|
"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) ?)
|
|
From
the start to the finish
In December 2007, when
I first saw the page about Da Costa's syndrome I noticed that
it only contained four lines of text and no references,
and that it had been there for eighteen months, and was most
recently modified by an editor named WhatamIdoing. It
was no better than a photo copy of a dictionary entry, and the
amount of detail was not sufficient to distinguish it from a
dozen other ailments. It was the equivalent of describing the
Amazon jungle as "an area of land which has many trees and
animals and a large river". Such a description would be
useless at distinguishing the Amazon from the Congo, or from
an ordinary park in any country. When I prepared an article on
the topic I added the details from papers written by physicians
who had been knighted for their contributions to medicine, and
Harvard professors, and international researchers. Some of the
references were books for specialists, and reviews in the Journal
of the American Medical Association etc. However, I had two critics,
including WhatamIdoing, who described them as unreliable sources
of information, and then deleted most of the article and replaced
it with a version that was not much better in quality than the
one I first saw. They were keeping the standard of Wikipedia
down to their own very low level. In fact, if they didn't read
the reference to Da Costa's original paper that I provided they
still would not actually know what they were talking about. See
the 2007 article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=165216444
On 27-1-09 WhatamIdoing
told the arbitrators this . . . "Initially, I didn't know
much about Da Costa's syndrome (DCS) and had some hope that we
might have a good editor involved"." On 15-7-08
WhatamIdoing left these remarks on my User talk page . . . "I'm
asking for your personal opinion as a relevant expert in this
area."
On 23-10-08 WhatamIdoing
wrote this reply to another editors question . . . "My interests
are probably too disorgansed for you to bother with . . . I'm
not a healthcare professional and have no plans to become one
. . . If it's important I can become an 'instant expert' on more
or less any narrow subject, but organizing the general field
requires more than the bits and pieces of information that I
have."
WhatamIdoing didn't know
much about Da Costa's syndrome from the start, and has read some
of the references that I provided, and asked for my personal
opinions, and now knows a small fraction of what I know. That
Is an example of imitation being the only form of flattery.
|
|
Winning
Arguments
some
brief summaries of the topics on this page
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 of their money 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?????
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 POV/Civil/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 to 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
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 that failed, then they would break
the rules.
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 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 them 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 banned by an editor who
WhatamIdoing described as independent???? but they attempted
to have a private discussion with him, and influence his attitude
six months earlier, and the discussion stopped immediately after
I joined the page, and that every word they wrote was carefully
chosen to create prejudice against me, and to give them 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 Wikippedia.
|
|
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 apparrant 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.
*******
My two critics
rewrote the policies to make it easier for them to control Wikipedia
content and any editor who had superior knowledge.
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 he 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 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:Tendentious editing|tendentious]] 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 tendentious. . . I
also think Wikipedia would be improved by simplifying the conflict of interest system (I suggest that editing in COI areas
should still be allowed, but
with a simple and rapid veto mechanism of
a topic ban if a consensus of uninvolved
editors feels it appropriate). . . . I'd like to see far
more awareness at admin and arbcom level of the problem of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, a form of low-level disruptive editing
whose highly toxic long-term effects often go unrecognised,
simply because on short-term examination there's nothing overt
enough to merit action. 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 judgement???. 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 Gordonofartoon was
being deliberately evasive and secretive about
his motives when he changed his priorites 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 harrassing 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/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
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/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#Da_Costa.E2.80.99s_Syndrome
|
|
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 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???????
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
The policies
that they accused me of violating were . . .
"1. WP:DE ( the term WP refers to Wikipedia, and DE refers to them accusing me of Disruptive Editing, however, I was generally
adding content and my two critics were doing everyting to disrupt
the process)
2. WP:AGF ( the
term AGF refers to the idea that I was supposed to Assume Good
Faith in my two critics, and while they were incessantly criticising
me, I was not permitted to question their motives or actions,
or criticise them)
3. WP:COI ( the
term COI refers to them accusing me of having a Conflict of Interest
which was influencing content, but during the RFC discussions
that followed, two neutral editors suggested that each interested
contributor should write an essay, and then the independent editors
could merge them to remove bias and ensure neutrality. My critics
said that they didn't have a COI, and I was supposed to assume
good faith in their honesty?????, but they wanted to control
the content on the Da Costa page, and they were hostile about
neutral editors making decisions on content.)
4. WP:NOR ( the
term NOR refers to the policy which requires a person to avoid
using references about their own Original Research, or any one
else's Original Research, and requires them to only use references
that are secondary sources. i.e. journal articles that review
other peoples work - and when I was told about that policy I
stopped adding my own research and started adding independent
reviews)
5. WP:NPA ( the
term NPA refers to No Personal Attacks, so they were saying that
I was not allowed to describe their tactics because it was a
personal attack on them - Of course they had been insulting me
and making personal attacks against me at every opportunity,
which is why I wrote that essay, but they never accused themselves
of violating WP:NPA policy)
6. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (
the term NOTBATTLEGROUND refers to them accusing me of using
my UserTalk page as a BATTLEGROUND but what they were not telling
the other editors is that they were organising an edit war against
me, and brought it to my Usertalk page, when I didn't even know
that such things as edit wars existed, and was simply defending
myself from their relentless attacks)
7. WP:UP#NOT (
the term UP refers to User Pages, and NOT refers to what you
cannot put in it, and UPNOT is the combined term. They were accusing
me of using my UserTalk page as a place for criticising them,
and that my comments should be deleted, but they are not telling
the other editors that they were also violating WP:UPNOT, because
there were many things that they were not supposed to bring to
my talk page, such as insulting, disparaging, derisive, and deliberately
pretentious patronising remarks. They were also bringing content
disputes to my User talk page which belonged on the Da Costa
talk page.
8. WP:CIVIL ( the
term CIVIL refers to them accusing me of not being civil. i.e.
they were accusing me of being ill-mannered in my discussions
with them, when in fact, they were often goading or baiting me
with insults in the hope that I would make an uncivil response,
and I was being as polite as possible to prevent them from using
discussion policy against me.)
9. WP:GAME( the
term GAME refers to editors using policies as if they were a
part of a game to be used to disrupt another persons contributions
- that accusation is absurd because I was adding content and
they were using policies as their excuse for deleting it. That
was partly because I was not familiar with all of the policies
- they were essentially GAMING they system 90% of the time)
10. WP:SOAP ( the
term SOAP was their way of accusing me of using my UserTalk page
as a SOAPBOX to defend myself from their constant criticism.
However, what they were not telling the other editors was that
they brought their personal attacks on me from the Da Costa talk
page to my own User talk page, and one of them was using their
UserTalk page to make relentless personal attacks on me for months.
They also arranged for their attacks on me to be at the top of
their own page, and when I eventually found it and went there
to defend myself they accused me of violating a variety of policies
and of making personal attacks on them. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter.)
11. ...( this number
did not contain any policy ????)
12. WP:SOUP ( the
term SOUP refers to them accusing me of spitting in THEIR soup,
presumably because they regarded Wikipedia as being their personal
property and they were accusing me of spoiling their fun - it
also refers to producing a constant flow of arguments and policy
objections until an opponent becomes frustrated or bored and
leaves Wikipedia - they were doing that to me and I was just
responding. For example, on the COI number two page, and on every
other page which they set up against me, and where they worked
as a team of two, they were producing four times the volume of
criticism compared to any one of my comments. )
13. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering These two are obviously not policies
or guidelines, but characterise a major problem of the situation;
Posturewriter's continuing and disruptive use of obfuscation
and long, unstructured comments." (My
code name was Posturewriter, and this comment was a case of me
being accused of obfuscation, which means that I was supposedly
writing large volumes of criticism of them to confuse other editors.
However, I only ever wrote one long essay of about 2000 words,
but it was the result of them writing about 5000 words of criticism
in a short time, and me not wanting to discuss their nonsense
six times a day (if I did they would invent six new arguments).
Another essay, which appears long, was the description of their
tactics, but it was not written in one session, but several sessions
that were added each time they used a new tactic against me.
The actual situation was that they were trying to confuse the
other editors with multiple arguments and discussions
about policy to divert attention away from the fact that they
were using policy to control content).
