3 CFS
Response
to Avnjays Solution to the Da Costa's Syndrome "Requests
for Comments" page (RFC).
Avnjay; Thankyou
for setting up this subpage on 30-8-08
here [[1]] and for providing the reference window on 26-9-08
here [[2]]. I have just added the text for a Da Costa's syndrome
article as I advised three weeks ago. It is consistent with the
layouts that I have seen on similar medical pages. The history
section is provided in chronological order to present the outcome
of heated debates and conflicts of opinions, and advances in
medical research findings from 1864 through to 2000 when, despite
criticism from some authors, the diagnostic term fell into disuse
in the general literature. I have therefore commented on the
links with modern terminologies in the summary. The painting
of a typical Da Costa's patient in Paul Wood's book would be
ideal for the page, so if you can't access it I could provide
a copy for you to check in relation to copyright etc and load
it onto the page. The painting is probably over 100 years old.
I hope you find the article acceptable, and if you have any comments
on how to improve it in relation to content or policy I will
respond next SundayPosturewriter (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 Sunday00:44, 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)
Introduction
Just to explain what I did to the introduction. The first line
was "Da Costa's syndrome is a disorder of unknown origin"
which then had three sources. The trouble is that two of the
sources were from a long time ago and the other was relating
to CFS, with a tiny mention of Da Costa but was still 12 years
old. Seeing as the WHO does list a cause for it I felt the intro
should be re-worded. Also when talking about people it's best
not to hype them up at all, especially if they have a Wiki link,
but let the user check for themselves if they want to - that's
what the ref is for. This ensures that the reader is not led
to give one source undue weighting. I'm sorry if I seem to be
chopping up and changing your article but I hope you see it as
positive and helpful contributions. If we are ever to get other
editors to accept it these are changes that have to be made.
Have a good day.AvnjayTalk 00:28, 12 October 2008 (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 of better standard. Other pages are sometimes shorter
but many other pages are much longer than this one e.g. the asthma
page which is constructed with a very large number of primary
sourced information with a total of 94 references, and other
pages have a varied choice of primary, secondary, and tertiary
references e.g. the varicose veins page, and there are some pages
where the majority of contributors are unaccountable anonymous
contributors, with non-existent, or very few, or poor quality
references, most of which are not linked to the text, and where
there are a large number of non-typical sections included without
being edited, changed or deleted, such as the Postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome page.
I note in particular that policy specifically provides for history
sections to be verified from reliable sources of the period,
and I have highlighted the dates of research reviews or findings
to provide a chronological, and therefore convenient way for
readers to review and check the progress and context of ideas.
I have also already made considerable abbreviations of texts
to shorten the page to encyclopedic length, such as comments
on Oglesby's study being reduced by 90% from here [[5]] to paragraph
two here [[6]], and similarly with MacKenzie and Caughey. I aimed
at minimising duplication of synonyms and research observations,
while at the same time keeping the information which distinguishes
this syndrome from many others which overlap to cause confusion.
I therefore don't wish to abbreviate it any further, but you
can have a go at it if you wish, and I will comment later.
Regarding the latter half of the page, I have used general section
titles, based on the recommended ones, with additional sections
useful to this topic to show important aspects of the condition
in a practical modern context, with the information derived from,
and linked to the history references for verification.
I have also amended, or added new reference links to some which
you deleted as problematic, for you to check if necessary.
I appreciate the many hours that you must have spent verifying
the information and improving the page. If you have any more
suggestions please let me know and I will respond next SundayPosturewriter
(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 excellentPosturewriter (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 SundayPosturewriter
(talk) 02:22, 19
October 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
CFS
Hi Posturewriter. We need to tackle the subject of CFS in this
article. It's stated in a number of places in the article that
Da Costa's Syndrome is a form of CFS. However, we need to take
a more careful look at the sources:
? The ORTHOSTATIC INTOLERANCE source says "It is
similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome" but
falls some way short of actually saying they are the same.
? The conclusion of the Is chronic fatigue syndrome synonymous
with effort syndrome? paper is that patients exhibiting "effort
syndrome caused by chronic habitual hyperventilation" should
be diagnosed as such and NOT with CFS, ME, or PVS. It doesn't
deal with any other kind of effort syndrome and doesn't mention
NCA/irritable heart/Da Costa.
? The The Nature of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome editorial
starts with "It has been speculated that the severe fatigue
associated with neurocirculatory asthenia, termed irritable heart
syndrome by Da Costa and soldier's heart by Lewis during World
War I, were early descriptions of the symptoms of orthostatic
hypotension" and then doesn't mention Da Costa's again.
Needless to say this cannot be considered a definitive source.
The only other source quoted is the Heart Disease book
by White, which is not available online and so I cannot check.
I'm going to re-work the article a fair bit to allow it to reflect
this. If you can find some modern sources which categorically
state that Da Costa's can be considered a part of CFS then we
can re-consider it. I appreciate this is a large change so I
hope you are happy with it. It's things like this that will stop
other editors agreeing with it. 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 consideringPosturewriter
(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 SundayPosturewriter (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 todayPosturewriter
(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)
End of Subpage Talk
|
|
The
actual discussions that led up to the writing of the subpage
The suggestion to write
separate subpages was not mine, but was made by two neutral editors
as a method of establishing the basis for preparing one unbiased
article that considered all of the verifiable information from
both sides. Here are extracts from the relevant discussions .
. .
The two neutral editors who suggested writing
subpages were Avnjay and SmokeyJoe.
1. This was one of Avnjay's suggestions
on the Requests For Comment Talk page on 3-8-08 . . . "As far as the article is concerned
here is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly
they can put their idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page.
Someone with knowledge of Wiki policy but not the article's subject
(I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then
read the articles and check the references and combine the articles.
After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect
article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!." [[User_talk:Avnjay|Talk]]</sup>
20:36, 3 August 2008 see the 8th paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=229643161&oldid=229584672
2. This was one of SmokeyJoe's suggestions on the same page five days later on 8-8-08 . . . "Posturewriter . . . If you want to create a userspace version of an
article (such as Da Costa's syndrome), get it perfected, and
then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it."
, , , -[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 11:18, 8 August 2008 here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=230591105&oldid=230154616
Avnjay made some recommendations on the
Requests for Comment Project page on 8-8-08
so I endorsed his suggestion in relation to the previous comment
of 3-8-08 and made these comments . . . "I am willing to prepare a sub-page
on the range of research related to a balanced view of Da Costa's
syndrome and have you ensure that it is presented as an article
page which is consistent with all relevant wiki policies, as
fairly and equitably determined by you" --Posturewriter (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay
A week later, at 07:51 on 15-8-08
I made these comments to SmokeyJoe on the RFC Talk page . . .
"SmokeyJoe;
Thank your for your comments . . . I think that your recent suggestion
of the 8th August was a good idea re; "If you want to create
a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome),
get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article,
then go for it" here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=230591105&oldid=230154616].