Those 12 criticisms can be seen on the
RFC page here . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=226853495&oldid=226845230
They later added another three to the list, namely WP:MEDRS,
WP:OWN, and WP:TALK, and they
added "failure
to be concise" to their WP:TALK, and WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY
to their WP:NOR accusations. (when
Gordonofcartoon falsely accused me of not being precise you can
see what his motives were; re; if he was precise and only accused
me of violating one policy I could be precise and disprove his
accusation. However, as you can see he was tryng his hardest
to confuse everyone else by accusing me of more than a dozen
policy violations. If you go through the history of edits you
can see that he added fifteen edits over a 24 hour period to
put the accusations together and during that time only one other
editor made a comment, and he was previously influenced by that
sort of onslaught on a COI page, and not the first COI page,
but the second one. . . Gordonofcartoon's objective was to confuse
the other editors and make it impossible for me to give a precise
defence. The real question is . . . 'what is there to be precise
about'????? . . . which of the twelve criticisms should I choose
to prove wrong. Obviously, if I was precise, and proved that
one of the accusations was wrong, my two critics would argue
that there were (in their inflated words) "many, many, many",
"Yup", "many" other reasons for blocking
me, so I had no choice but to present an ongoing defence. I am
essentially being as precise as possible here in proving all
twelve wrong in one essay, because it would be impossible to
prove all twelve wrong with one precise word, or one precise
sentence, or one precise pargraph.
When they couldn't get me blocked for any
of those twelve reasons they just kept accusing me of
more, and went to the policy pages to try and change
some of the policies so that they could apply them to me,
and they set up multiple pages against me that were all
active at the same time so that I was sometimes wondering
which of six pages of criticism that I should respond to in any
particular week???? They argued relentlessly for months, and
when I produced a subpage essay on Da Cost's syndrome at the
request of neutral editors WhatamIdoing found not one, not
six, but eighty things to criticise, and when I found
12 references to support one statement in that essay (to comply
with 12 different criticisms and policy requirements) It was
indirectly implied by WhatamIdoing that adding multiple references
to the one sentence was stupid. I was often trying my hardest
not to laugh. Their criticisms were often contradictory and
ridiculous so I asked them to apply the same standards of
criticism to other pages in Wikipedia, and they said that they
didn't have time??????? Their real reason for not applying
those standards to other articles is because none of them would
withstand that level of scrutiny and criticism and they would
be met by resistance and protests from every other editor.
|
THE GREAT FLOODS
OF CRITICISM THAT I WAS EXPECTED TO DEAL WITH PRECISELY????
Gordoonofcartoon made the ridiculous accusation that I was adding
large volumes of text to confuse the other editors. He also made
the ridiculous accusation that I was not being precise in responding
to discussions.
Nobody on earth could be precise in responding
to the massive onlslaughts of criticism that he and his tag-teamer
relentlessly flooded the pages with. One of the many examples
can be seen in the history of edits where he set up one discussion
about me with fifteen
edits in one day.
The
fifteen edits that Gordonofcartoon made to start the RFC page
to get me topic banned
(cur) (prev) 12:19, 21 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,601 bytes) (ÆStatement
of the dispute: tidy intro) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 23:38, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,578 bytes) (ÆApplicable
policies and guidelines) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 23:35, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,519 bytes) (ÆDesired
outcome) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:54, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,486 bytes) (ÆDescription:
expand WP:DE area) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:51, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,417 bytes) (ÆDesired
outcome: expand) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:46, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,328 bytes) (ÆDescription)
(undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:45, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,310 bytes) (ÆDescription)
(undo)
* (cur) (prev) 21:43, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,294 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior: corrected descr.) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:48, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,252 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:46, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,227 bytes) (ÆDesired
outcome: expand) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:40, 20 July 2008 EdJohnston
(talk | contribs) (14,132 bytes) (ÆUsers
certifying the basis for this dispute: Adding my name, due
to my discussions with this editor at WP:COIN and a warning
I left on his Talk in May 2008) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:35, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (14,043 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior: add PA) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:31, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of failing to resolve the dispute) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:26, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (13,469 bytes) (ÆDescription:
expand WP:DE) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 19:11, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) m (13,088 bytes) (ÆEvidence
of disputed behavior: typography) (undo)
* (cur) (prev) 18:16, 20 July 2008 Gordonofcartoon
(talk | contribs) (13,091 bytes) (create Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Posturewriter)
to see that edit history you can scroll down the list here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&limit=500&action=history
The only other editor to comment in that 24 hour period had
previously made a decision about COI after reading massive floods
of criticism from the same two critics, and before reading my
defense. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232
|
|
The
response to my criticism of one of their references
(an
example of my two critics making a mistake, and trying to convince
other editor that I was wrong)
Part 1
At one stage I saw a link to a novel called
"Soldier's Heart" in the "See Also" section
of the page. "Soldier's Heart" was one of the more
commonly used alternative names for Da Costa's syndrome so it
belonged there. However it was mainly used by some authors prior
to the first world war because it became a problem for the military,
but it has since been discovered that it is more common in civilian
life, and more common in women, and is more common in soldier's
who already had mild symptoms before enlisting, and hence there
have been more than a hundred different labels for it. Nevertheless,
I was casually curious about why someone would put a link to
a NOVEL (a book of fiction???) on a medical page that is supposed
to only contain references to top quality medical research journals,
but I thought nothing more of it until one of my critics moved
it to the top of the page to give it prominence. I therefore
read it to see if it was relevant but found it to be a children's
fiction novel, written by children's fiction author, and published
by a children's fiction publisher, with no mention of any of
the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome anywhere in it's 100 pages
of text.
I thought that I should let them know that
it was irrelevant and that it should be removed so that Wikipedia
users would not waste their time reading it. It was also inappropriate
for them to use a children's fiction novel on a medical page,
but when I said that they started complaining and here are of
some of their incessant arguments.
1. That it was not moved to the top of
the page to give prominence to the label that they favored.
2. That it was not a reference, but a hatnote
link.
3. That the link was for a hatnote policy
directing readers to a disambiguation page that did not have
to be relevant.
4. That they could put a flowering plant
there if they wanted to.
5. One of them added some poems, plays,
and telemovies to the page because they had the same title of
"Soldier's Heart". The other editor later argued that
the problem had been solved because it had become a regular disambiguation
page.
6. They argued that I was a stupid person
who didn't understand the difference between a reference and
a hatnote.
7. When I read the book and then criticised
them for using it THEY SAID THAT I WAS VIOLATING ORIGINAL RESEARCH
POLICY BY READING THEIR LINK and determining that it was irrelevant.
8. When I asked them for page numbers where
the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were supposed to be they
changed the subject so I assumed that they had never even bothered
to read the book, or did read it, and couldn't find any relevance,
and didn't want to admit it.
9. They argued that I was violating AGF
policy for not assuming good faith in their editorial honesty
and judgment.
10. That I was being tendencious (argumentative)
for telling them it was irrelevant
11. That I was being disruptive for wanting
it removed etc. etc. etc.
They just kept arguing like that for weeks
and refused to remove it.
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Comments_on_the_novel_.E2.80.9CSoldier.E2.80.99s_Heart.E2.80.9D
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266789799&oldid=266722358#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F
27-1-09 . . . Here is a direct quote from WhatamIoing's argument
on the arbitration page where I was banned.
"The other problems that we've encountered
generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions.
For example, at one time, Soldier's heart redirected to the DCS
article. There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we
provided a link to the article about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT,
this link should be in a hatnote instead of in a See also
section. Posturewriter
complained at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation
link
being "in the
lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter never seemed to grasp the
point, and ultimately, it was resolved only because Soldier's
heart became a regular disambiguation page" . . . WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing
281-09 . .
. Here is a quote from an editor
named Moreschi who came to the arbitration page and interrupted
the decision making proces to ban me on his own.
"I've banned Posturewriter, as I should
have done yonks ago. Apologies for not getting to this sooner.
That will save you a case, I think. Moreschi "(talk) 15:36,
28 January 2009
Note that Moreschi was only involved in
one brief discussion with WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon six
months earlier, on a page that I was not told about. When I became
aware of it and joined the discussion it ceased immediately and
I had not heard of Moreschi since, hence I thought he agreed
with my comments. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#Disruptive_editor_.2F_RFC_failing_to_resolve
2-2-09 . . . A few days after I was banned AN INDEPENDENT EDITOR named Paul
Barlow deleted the link and gave the
following reason at 15:13 on 2-2-09
. . .