It relates to my
endorsement of Avnjays suggestion first, and yours second. You
could edit the page with Avnjay if you wish although you have
not previously offered to, and ensure it was complete, NPOV,
and in compliance with policy"
([[User talk:Posturewriter|talk]]) 07:51, 15 August 2008 here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=232069232&oldid=231544830
Seven hours later at 15:30 on 15-8-09
Gordonofcartoon gave this typically uncompromising and disruptive
response . . . "Discussion over: no-one's interested
in seeing further essays from you here". [[User:Gordonofcartoon]]
15:30, 15 August 2008. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=232096020
Two weeks later at 03:52 on 7-9-08 I wrote this message to Avnjay . . . "Avnjay; Thankyou for providing
the Da Costa subpage. I will add information to it in due course,
perhaps in the next few weeks"Posturewriter (talk) 03:52,
7 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=236781537
Another two weeks passed when
at 20:25 on 21-9-08 I wrote thes comments on Avnjay's
talk page . . . Avnjay, Thankyou for setting up
the Da Costa's syndrome subpage here [[2]]. I am in the process
of providing the text and will be checking it during the week
ready to post it on wikipedia next Sunday. Could you please set
up a reference section at the end of the page so that the citations
will be added to the list automatically. Could you also set up
an associated talk page so that you and SmokeyJoe can make any
comments related to improving it to encyclopedic style and compliance
with sourcing and other policy. You could make your comments
at any time, but I would like to consider them and respond once
a week, on Sundays, and would hope to complete the task to a
satisfactory format in about a month. When we have reached a
consensus about it's suitability you and SmokeyJoe could start
the process of merging it with the existing Da Costa page, or
any other Da Costa subpage via a different discussion process
where the discussion would involve all interested parties. I
hope this plan is acceptable, and if you wish to make any suggestions
or alterations to the timeframe or process I will respond next
Sunday. Thankyou again for your interest and assistance and for
reviewing the discussion pages related to this topic here [[3]]Posturewriter (talk) 02:33, 21 September
2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avnjay#Regarding_the_Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_subpage
Avnjay replied a few days later at 20:05 on 26-9-09
with these words . . .Hello
Posturewriter, sorry for slow reply I have been away. I have
added a references section to the sub-page (for more info on
this see Help:footnotes). The talk page can be started by clicking
on the discussion tab at the top of the page or by clicking here.
I will look in on the page from time to time and look forward
to reading your work! No trouble about the help - I am glad to
see you haven't been blocked. AvnjayTalk
20:05, 26 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avnjay#Regarding_the_Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_subpage
I then replied two days later at 08:27
on 28-9-08 with these words; Avnjay; Thankyou for providing the subpage and
adding the reference window code to it. I have provided the text
for an article on Da Costa's Syndrome today here [[4]] and would
appreciate your commentsPosturewriter
(talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avnjay&diff=241491078&oldid=241196101
I then started corresponding with Avnjay
on the Subpage Talk page above. (I have posted it above because
it was deleted from Wikipedia)
For more information about the subpage
that I prepared and the relentless ways that my two critics tried
to disrupt the process, and for direct quotes from those discussions
see here
|
|
Rewriting
the Da Costa's article on a subpage.
Soon after I started adding
information to the Da Costa's page the same two critics kept
inventing policy reasons to delete everything I wrote, so I thought
that it was a refreshing change to see two sensible and unbiased
editors making an intelligent suggestion that we all do separate
subpages to be merged by neutral editors when they were finished.
I later added the text, and a neural editor named Avnjay described
it as brilliant and unbiased, and then I started co-operating
with him to make it even better. However, unfortunately it did
not make much difference because my two main critics simply undermined
the process. Here is the SIMPLE method that was used.
Instead of telling me that
every word I wrote was a violation of policy, WhatamIdoing cut and
pasted my essay onto a sandbox page - and found fault with every
word on it - and then told Avnjay - and then Avnjay asked me to change every word
I wrote.
It was as if Anjay
was being used as some sort of remotely controlled clone doing
WhatamIdoing's deeds.
WhatamIdoing was supposed
to do a separate page, with all statemtents verified from independent
sources so that neutral editors could compare both versions and check the verifiable
information of each and draw independent conclusions on neutrality, but all WhatamIdoing did was
interfere, disrupt, argue, and mess around, and force an unyielding
personal opinion on everyone else.
It became impractical for
me to continue when WhatamIdoing argued that there was something
wrong with me presenting the history article in logical chronological
order, and telling Avnjay, and then Avnjay asking me to rewrite
the history section as a story.
It was impractical because
WhatamIoing's tactics were so obvious, that if I spent three
months rewriting the essay as a story, WhatamIdoing would cut
an paste it onto a new sandbox and then start finding fault with every new
word.
The only way
that it was ever going to be free of criticism was if a neutral editor rewrote
it and decided that it was, in their neutral opinion, free of
bias, and then WhatamIdoing would have to criticise them instead
of me, and then the
neutral editor would KNOW that WhatamIdoing was
the biased and disruptive editor, not me.
Consequently when I was
asked to rewrite the essay, I advised Avnjay that I would be
happy if he rewrote it instead, and we could discuss it later.