"no
point in linking to a disamb page that points back here and lists
unrelated usages"
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152
. . .
However, because I had
been banned from Wikipedia my two critics did not complain, and
the link has not be put back by them in the six months since.
They were the most argumentative and disruptive
individuals I have ever come across in my whole life and their
criticism of me is ridiculous.
Their idea is to start an argument with
me, and then tell everyone else that anything I say in defence
is tendencious.
Summary: My two critics moved the words "Soldier's
Heart (novel)" to the top of the Da Costa's page. When I
read it and informed them that it was a children's fiction book
that was not appropriate for a medical topic, and therefore needed
to be deleted, they argued with me. They later used that discussion
as an example of me being a tendencious editor who should be
banned from the topic. After I was banned another editor deleted
the novel and the link because, in his opinion, it was inappropriate.
As a final note, there are a lot of people
who are not experienced in controversial topics who would fall
into the trap of being passive in the face of criticism, rather
than respond to it. If they don't respond then my two critics
will control content, and if they do they will be blocked for
being argumentative, and my critics will regain complete control
of content, which was there objective. They were essentially
creating a VERY SIMPLE no-win situation and expecting me to fall
for it. They had done that before, and made it too obvious through
repetition. For example, they were telling lies, but I had to
trust them and remain silent, or be accused of violating WP:AGF
- assume good faith policy etc.etc.
Part 2
Some months
after I criticised my two critics for linking a children's fiction
novel to a medical page they started an argument that focussed
on ONE of my references, and misrepresented it, and used it to
give the fasle impression that all of my references were unreliable,
and that I should therefore be banned.
They had been demanding that I could only
use references that
were from verifiable, top quality peer-reviewed medical journals etc., so I
eventually provided the article with more than 60 references that met those standards, and only one to a medical consumers
webpage.
The webpage was about Myalgic Encephalitis,
which is a common synonym for the chronic fatigue syndrome, with
Da Costa's syndrome mentioned in it's list of 80 other synonyms,
and it was compiled in collaboration with four doctors. The medical
consumer was interested in iguana lizards and she had a website
about them, and included a webpage about CFS on the same website.
My two critics deliberately failed to mention the collaboration
with four doctors, and went to many discussion pages and misrepresented
it by telling all of the other editors that it was a link to
a medical consumers website about iguana lizards, and that she
was a patient, who was not a medical expert, and that it was
not compliant with Wikipedia's policy that requires references
from reliable peer-reviewed sources. They argued that It represented
all of my other references and that I was too stupid to find
reliable sources of information, and that I was being disruptive
for ignoring their advice to remove it.
I started removing the links to the medical
consumers page but was banned by one of WhatamIdoing's friends
anyway. See discussion 23 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
. . .
. . . WhatamIdoing also used that one reference
as an excuse to delete all of the text, including the 60 other
references with these words . . . "Rv POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned
sources such as the personal webpage of a patient" . . . which can be
seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214 . . . The text and the full list of references
can be seen by scrolling down that page, and can also be seen
here
WhatamIdoing's repeatedly misrepresented
my use of that reference in as many places as possible .e.g.
in item number 52 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#Personal_attacks
Summary: Wikipedia requires editors to use top quality
peer-reviewed medical books and journals as sources of information
for it's medical articles. My two critics only provided twelve
references in the twelve months that I was there. I criticised
them for linking to a children's fiction novel and moving it
to the top of the page where it will mislead people about the
nature of the condition. All links to that novel have since been
removed by two independent editors who obviously agreed with
me.
I provided Wikipedia with 64 top quality
references that met the policy requirements and one to a medical
consumer's webpage that was compiled in collaboration with four
doctors and supported by about ten other references in the paragraph
where I used it, and my two critics persuaded the arbitrators
to ban me by telling them that I was an ignorant, argumentative,
and disruptive contributor who was constantly ignoring policy
advice and using unreliable sources of information such as a
websites about iguana lizards.
The actual facts were that they were linking
to a children's fiction novel, probably because they didn't read
it and didn't know that it was irrelevant until I told them,
and I was using a medical consumer's webpage to bring a neutral
point of view into the article knowing that it was compiled with
the collaboration of four doctors, and I supported it with other
medical references.
I criticised them for linking an irrelevant
children's ficiton novel to a medical page, and they responded
later by finding a way to convince the other editors that I should
be banned for providing unreliable references ????
|
HERE
IS ANOTHER ESSAY ON THE SAME TOPIC USING QUOTES FROM FIVE INDEPENDENT
EDITORS
WhatamIdoing's
Deceitful Account of the Hatnote Discussions
(I have explained
this aspect in the section above, but in this instance have chosen
to give some exact quotes of the various participants to show
that the majority of independent contributors to the discussions
were agreeing with me)
Gordonofcartoon added the words "Soldier's Heart (novel)" to the "See
also" section at the end of the DaCosta's syndrome page.
It was later moved
to the top of the page by WhatamIdoing, so I read it, to check
it's relevance. I found it to be a children's fiction novel that
had nothing to do with the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome so
I requested that
WhatamIdoing delete it because it was not a reliable source of
medical information according to Wikipedia sourcing policy. However, WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon started arguing relentlessly about
it.
The following
events occurred
At 22:14 on 20-12-2007 Gordonofcartoon added the following words to the "See also" section at the end of the Da Costa's
page . . . "Soldier's
Heart (novel)"
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=179268306&oldid=179126578
At 19:09 on 29-5-08 WhatamIdoing moved those words from the "See also" section
up to the top of
the page with an
amended comment . . . "For the novel, see Soldier's Heart (novel)"here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215793876&oldid=215793297
At 7:60 on 26-6-08 I wrote these
words . . . WhatamIdoing; In the past you have repeatedly required
me to only provide material for the Da Costa article page which
is supported by references from "reliable", independent,
peer reviewed, medical and scientific research journals of the
highest quality. For example here [81]. I would therefore like
you to remove the reference to the children's fiction novel called
"Soldier's Heart" which was presented as the lead on
the first line of the article page by editor WLU on 31-5-08 here
[82]" . . . posturewriter(talk) 07:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that I have since found that the link
was moved to the top of the page by WhatmIdong on 29-5-08,
and not by WLU on 31-5-08.
At 12:07 on 26-6-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "Your personal diagnosis for Charley
Goddard is quite irrelevant (WP:NOR). The novel is not a medical
reference for the article; it's another topic with the name "Soldier's
heart", and a disambiguation link is perfectly normal.
However, the disambiguation page Soldier's heart does need expanding
to include, at least, the 2008 Brian Delate movie ([84], [85]),
so if that's done, the disambiguation at the top could be changed
to the more generic "For other uses, see". Gordonofcartoon
(talk) 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
At 02:41 on 28-6-08 WhatamIdoing
wrote these words and many more . . . "If you search for
soldier's heart, you might end up at Da Costa's syndrome
instead of Soldier's Heart (novel). Do you want a kid whose looking
for the book to read through the whole DCS page in total confusion,
just so "your" article looks the way you want it to?"
WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
At 23:41 on 29-6-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote these words . . . "For the purposes of the hatnote, it
doesn't matter what the book says; for all I care, it could say soldier's heart is
a kind of small flowering plant.
A hatnote is not a reference. It is purely for disambiguation
of topics with the same name, and conveys no implication of relative
importance or 'framing'.
If you interested yourself in other articles on Wikipedia, you
might develop some better knowledge of the conventions here.
Do you believe that The Vampire Bat is a reference for Vampire
bat or, as cited in WP:HATNOTE#Examples of proper use, Dunwich
(Lovecraft) is a reference for Dunwich?
As WhatamIdoing said, if you don't like the way it works, take it to Wikipedia talk:Hatnote
- but you won't get a different answer.
Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Those discussions can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Comments_on_the_novel_.E2.80.9CSoldier.E2.80.99s_Heart.E2.80.9D
At 14:37 on 3-7-09 an independent
editor named Dan Dank55 wrote this . . . "This seems more like a content dispute than a discussion about style guidelines to me,
but I can confirm that hatnotes
are not references". - Dan
Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F
At 15:59 on 3-7-08 Gordonofcartooon wrote these words . . . I've expanded the Soldier's heart disambigation
page - it's a popular title - which
makes the single-article disambiguation hatnote redundant. Problem
solved? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Disambiguated
At 1:29 on 16-7-09 NapoliRoma wrote
these words . . . "(<-zing!) OK, I knew I was stepping in it . . . Re "people might search": try it; I did.
If you search for soldier's heart on Google, Yahoo, or MSN, you do not get
this page in the first tier of results.
Putting a hatnote up because maybe this someday might change
is not reasonable.
Re "Gotta be at the top or nowhere, or millions of handicapped
people will die": I think this overstates the case. By this
argument, all links must be at the top. This would be
difficult. My take, and understand I have no horse in this race:
having a link to the "soldier's heart" dab page is not vital, but not a bad thing. But because there is little
if any chance anyone will stumble on this page when looking for
any other meaning of "soldier's heart", the one place it should
not be is as a hatnote. It
distracts the reader from the actual topic at hand for no defensible reason.
Logically, the appropriate
place for it would then be under "See also", with perhaps a bit of an explanation as to why
it's there. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
At 02:29 on 16-7-08 L'Aquatique wrote these words . . . "I see no reason why it should be
here, since following
the guideline does not result in any loss of usability to non-disabled
users. L'Aquatique[review] 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
At 15:38 on 16-7-08 NapoliRoma wrote . . . "The name of this page is not
"soldier's heart", and there is no redirect to this
page that resembles "soldier's heart". Thus, a link from this page to another page named "soldier's heart"
does not
perform a disambiguating function.
What's being discussed here, then, is a link. It is no different
than a link to "fatigue" or "sweating". As such, WP:ACCESS does not
appear to me to apply.
Just as I would not include a link
to "fatigue" as a hatnote on this page, I would not
include a hatnote pointing to "soldier's heart".--NapoliRoma
(talk) 06:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
At 07:23 on 17-7-08 I wrote these
words . . . "NapoliRoma and L'Aquatique; thankyou for your
comments; . . . Do you understand why I think it is going to
mislead readers who will end up in the children's section of
their local library reading irrelevant fiction - like I did -
and I am an adult interested in Da Costa's syndrome, with no
interest in wasting my time - If your policy solves that problem
then we are in agreementPosturewriter (talk)posturewriter -Preceding
comment was added at 07:23, 17 July 2008
At 15:38 on17 July 2008 NapoliRoma gave this reply . . . "It's pretty much an
example of my general point: superfluous hatnotes are distracting at best, and in your case actually
took you off on a completely fruitless tangent. This
is the opposite of improving usability (including accessibility).--NapoliRoma
(talk) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
At 07:54 on 18-7-08 L'Aquatique wrote these words . . . "Disambiguation is designed to provide alternate
articles where there might be confusion regarding which article
is about what, and this is one of those circumstances. If you think the template
is inappropriate for the article, just remove it. But if it's going to
be in the article, it needs to be at the top. There's really
not a lot more to say. L'Aquatique[review] 07:54, 18 July
2008 (UTC)
Those discussions can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Colloquial_term_.E2.80.98Soldier.E2.80.99s_Heart.27.3F
At 13:08 on 22-12-08 El imp deleted
the hatnote from the top of the Da Costa's page and gave this explanation "(WP:ACCESS,
WP:TMG, WP:NAMB & Discussion) here
At 15:13 on 2-2-09 in the history
edits Paul
Barlow deleted
the link to the children's fiction novel and other poems
and plays called "Soldier's heart" and gave these words
of explanation . . . "(no point in linking to a disamb page that points back here and lists unrelated usages)" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152
|
Result
As you can see my two critics provided
a link to a Children's fiction novel called "Soldier's Heart"
in the "See also" section at the end of the Da Costa's
page, and later decided to move it to the top of the page to
give prominence to their preferred label which was also "Soldier's
Heart". When I read the novel and found that it had no mention
of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome I recommended that it
be removed. They then invented the argument that it was put there
as a hatnote to help readers navigate to it from other topic
pages which included the words "Soldier's heart".
There were five independent editors
who contributed to the discussion
namely Dan Dank55, NapoliRoma, L'Aquatique, Elimp, and
Paul Barlow.
Dan Dank55
confirmed that hatnotes were not references, but that was never
a significant issue because the ACTUAL problem created by putting
the link at the top of the page was that it would prompt people
to read it and then learn that it was a complete waste of their
time, which was the reason for me saying that it shouldn't be
put at the top of the page. L'Aquatique agreed with me with these words . . . "I see no reason why it should
be here".
NapoliRoma also agreed with me, and became involved in a discussion with L'Aquatique
about the technical details of hatnote usage, but they both agreed
with my suggestion about removing unnecessary links to irrelevent
information. Elimp agreed
with me and removed
the hatnote from the top of the page, and Paul Barlow
agreed with me and deleted the link.
However,
WhatamIdoing completely ignored all of those facts, and wrote
the opposite, by telling the arbitrators that I didn't understand
Wikipedia policy, and was being disruptive by going against consensus????
These are
the words that WhatamIdoing added to the arbitration page . .
.
At 20:25 on 27-1-09
WhatamaIdoing wrote . . . "The other problems that we've encountered
generally involve a failure to grasp Wikipedia's conventions.
For example, at one time, Soldier's heart redirected to the DCS article. There's a novel named
Soldier's Heart, so we provided a link to the article about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this
link should be in a hatnote instead of in a See also section.
Posturewriter complained at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation
link being "in the lead" and a "reference".
Posturewriter never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately,
it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became a regular
disambiguation page . . . . WhatamIdoing (talk)
20:25, 27 January 2009 "
here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing
Note that WhatamIdoing misrepresented a
lot of things in that one paragraph, but I will focus on one
aspect.
WhatamIdoing was telling the arbitrators
that consensus was against me, and implied that that hatnote
was kept at the top of the page, and that the issue had been
resolved because it was linked to a page which became a regular
disambuation page.
The actual facts were that I had consensus,
and the hatnote and link were removed by two independent editors.
|
|
|
MY
CRITICS OBVIOUS BIAS AND HIGHLY SELECTIVE POINT OF VIEW (POV)
One
of many examples
(Their
disruptive arguments about the page name and content)
While I was in Wikipedia I was adding small
amounts of information to various pages when I found Da Costa's
syndrome, which I knew a lot about. After adding some information
to it and then being told that I couldn't mention my own research,
I started writing the history of the topic. The condition has
been around for thousands of years, but was not easily recognized
until a physician named J.M.DaCosta saw it in soldier's in the
American Civil War. He then went back to civilian practice where
he noticed that it was common in civilians, and 8 years later,
in 1871 he wrote a research paper on it. Obviously he couldn't
call it Soldier's Heart because that implied that it was exclusively
a soldier's condition, so he called his article "On Irritable
Heart". Since then more than a hundred different labels
have been applied to the condition. The main alternative label
throughout that time was "neurocirculotory asthenia",
particularly in the United States.
My two critics claim that I was looking
for an article about Da Costa's syndrome to use for the purpose
of promoting my theory, but I wasn't, it was just there as I
was going through the encyclopedia looking for pages where I
had useful information to offer (I didn't put that topic there).
They also tried to convince the other editors that I was getting
upset about them removing that information, but I wasn't because
I can send my ideas to a hundred other places if I wanted to,
and over the years many newspaper, magazine, or journal editors
etc. have reviewed it and accepted, or rejected, or criticised
it, and that happens to all authors. If it was never accepted,
I would not bother to write about it, but many of my letters,
articles, or books were accepted, bought or read. However my
two critics tried to create the impression that I was desperate
to push my point of view when they know that I wasn't. They were
however, pushing their point of view and starting arguments with
me and losing, and getting frustrated, using foul language, and
on the verge of tearing their hair out, and breaking the rules
of Wikipedia. It was OBVIOUS to me that they have had much less
experience than me in dealing with controversy.