He would then have to deal with the fact that he would become
the victim of WhatamIdoing's relentless nitpicking. He later
said that he didn't have time to trundle through all of the extra
references that I was asked to provide to verify every word in
my text.
I can understand that Avnjay
would not want to write it while being relentlessly hounded with
questions by WhatamIdoing, but that was the whole purpose of
the process - For me to write a neutral article, and for neutral
editors to rewrite it so that it was free of bias, and for neutral
editors to make all of the decisions. When Avnjay stopped editing
the subpage, with an explanation that he had other obligations
in his private life, I had no choice but to transfer the text
onto the topic page myself, and the only editors to revert it
were the same two critics who had refused to co-operate with
the process of producing an article without bias.
WhatamIdoing acts as a
content controlling dictator, and had absolutely no intentions
of accepting the basic principle of Wikipedia policy which is
essentially this - If WhatamIdoing wants to put a different version
in Wikipedia then write one - and keep away from the decision
making process, and let neutral editors merge them with others
to establish freedom from bias.
When Avnjay eventually
left some final comments it was after many weeks of absence and
it essentially said that he was leaving the decision on content
for WhatamIdoing to make - which is what WhatamIdoing wanted,
and was trying to achieve, and what WhatamIdoing got - TOTAL
CONTROL - which equates to POV dictatorship - which TOTALLY SNUBS,
UNDERMINES, SUBVERTS, AND DESTROYS WP:NPOV.
*******
Note that Avnjay was a
co-operative, and constructive editor who probably wanted to
continue in Wikipedia, and if he did not defer, then WhatamIdoing
would have come out with all editing 'guns ablazing', and I don't
think that Avnjay would have wanted to be on the wrong end of
that. Of course, that situation doesn't bother me because I have
been involved in controversies for thirty years and I have seen
it all before. It is like watching a TV comedy with all of the
bickering taking place on the screen in front of you - the usual
re-runs - my two critics, WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, acting
like - DUMB and DUMBER.
Archiving
methods and Sheer Co-incidence?????
When an editor discusses topics on their
own talk page they set up a section with a heading, and then
start discussing it with other editors. After a year or two they
may have a hundred or more topics where the discussions have
been completed, and take up too much space, and don't need to
be there anymore, so they can move the old discussions to an
archive page, and just leave the few that are still active. They
can also choose where they stop, and so, for example, if they
want to get a lot of feedback on their main topic of interest
they can delete everything prior to that one, so that it is moved
from halfway down the old page, to the very top of the new one.
WhatamaIdoing archived the topics so that the discussion about
me was left at the top, and then argued that it was sheer co-incidence.
The first topic heading was "1. Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter "
The first comments started on 18-9-08 with
WhatamIdoing giving Wizarman a barnstar for putting a topic ban
on me on the RFC page, and WhatamIdoing thanking him for it (with
no mention of the fact that RFC's are not supposed to be concluded
while still active etc)
The second comment was from a neutral editor
named Avnjay telling WhatamIdoing that the article that I wrote about Da Costa's syndrome was "a lot better" than the existing one (that was controlled by
WhatamIdoing).
Avnjay also added that he couldn't see
any evidence of conflict of interest (COI), or bias
That comment was followed by months of
never ending criticism by WhatamIdoing. From the very start Avnjay
revealed some insight into the tactics being used by saying "Ouch",
which reflects an earlier request to the same editor "please
don't come out with all guns ablazing". which indicated
that WhatamIdoing has a reputation for being a hostile individual.
WhatmIdoing's insults would follow like
this - Posturewriter is wrong, disruptive, and argumentative
etc etc, and using references that are out of date and obsolete.
Avnjay would come to my subpage and say
politely such things as - if you wish your article to be accepted
by the other editors you may need to find some more modern references
please.
I would spend a week or two looking for
the necessary references and return with a comment such as -
Avnjay; thankyou for your request, I have included some modern
references for you to consider. Please check them for verification
etc.
Whatamdoing would then rudely imply to
Avnjay that my suggestions were stupid, disruptive, mistaken
etc, for saying that Da Costa's is a type of CFS
Avnjay would then come to my subpage and
say politely - The link to CFS is not quite clear in your existing
references so could you please provide some more.
I would spend a week or two looking for
the refs and then add them to the list which grew from 24 references
(when it was already 'a lot better' than my critics version)
and it increased to 65 references.
The criticism went on for months with WhatamIdoing
deliberately and relentlessly insulting me in the section at
the top of the page so that a lot of personal friends would be
more likely to see it and come and help get me blocked.
Ultimately, WhatamIdoing sent emails to
a lot of other editors and one of them did come and ban me, but
another email went to Avnjay who replied, by saying that he had
been away for several months and that he had spent many hours
working on the subpage with me and that he didn't have time to
"trundle" through all of the references, and was conceding
to WhatamIdoing's decision on anything related to the page.
I will not make any critical comments about
Avnjay who did make attempts to resolve the issues involved,
but WhatamIdoing was doing everything to incite hostility against
me, and to put as much pressure as possible on any editor who
supported me until the support ceased.
The archive where the discussions can be
seen is WhatamIdoing's Archive number 2 which had 98 different
topics. Discussion number one was full of relentless insults
about me, aimed at getting help to block me. Item number 97 (the
second last) was also about me and how to get me banned, and
there were comments by my two critics WhatamIdoing, and Gordonofcartoon,
and another editor named DavidRuben (who had previously been
influenced by their incessant criticism), and Avnjay deferring
to WhatamIdoing.
The Archive number two had 98 topics and
covered the period of four and a half months from 18-9-08 to
8-2-09, and I was the subject of the first topic at the top of
the page, and the subject of the second last topic close to the
end of the page. That archive can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2
I was banned on 28-1-09, and the page was
archived a week later. The relevant dates are summarised below.
On 18 -9- 2008 a discussion about me
was started on WhatamIdoing's talk page somewhere along the large
list of topics with the following heading "Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter"
On 5-10-08 Avnjay
left a note on the talk page saying that the Da Costa essay that I produced was a lot better than the existing one, and unbiased, and
within six hours WhatamIdoing replied and said that Avnjay was
not competent in the subject matter, and then every time Avnjay
discussed something about my subpage WhatamIdoing criticised
it relentlessly.
On 18-10-08, two weeks later,
the previous page was archived with the topic about me put at
the top of the new page where
the heading was . . . number
"1.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter "
On 31-12-09 I found
out about the discussions and went to the page for
the first time to defend myself
from the incessant nitpicking and
insults.
On 26-1-09, three and a half months after the topic was moved
to the top of the page,, the second last
heading was started on that page with the heading . . . number "97. Requests for arbitration / User:Posturewriter"
On 28-1-09 I was banned
On 8-2-09, only eleven days after I was banned, the last comments were made on that page, and
it was then archived, and the topics related to me ceased to
exist on WhatamIdoings current page.
The whole purpose of putting my name at
the top of the page and adding relentless months of hostile insults
and criticism was OBVIOUSLY to get me blocked or banned, and
after that had been accomplished it wasn't needed any more. However,
WhatamIdong told the following ridiculous lies . . .
At 1:23 on 11-1-09
WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "the reason this section is
at the top of my talk page is because I archive in date
order. Like all normal talk pages, new items go on the bottom.
If you would quit adding to this section (as I've suggested several
times now), then I'd be able to archive it during the next
regular round. If you don't like having it at the top of
my user talk page -- then stop posting here!" WhatamIdoing
(talk) 01:23, 11 January 2009 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
Needless to say, if it took another two
months to get me banned, WhatamIdoing would have kept it at the
top of the page for another two months, or for however long it
took, and that practice violates many principles, guidelines,
and policies, including incivility, bias and non neutral point
of view, point of view pushing, tendencious editing, disruptive
editing, naming guidelines, no personal attacks, battleground,
organising an edit war, tag-teaming, refusal to move on, moving
the goalposts, rule-breaking and trolling etc etc. - In plain
Englsh that is called - not good enough to win without cheating.
|
|
The
lead up to a section of my UserTalk page that my critics eventually
had deleted (the section is here)
After getting a lot of criticism from two
editors in Wikipedia I decided to add a section at the top of
my UserTalk page to describe how they were using the same tactics
to disrupt my contributions over and over again. That section
was called "The
Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics", and is cut and pasted below for you to read here
Soon after that section was posted
the same two critics set up a discussion page to get the essay
removed, and then other
editors debated whether to delete it or keep it???