One of the arguments that they lost was
about Rosen's research paper. One of my two critics said it was
about the effort syndrome seen in hyperventilation syndrome and
was therefore not the same as Da Costa's, and the other one was
trying to argue that Da Costa's syndrome was text-book perfect
Hyperventilation syndrome so they defeated themselves without
me having to mention that Gordonofcartoon didn't read past the
first paragraph of Rosen's paper, and had misinterpreted it.
They did not stop arguing, but started
three more arguments where WhatamIdoing sought assistance from medical editors, and also
wanted to set up a new page with a different name, and
move the Da Costa's text into it,
with dozens of other items, and then Gordonofcartooon set up
the conflict of interest page for the second time to create a
third diversion. They
failed to get agreement from the medical
editors, and they failed to change the name to Somatoform Autonomic
Dysfunction (because it obviously went against the use of plain English
and avoid jargon policy), and then they joined forces on the Conflict
of Interest page to criticise me until they got another editor
to warn me of a possible topic ban (which would mean that my
two critics could get back control of the topic).
I suggested that they should set up a new
topic page, using the label of their choice, and write about
that label and it's history if they wanted to but they told me
that it was a stupid idea.
Some months later they were trying to enforce
a topic ban so they set up a Request for Comment page to get
the opinions of other editors. Two neutral editors recognised
that it was in part, if not fully a content dispute, and suggested
that each of the participants write their own version so that
they could merge them later to independently ensure that all
bias was removed. My two critics refused to do that, but of course,
when I wrote another version they both combined to criticise
it relentlessly, and when I transferred it to the Da Costa's
page they were the only ones to revert it and they did it four
times.
My text included the full history from
1871 to 2009, and covered many of the research findings from
all specialities, including the fact that it was common in civilian
life, and more common in women than men, and that most soldier's
who developed the severe symptoms in war time, already had indications
of milder symptoms before enlisting etc.
However, my two critics deleted it and
rewrote it to push
their point of view and turned
the article into a different topic - their preference - Soldier's
heart, but they
did it by stealth.
If you read the article that they provided
it reads something like this - Da Costa's syndrome was colloquially
called Soldier's heart. (Soldier's heart was mentioned on the
top line and in the top paragraph and printed in bold and given
links) They then said that it was caused by anxiety and is now
regarded as a post-war syndrome.
To push that point of view further they
erased all of the history except the first thirty years which
was all about war studies and had nothing about
130 years of civilian studies. They had failed to change
the name of the page, but they essentially changed the title by adding the label
of Soldier's heart in the top line,
and in the first sentence, and then writing the whole article
as if it was exclusively about a war syndrome.
I will show their bias by providing a a
few quotes from their preferred version of the Da Costa's page.
Here are some
extracts from the page that WhatamIdoing preferred
1. The top
line of the page, above the article,
and the
first words that the reader will see
are . . . " This article is about the medical condition
also known as "soldier's heart".
2. The following words
occur next, and are still on the top line . . . " For
other uses of the term, see Soldier's
heart "
3. The word on that line has a link which makes it
appear in a blue color "Soldier's
heart"
4.That link led to a page which originally had a
children's fiction book linked to it, and Gordonofcartoon provided
that link, and later added poems, plays, and movies with the
title of "Soldier's
heart".
5. The first line of the
introduction to the topic contains
these words . . . ""Da Costa's syndrome,
which was colloquially
known as soldier's
heart".
6. The term "Soldier's heart"
on the
first line was presented in BOLD print to highlight it.
7. The next
section is called "Classification" and it contains
these words . . . " The syndrome is also frequently interpreted as
one of a number of imprecisely characterized
"postwar
syndromes"
(Note that If I added the
statement that a label was imprecisely characterised my two critics would
find a policy reason for deleting it, such as cruft - rubbish)
8. it also
contains these words
about Da Costa's article . .
. "the term soldier's heart was in common use
both before and after his paper"
9. The first
words in the history section were
. . . "Da Costa's syndrome is named for the surgeon Jacob
Mendes Da Costa,[12] who first observed it in soldiers during the
American Civil War. At the time it was proposed, Da Costa's syndrome
was seen as a
very desirable[13]
physiological
explanation for
soldier's
heart.
10. The remaining history only covers the
war studies for the first thirty years. All of the 130 years of civilian studies
were deleted.
Those extracts can be seen within the text
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing
********
There have been more than a hundred labels
used as alternatives for Da Costa's syndrome. Neurocirculatory
asthenia, effort syndrome, anxiety neuroses, and "Soldier's
heart, were some of the many, and the modern equivalents are
obviously the subject of interpretation, but in general terms
it is common in civilian life and more common in women than men,
so many authors have preferred Da Costa's syndrome because it
didn't focus any emphasis on particular circumstances or unproven
causes. I was writing the history of Da Costa's syndrome because
that was the title of the page, and I was presenting it all in
chronological order, but my two critics wanted to turn it into
their point of view (POV) by removing anything they didn't want
and filling the page with their preferences.
Their POV was expressed with their own
words of 7-6-08 as follows
Gordonofcartoon wrote . . .
"I've altered the intro to focus on the
main synonym.
We've got so obsessed with the multiple possibilities
that the chief one has become buried. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:15,
7 June 2008
. . . and AS ALWAYS WhatamIdoing made the next statement. . . "That looks good to me. The initialism (DCS) isn't commonly used; could
we lose that as well? Also, do you think that we should put the
synonyms in bold
face at their first appearance?
I have ambitions of creating redirects for each of them".
WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2008
(note that DCS is an abbreviation for Da
Costa's syndrome, and WhatamIdoing was the first to use it, and
then tried to appear helpful by asking if it could be removed
for the benefit of others?????? here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Names_in_the_lead
As you can
see I was writing everything about Da Costa's syndrome and covering
the full length and breadth of the history, but my two critics
were constantly deleting and altering my contributions to push
THEIR point of view. However, WhatamIdoing always tried to convince
the other editors that I should be banned for pushing my POV???,
and wrote the following words on the arbitration page.
"In the end, Posturewriter . . . requires
an enormous amount of other editors' time to prevent the article
from turning into objects promoting his POV. I am running short
on the patience to continually explain basic issues. . . because
the actual scientific views disagree with his personal POV. His
interactions with anyone that doesn't agree with him rapidly
devolve into hostile sniping . . . I'm tired of the POV-pushing
and the edit wars (which he's currently blocked for). This editor
is apparently not capable of editing without pushing his POV.
. . I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome,
Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even
slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an
appropriate outcome". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January
2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing
Summary
Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to contain
comments that are independently verifiable from top quality peer-reviewed
medical books or journals, and they are supposed to be free of
the personal opinions, prejudices, or interpretations of authors
or editors. If you check the article you may consider these facts
which show my critics pushing their extremely biased point of
view on readers. Note that if they used proper links to proper
research papers, instead of children's fiction novels and selective
references, and if they mentioned the term Soldier's heart in
the proper context there would not be a problem, but they were
OBVIOUSLY being highly selective with their references and interpretation,
and giving the article an unbalanced emphasis, focus, or view.
1. Gordonofcartoon added a link to an irrelevant
children's fiction novel called "Soldier's heart" at
the end of the page in the See Also section. (if you read that
book you will not learn anything about Da Costa's syndrome)
2. WhatamIdoing later moved the label to
the top of the page to give it prominence, and argued about it
for months, but since then two other editors have removed all
links to the children's fiction novel.
3. WhatamIdoing then proceeded to add that label to the text at
every opportunity,
and edited the history section
so that 130 years of civilian studies were deleted and only the
first 30 years of war related research remained.
The page that
I saw in Wikipedia was called Da Costa's syndrome, so I wrote about Da Costa's syndrome which is common in civilian life. When it occurred
during war time some authors called Soldier's heart. My two critics were disrupting
the content to turn it into an article about Soldier's heart, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of
patients have never been involved in wars
Reliable Neutral
points of view
1. My two critics criticise all of
my references in the hope of discrediting me, but they argue
that they are policy experts and ONLY ever use reliable sources
of information themselves, and they used one of Paul Wood's research
papers, so I will provide a quote from a different paper by the
same author, in the same year (1941). He wrote these words in
The British Medical Journal in May 19th 1941 page 763 to 772.