As each debate ended against them they
just kept setting up new discussion pages in a relentless attempt
to find someone who would agree to deleting it.
It was first discussed on a Wikiquette alerts page where I asked an editor named Jaysweet
for some time to consider a request to delete it, and also wrote
on my talk page (now blanked) . . . "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
objecive 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=226845230#Evidence_of_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute
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,
so I asked politely
if I could respond in the following two to four weeks. However, whenever I did that my critics would
come along and deliberately and falsely try to convince everyone
else that I was using delaying
tactics. Note that none of the
editors ever responded to my questions such as "how long
have I got to respond". . . they just left me guessing!!!
If any of them, including the arbitrators, told me a time frame,
I could organise 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive48#User:Posturewriter
At 18:16 on 20-7-08
Gordonofcartoon set up a Requests for Comments page and in his
section about evidence of failing to resolve the dispute he accused
me of creating confusion and delaying the process of getting
the essay deleted by not deleting it myself.
Four days later, on 24-7-08 Jaysweet wrote the following words on the MFD page . . . "The user was asked to remove
or revise this section, but
refused . . . Jaysweet (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter
I responded to one of my critics about
the removal of the Motivations and Tactics section with the following
words . . . "What you are suggesting is that all of your
criticisms of me on my own Usertalk page should remain, and all
of my words of defense are removed. which would be rigging the rules
against me" Posturewriter
8:26, 26th July 2008
I also wrote the following words on that
page to the editor named Jaysweet
. . . "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 (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008
(UTC)posturewriter"
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 with the following words
(note that Jaysweet nominated the page after being promted to
do so by my two critics). SmokeyJoe
wrote this . . . "Could the nominator remove the
specific sections he wants removed,
and provide the diffs for easier assessment please?"
However, although Jaysweet was courteously
invited, and given permission to determine and remove any offending sections
he did not delete the
information as requested by me AND SmokeyJoe???. 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 do not
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 SmokeyJoe gave 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 "-SmokeyJoe
(talk.-SmokeyJoe 12:33, 29th July 2008 . . . and
later these words "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
(talk) 10:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk)"
Most of the NPOV editors agreed
that there was nothing about that section that was inappropriate
so that "debate" also closed with the consensus in my favor with these
words by another editor .
"The
result of the debate was keep"
signed by PeterSymonds (talk) 10:16, 6
August 2008 (UTC). . . The MFD discussion can be seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter
*******
Of course, as usual, my two critics 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 (on the same day - Tuesday 27-1-09),
and an editor named Moreshci
suddenly interrupted
the process and banned me on the Wednesday at 15:36
on 28-1-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397. Gordonofcartoon then thanked him on his talk page fourteen minutes later at 15:50 on 28-1-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=266983945&oldid=266390145
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268486470&oldid=263995921#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming
. . . Note that I had provded
evidence of Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing's
tag teaming five
months earlier
on 19-8-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#More_Evidence_of_Disruptive_Dual_Editing_-_Wikipedia:Tag_teaming_Used_by_my_Critics . . . and that it would have been seen by Moreshci on
25-8-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#Disruptive_editor_.2F_RFC_failing_to_resolve
. . . 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 "motivatiions
and tactics" section, and
everything else
on my UserTalk page has since been
blanked here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Posturewriter.
The information about my critics tactics
is no longer available to Wikipedia readers so I have added it
below.
|
The
Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics (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 seperate 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.
However they eventually managed to get it removed by inventing
the idea that it was an "attack essay", and that it
was an example of me making personal attacks on them which they
called a violation of "no personal attacks" policy
called WP:NPA. They also invented the idea that the "whole"???