The title of the article
was "Da
Costa's syndrome (or Effort Syndrome)"
These words were on his
first page . . . "Terminology - It is recognized that no
satisfactory name has been given to the condition which has been
variously known as "the irritable heart of the soldier"(Da
Costa 1871), effort syndrome (Lewis 1917), neurocirculatory asthenia
(Oppenheimer et al 1918), and autonomic imbalance (Kessel and
Hyman 1923). I urge the rejection of all these terms for reasons
which will become apparent; nor do I feel morally bound to suggest
a substitute, for I believe that the recognition of this syndrome,
as such, will die. Further, if it is, at times convenient to
speak of these physical signs and symptoms there can be no better name than Da Costa's
syndrome.This not
only avoids reference to the heart, to the circulation, to effort,
or to false or unproven mechanisms, but it has the unrivaled
merit of making Da Costa responsible for it's recognition as
a distinct clinical entity, and is especially fitting if the
syndrome is to become of historical interest only; moreover, it is not just another new name, for the condition always has been Da Costa's syndrome, and might have been called so
from the start".
2. I will also use a quote from one
of the same references that my two critics supplied. It was a
review of the history of Da Costa's syndrome by Oglesby Paul
who was a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. His
paper was written 46 years after Paul Wood's and was published
as a review in the British Heart Journal in May 1987, Volume 58 pages 306 to 315. The text of the article
was preceded by the word "Review" which means that
it is an acceptable secondary source as required by Wikipedia
policy for the history sections of medical topics.
The title of his "Review"
of the history of Da Costa's syndrome was . . . "Da Costa's syndrome
or neurocirculatory asthenia"
The first words in his
paper were . . . "SUMMARY
The syndrome variously known as Da Costa's syndrome, effort
syndrome, neurocirculatory asthenia, etc. has been studied
for more than 100 years by many distinguished physicians.
Originally identified in men in wartime, it has been widely
recognised as a common chronic condition in both sexes in
civilian life. Although the symptoms may seem to appear after
infections and various physical and psychological stresses, neurocirculatory
asthenia is most often encountered as a familial disorder that
is unrelated to those factors, although they may aggravate an
existing tendency."
The
WIKIPEDIA's neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV that my two
critics were DELIBERATELY violating
Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle
and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other
encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of
view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias,
all significant views that have been published
by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected
of all articles and all editors. . . . Bias;
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All
editors and all sources have biases
(in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of
view)-what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral
article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description
of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual
perspectives and the published evidence . . . Article naming"
Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality. . . .
A Wikipedia
article must have one definitive name.[4]
The general restriction against POV forks applies to article
names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is
relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy
should be covered in the article text and substantiated with
reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not
be used as means of settling POV disputes
among Wikipedia contributors.. . . Neutrality requires that the
article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that
have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in
proportion to the prominence of each . . . Point of view (POV)
and content forks . . . A point of view fork is an attempt to evade
the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain
subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or
highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally
considered unacceptable. The generally
accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on
a certain subject are treated in one article except in the case
of a content fork.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
and as such should cover the entire range of notable discussions
on a topic. See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=315998349&oldid=314477724
*********
My
two critics were deleting other evidence at the same time as
they were adding information that favored their own opinion
In 1871 J.M. Da Costa presented
an article about the health problems of soldiers in the American
Civil War. He described how some of them would contract fevers,
and march for 20 miles while wearing tight waist belts, and carrying
60 lbs. of equipment on their backs in knapsacks that were tightly
strapped to their chests. They would have to stop because of
breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue, and several months later
would recover from the fever but still be prone to the other
symptoms. However, he wrote his paper 8 years after the war,
and knew that it was common in civilian practice.
In fact, those symptoms were
well known to effect women who wore tight waisted corsets which
permanently altered the shape of the chest from being a broad
rib cage with a wide base, to being a funnel shaped rib cage
with a narrow base. The breathing muscle is dome shaped and attached
to the base of the ribs, so it normally moves up and down smoothly
so that air moves in and out of the lungs in a regular way. However,
the narrow base of the funnel chest restricted and cramped the
breathing muscle, especially when the woman inhaled, so they
would often feel breathless, faint, and exhausted by the slightest
exertion, and would get some relief by unlacing their corset.
Their condition was diagnosed as neurasthenia, which was subsequently
used by many authors as an alternative label for Da Costa's syndrome.
When I added information about corsets to the DCS page and linked
it to a corset article in Wikipedia that was provided by someone
else, my two critics deleted the information and the link. I
also added information about studies which showed that many of
the Da Costa's patients had a thin physique, and long, narrow
chests, but my two critics deleted that as well.
I also added some information
about a nineteenth century research study which provided the
scientific measurements of the pressure inside of the chest of
women who were wearing corsets, and those who were leaning towards
desks to write, and those who were leaning toward sewing machines
to make clothes. Of course, my two critics deleted that information,
and the link to the text of that research paper that was on another
page in Wikipedia, and that was provided by someone else.
There were also many public debates
about corsets being a cause of health problems or not, but the
subject was settled with majority agreement in 1904 with a conclusion
that they were extremely harmful, and, as a result, corsets gradually
went out of fashion after that. About forty years later, a researcher
named S.Wolf was trying to find the cause of the breathlessness
of Da Costa's patients by observing x-rays of the chest, and
he noticed that as the person breathed in and the diaphragm descended
down toward the abdomen it would begin to spasm. That resulted
in abnormal and inefficient breathing, and was sometimes accompanied
by other symptoms, so it was concluded by himself, and many other
authors who reported on his study, that it was the cause of the
breathlessness. Of course my two critics deleted that information,
and the reference, and rewrote their own interpretation of the
findings.
Here are some quotes
from S.Wolf's paper . . . The title was "Sustained Contraction
of the Diaphragm, the Mechanism of a Common Type of Dyspnea and
Precordial Pain". . . and here are the first words in his
article . . . "Complaints of respiratory distress characterised
by inability to get a full breath were found to occur commonly
among anxious individuals and among those who did not obviously
display anxiety. By discussing situational conflicts, attacks
were induced in 17 subjects during fluroscopic observation."
. . . Note that those are the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome,
and that Wolf's study has been referred to and supported by respiratory
research in other Da Costa studies, and that there is additional
evidence that the abnormal breathing alters the amount of oxygen
in the blood and that the symptom of breathlessness (frequent
sighing etc) occurs occasionally at rest, and is more noticeable
during exercise, and that the degree of abnormaiities are out
of proportion as the level of exercise increases.
As you can see, I spent 12 months
in Wikipedia adding useful information, and my two critics were
trying to control the content by deleting any information that
they didn't like, and keeping only the small amount that they
wanted, and repeating it throughout the page to emphasise their
own point of view.
However, they wanted to stop
me from adding any more so they tried to get me banned from the
topic, and to do that they told the arbitrators that their request
had nothing to do with the content, and falsely accused me of
being a disruptive editor who was violating a lot of policies.
Here are the words that they
posted on the arbitration page
At 17:46 on 26-1-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I'm asking for Arbitration attention
- ideally a topic ban, covering disruption/harassment on Talk
and dispute resolution pages Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:48, 26
January 2009 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_Gordonofcartoon
At 10:47 on 27-1-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . This is emphatically not about content. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2009
At 20:25 on 27-1-09, of course,
WhatamIdoing joined in with a large essay of criticism which
included these comments . . .
"I think that a broad topic ban
(including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome,
Varicose veins, and any articles
even slightly
related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate
outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009 see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing
I was banned
the next day by an editor named
Moreshci, and a few days later Gordonofcartoon left a thank
you not on his talk page, and a few months later WhatmaIdoing
rewarded him with an Outlaw Halo Award for being the only editor
who was prepared to break all the rules in order to get me banned.
e.g. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Comment_from_Moreschi
and herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
and here etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661#A_long_overdue_thanks
Note that almost every word that WhatamIdoing
wrote in those comments to Moreschi and other were carefully
chosen to create and incite prejudice against me to draw attention
away from the real issue which was them disrupting the content,
and their deletion of verifiable information.