"Wikipedia" "community"??? was losing their
patience with me for that type of editing which they called "disruptive"????.
It is actually my responsibility to report them if I find evidence
that they were violating policies, and nobody else deleted that
section even when I repeatedly gave them permission to do so.
(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)
The Deletion
of Significant Scientific Evidence of 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 diaphram, 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 Criticism) 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 discreditng 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 Evidence 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 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
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"
herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter
|
|
My two predictable
and amusing critics
When I was contributing to Wikipedia I
noticed that I had two critics who would make "weird",
"odd", "bizarre", or "irrational"
criticisms. For example they would say that a 1951 reference
was an unreliable source of information for the "history"
section of an article. To compound their problem I had a look
at other medical topics where there were many examples of "old"
references that were sometimes used to support modern accounts
of topics, and some were provided by my two critics, and when
they deleted my "old" references, because they were
"old", they would replace them with their own references
which included "old" articles - sometimes from exactly
the same years that I used, and sometimes they used some of my
"old" references. For another example, their article
about Da Costa's syndrome did not use J.M.Da Costa's 'old' 1871
research paper, so I added it, and they kept it, because it would
be impossible to write about the topic 'properly' without that
one hundred and forty year 'old' reference.
However, to save myself the trouble of
getting into an argument about their obvious hypocrisy and double
standards, and being accused of "tendencious" editing
- again and again???, I simply spent a couple of weeks looking
for some "new" references that were published in the
past five years, even though the term Da Costa's syndrome has
not been in common use for thirty years. Essentially what "always"
happened was that within five minutes, or five hours of me adding
anything they found ten different policy reasons for deleting
everything, until they arranged for me to be banned me on the
trumped up grounds that I was using unreliable sources of information
and "tendencious" editing???????
|
|
THE
TENDENCIOUS EDITING and OBFUSCATION ISSUE
For
any one comment I made on Wikipedia, my two critics generally
added four, obviously to be disruptive and create confusion.
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#User:Posturewriter)
amd here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232 and
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=302592402&oldid=302555878#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
While I was involved with Wikipedia my
two critics accused me of tendencious editing, which means that
they were saying that I was excessively argumentative. However,
I will give some VERY BRIEF EXAMPLES OF their astonishing, and
ridiculous argumentative behavior.
I was repeatedly telling them that I only
intended to add about one item per week, and they would often
respond to, or delete my comments within five minutes or an hour,
and if I added one paragraph of content, one of them would come
along with three paragraphs of criticism and accuse me of violating
two or three new policies. They always worked as a team or
two against me, so, predictably, the other one would come
along within a day and add another three or four paragraphs of
criticism, and accuse me of violating two or three policies.
Sometimes they would be critical of the same contribution for
different reasons, and would contradict and discredit each other
by accusing me of violating different policies, so it was OBVIOUS
that they were independently selecting policies as a means of
deleting content, and that they didn't care if their arguments
were valid, or what the policy was, as long as it gave them a
plausible excuse for deleting the content.
They were arguing about everything I added
to every page in Wikipedia until I decided to write an essay
on their tactics and put it on the top of my UserTalk page so
that it would be the first thing that readers would see. The
new readers or editors would then be able to judge their comments
in that context. It was a way of defending myself against their
relentless personal insults and criticism. They became extremely
hostile about that and set up a series of discussion pages in
order to find other editors who would delete it and get me blocked
or banned.
After failing to get that essay removed
on a Wikiquette Alerts discussion, and when an MFD page was closed
by consensus with the words . . . "THE RESULT OF THE DEBATE
WAS KEEP" . . . they told at least two other editors that
the discussions failed because they were incompetent at interpreting
the relevant policies, and then Gordonofcartoon set up an RFC page to
get me banned from contributing to the Da Costa's page, and accused me of violating not one, but twelve policies. I
have taken extracts from that RFC page and put the quotes in
purple, but only experienced editors
would know what they mean, so I have added some comments in plain
black text to explain what they mean to the general reader. | |