*********
My
two Critics and their Selective use of policies
When my two critics mentioned that they
were deleting each of my contributions because of policies, they
were being very selective about their choice of policies, and
which paragraph of the policy they were using as their excuse
for deleting it, and if they agreed with it they could have easily
found a different policy reason for declaring it to be an excellent
contribution, or they could have just let it stay without comment
on the grounds of "obvious common sense". More importantly,
they were not applying the same standards to other articles in
Wikipedia where they agreed with "new contributors",
completely "anonymous" editors, or other editors or
employees of organisations who obviously had strong conflicts
of interest. For example, when they asked me to reveal my real
identity I did so to comply with the request, and to comply with
policy, and then they said I can't add anything because of COI,
but when I directed them to some anonymous editors and asked
them to reveal their true identity and write an essay on their
COI, my two critics gave the excuse that they didn't have time
to check every editor of every page in Wikipedia??? (I mentioned
one page in particular, and they didn't even bother to check
on one anonymous editor???) Also, when I asked them to reveal
their true identity and the obvious conflict of interest which
made them so hostile and passionate about the topic they responded
with indignation, as if I had no right to ask, and that I was
being uncivil, and that I should assume good faith in them, so
they accused me of violating WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF policies
Also, of course, when they deleted information
on policy grounds I generally did not replace it. For example,
I added my theory once, and they argued that it took up too much
space on the page, so I abbreviated it, and they deleted it again,
in about January 2008, and I haven't mentioned it since. Similarly,
when they deleted the information on corsets etc. I didn't put
it back, but for the next twelve months they just kept going
to every discussion page in Wikipedia trying to get me banned
by relentlessly chanting . . . "We have here a "self-identified",
"conflict of interest", "Single purpose account
"editor filling Wikipedia full of "self-promotional"
'nonsense', COI, COI, COI, SPA, SPA, SPA etc. Gordonofcartoon
was so single minded about blocking me that he even changed the
essay on his UserTalk page to give the impression that his main
aim In Wikipedia was to deal with SPA's (single purpose accounts).
All of their ridiculous nittering and nattering was just hyperbolic
drivel. They were prancing about like power drunk dictators claiming
to represent an entire Wikipedia community, when, in fact, only
two editors were doing 99% of the criticism, and stirring up
contempt against me by using deliberately inflammatory language.
For example, I was just adding reasonable, and verifiable information
to Wikipedia and responding to their policy requirements for
more references, and then newer references, etc, or whatever
their whimsy was at the time, and they would say something like
this . . ."We two critics of Posturewriter must protect
'all' of the other? 'thoroughly disgusted' members of the respectable
Wikipedia community by punishing this editor for his 'disruptive'
'behavior'. We know how "you" must "all"
be just as 'frustrated' as us, and "we" too? are "losing
our patience", and "we" the truly respectable'
rule-abiding' editors want to help 'you' other rule-abiding editors
from all of this. "Our" 'solution' to "all"
of this is for 'you' to put a "broad topic ban" covering
'everything' that he knows 'anything' about until he has 'proven'
that he is 'capable' of editing 'co-operatively' with other 'respectable'
editors on pages about 'cupcakes' and 'muffins'.
If I gave them an appropriate "monkey
see-monkey do" response I would be accused of violating
WP:civil, or WP:Battleground, so I will let you, the respectable,
neutral, independent, and unbiased reader, provide an appropriate
response.
I will now discuss
another example of the way that they manipulate policies to suit
their own interests (POV).
Paul Dudley White studied
Da Costa's syndrome for fifty years
and wrote an internationally
respected reference book for cardiologists in 1951, so I used it as a reference for the history section.
My two critics told all of the other editors that it was an unreliable
reference because it was an "out-of-date book". However,
when I critised my two critics for using a children's fiction
novel as a reference they told the other editors that I was stupid
for not understanding that it was a hatnote, not a reference,
and that it didn't have to be relevant because of hatnote policy,
and that just because something was previously in the "See
also" section didn't mean that it was relevant, and that
when the name was changed to the "Related to" section,
it didn't mean that it was actually related to anything, and
that they could put a flowering plant at the top of the page
if they wanted to. The following words are extracts from the
Arbitration page where I was banned. Note that Soldier's heart
is an alternative name for Da Costa's syndrome, and it is also
the title of a novel, and that WhatamIdoing didn't tell the
arbitrators that it was a children's fiction novel. These
were WhatamIdoing's words about me . . .
"By "cherry-picking", I
mean, for example, that Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate
amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive
clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not
seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself
for a century now) and to seriously
outdated materials (a 1951 textbook
is cited thirty-four times in his preferred draft; a text from
the 1950s is chosen because texts even as recent as the 1960s
don't support his view) . . . The other
problems that we've encountered generally involve a failure to
grasp Wikipedia's conventions. For example, at one time, Soldier's
heart redirected to the DCS article. There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we provided a link to the article about
the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote
instead of in a See also section. Posturewriter complained
at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being
"in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter
never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved
only because Soldier's heart became a regular disambiguation
page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009
see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing
Note that the hatnote argument was actually
resolved because two other editors deleted their hatnote, and
the link to their children's fiction novel.
In general terms when I provided good references
that complied with policy my two critics argued that I did it
wrong, or they invented a new policy argument, and when they
deliberately violated policies they argued that they were complying
with a different policy or that there was something wrong with
the policy.
Note also that I was banned before I had
time to present my full defense which was due on the following
Sunday.
|
|
EVIDENCE
THAT MY TWO CRITICS WERE ACTING AS A TEAM AGAINST ME
I
was contributing to Wikipedia for about twelve months during
which time I had two main critics who did 95% of the criticising
and worked against me like two runners changing batons in a relay
race. They have tried to give the false impression that they
were not acting together, so I have presented the evidence below.
After the Da Costa's syndrome talk page
was set up to discuss issues relating to the content page my
main critic, named WhatamIdoing, made
the first comments, followed by my other critic named Gordonofcartoon about an hour later on 21-12-07
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Banfield
One of those two editors set up virtually
all of the discussion pages that followed, including the two
"conflict of interest" pages.
At 12:09 on 27-3-08
Gordonofcartoon set up Conflict of Interest number one page here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
I gave my response to that criticism and
the page was closed by another editor after my last comment at
09:06,
14 April 2008. No reason was given
for the closure.
At 21:13 on 13-5-08
Gordonofcartoon set up Conflict of Interest number two page
At 19:20, 15 May 2008 WhatamIdoing joined
the discussion with these remarks " I've been off Wiki for
a few days, and didn't realize that this discussion had started"
??????? (WhatamIdoing followed every discussion like a bloodhound,
but pretended to see it by sheer coincidence)
At 19:06 on 17-5-08
an editor named Edjonston left a heading of "Break"
supposedly because the volume of discussion was getting so large,
or to take some time off to consider things, and left the following
comments . . . "User:WhatamIdoing,
if you think admin action is needed, it is good to provide diffs
showing that the COI-affected editor is actively obstructing
progress toward a better article. In fact, User:Posturewriter
has only edited the article twice during the month of May, and
he does participate on Talk at least occasionally. There are
several editors active in this COI report who should be able
to review any changes. If you have ideas for improvement of the
article, just start making them and see what happens. EdJohnston".
However, less than six hours later at 01:39, 18 May 2008, WhatamIdoing continued with a relentless flood of criticism
that prompted me to sit back and wait until it all finished before
I wrote anything and then at 02:26, 19 May 2008
EdJohnson left these remarks . . . "Based on the diffs given
by WhatamIdoing, I left an admin warning for User:Posturewriter.
If he persists in COI editing, he risks being blocked for disruptive
editing. Others are welcome to give their advice on how to handle
this case. EdJohnston"
At 04:26 on 24 May 2008
I presented a response but obviously the decision had been made
on the basis of the criticism without me having time to defend
myself and EdJonston was not going to change his mind.
During that time, at 2:25 on 18-5-08,
WhatamIdoing also set up a discussion on the POV/CivilPushing
page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=237014649&oldid=236789748
Seven months later at 16:57, 3 February 2009 (a few days after I was banned), Gordonofcartoon left another large paragraph of criticism here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=268277856&oldid=259304803
(You can see that the first paragraphs were signed by WhatamIdoing,
and that despite there being many other comments placed on that
page in the following seven months, Gordonofcartoon posted his
in position number 2 to
support WhatamIdoing's remarks)
At 00:52 on 30-5-08
WhatamIdoing took a discussion about the topic of Da Costa's
syndrome to my Usertalk
page, and then continued to discuss
it there instead on the Da Costa talk page where it belonged,
and it soon became obvious that it was done so that my two critics
could start criticising me personally on my own talk page. At
the same time WhatamIdoing advised me that an editor who had
been writing agreeably about my contributions had been blocked,
and it was an obvious hint that they could arrange for me to
be blocked just as easily.
On 6-7-08 I started
to write an essay on the tactics used by my critics and place
it at the top of my UserTalk page so that readers would be able
to see it first and then judge their comments about me in that
context. I continued to add items to that essay until 20-7-08. That essay can be seen here
In the meantime, on 13-7-2008
Gordonofcarton started the Wikiquette Alerts page to have that
essay removed, and then lost the debate, because, according to
consensus, he had chosen the wrong forum. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive48#User:Posturewriter,
On 24-7-08 another editor
named Jaysweet set up the Miscellany for Deletion page to discuss
keeping or deleting that essay. and WhatamIdoing
was the main critic followed by Gordonofcartoon
and on 29-7-09 Jaysweet withdrew the nomination and conceded
that several other editors were arguing that it was the wrong
forum. An independent editor named Peter Symonds closed the MFD
discussion on 6-8-09 with these words "The result of the debate
was keep" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter
At 18:16 on 20-7-08, while the MFD discussion was still going, Gordononfcartoon set up the Request for Comments page and added fifteen edits within
24 hours and compiled a list of
more than a dozen policies that I was supposed to have violated
starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter
At 20:27 on the following day, 22-7-08, WhatamIdoing joined the criticism here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=227272970&oldid=227222797
They both continued to be the main critics
until WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon both
made a comment on the 20-8-09 starting
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=233089732&oldid=233036496
There were no further comments on that
page until an editor named Wizardman closed it at 20:15 on 18-9-08 with a suggestion that I should stop adding information
to the Da Costa's page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=239367694&oldid=233089732
Less than 24 hours later, at 18:16 on 19-9-08 WhatamIdoing awarded Wizardman with a barnstar for his help
closing RFC's (in the last few months), but from my check of
the situation that was the only one granted see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wizardman/Archive19#Thanks_3
Four days after the Requests For Comments
page was established by Gordonofcartoon,
his tag-team mate WhatamIdoing established the RFC talk page to discuss the issue
at 06:40,
24 July 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=227575431
The two of them continued to make most
of the critical comments, and to disrupt the process of finding
sensible solutions to the issues of bias and NPOV that were suggested
by two other neutral and uninvolved editors named SmokeyJoe and
Avnjay.
The discussion continued until 05:58, 8 September 2008 until WhatamIdoing made
the final comments on the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=237014649&oldid=236789748
At 11:29, 25 August 2008,
while the two RFC discussions were still going, Gordonofcartoon set up another one on the Administrator's Noticeboard
where an editor named Moreschi agreed with the criticism until
I joined the conversation to add some comments, and then it ended
except for a response from Gordonofcartoon, and then, at 22:47 on 25-8-09, an anonymous editor left these remarks . . .
"Your idea is to keep the world the same even if it is
wrong, which is contrary to Wikipedia's invitation to help change
the world for the better - classic. I also enjoyed the early example of new
essay WP:GANG being cited. 86.44.28.41" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#Disruptive_editor_.2F_RFC_failing_to_resolve
Note that the anonymous editor added a
link to the word "WP:GANG" which led to the Wikipedia
page about Tag-teams here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268487708&oldid=268486470
This is a quote from that page as it was
described on 25-8-09
"Tag team
is a term used to describe editors who work together as a group
in a way that is disruptive to an article or project, usually
in order to promote a particular agenda or point of view. Editors
working as a tag team may attempt to circumvent the normal process
of consensus, by organizing their edits so that they can manipulate
policies and guidelines (such as 3rr and civility) that editors
are required to follow, or by marshaling support artificially,
in order to blockade, obfuscate, or overwhelm discussions. Tag
teaming is considered a pernicious form of meatpuppetry.
Only a fraction of the
cooperative behavior seen on Wikipedia can be considered tag-teaming.
Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve
articles, so not all editors who share the same point of view
are working as a team: Remember to assume good faith".
At 2:42 on 11 January 2009
WhatamIdoing misrepresented my list of 60 top quality references
by describing Harvard professor Paul Dudley White's book as a
"1951 book" and by misrepresenting a medical consumer's
webpage about chronic fatigue syndrome, as a website address
" www.anapsid.org", in item 52 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#Personal_attacks
You can gain a more intelligent understanding
of the quality of the references that I used by inspecting them
yourself. The full list can be seen where I posted them to the
Da Costa's syndrome page at 7:46
on 25-1-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266273949&oldid=262846727#References
At 02:17
on 26
January 2009 WhatamIdoing set
up a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and tried
to convince the editors there that all of my 60 references were
unreliable, based on the criticism that one of them was from
a medical consumer here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
At 12:56 on 26-1-09,
I decided to leave some comments on the Disruptive Editing page
about the way they had been working as a tag-team to disrupt
my contributions.
Within less than two hours at 17:48 on
26-1-09 Gordonofcartoon
set up the Requests for Arbitration
page followed soon after (on 27-1-09) by lengthy comments from WhatamIdoing here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Current_requests
I was banned by one of their friends the
following day, on 28-1-09.
It was obvious
to me that they both wanted to get me banned as quickly as possible,
before I found out about all of the policies and got them banned
for violating them, because they both knew that they couldn't
win an argument against me.
A week later, on 4-2-09,
Gordonofcartoon added a note to the Wikipedia page about tag-teaming
to change it, which I have highlighted in red print with the
following quote from a section headed "False accusations of tag-teaming" .
. ."It is often
difficult to tell the difference between tag-teaming and consensus-based
editing. This makes "tag-team" inherently usable as an
accusation by editors who are failing to alter an article against
a consensus" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=234077992&oldid=233800743
Two weeks after I was banned, on 10-2-09, WhatamIdoing left
this message on Gordonofcartoon's talk page with the heading "Our friend", and these were the words that followed . . .
"Your
turn.
Thanks for your help". . .
WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gordonofcartoon#Our_friend
The words "Your turn" were linked
to the Da Costa page but nothing was changed there in the relevant
time frame.
Two weeks after that, on 23-2-09, I noticed that I was still able to edit the Disruptive
editing page when I clicked on the "edit" link, so
I discussed the
disruptive nature of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon's
editing and referred to their tag teaming practices again, and
it was deleted within three hours by
WhatamIdoing here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing&diff=272774514&oldid=272666369
At 23:41 on 8-5-09,
which was three months after I was banned, WhatamIdoing
gave an Outlaw Halo award to Moreschi for being the only administrator
in Wikipedia who was prepared to break all the rules to ban me
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
*******
The following quote comes
from a Wikipedia page where proposed guidelines and policies
were discussed as of 15:51, 4 February 2009,
and will give some indication of how experienced editors can
change the content, guidlelines, or policies to favor or suit
their own purposes, by comparing it with the quote above from
25-8-09.
"Tag teaming (sometimes also called
a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in
which editors are accused of coordinating their actions to circumvent
the normal process of consensus. Like with meatpuppetry, editors
may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies
and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). Unlike with meatpuppetry,
the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The
phrase comes from professional wrestling where teams of two wrestlers
take turns in the ring, and the one brings in his teammate by
tagging him.
Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative
editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together
are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that
in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning
than it is to accuse them of being on a team.
Accusations of tag teaming are likely to
be viewed as uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions
in an appropriate way, and to cite evidence".
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268487708&oldid=268486470
|
More
evidence of the WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon Tag-team trying
to deny Tag-teaming
At 15:44 on 4-2-09,
Gordonofcartoon added a note to the Wikipedia policy page about
tag-teaming to change it, which I have highlighted in red print
with the following quote from a section headed "False accusations of tag-teaming"
. . ."It is often difficult to tell the difference between
tag-teaming and consensus-based editing.
This makes
"tag-team" inherently usable
as an accusation by editors who are failing to alter an article
against a consensus" here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268486470&oldid=263995921
Seven
months later
At 5:54 on 11-9-09
WhatamIdoing made the following amendment to the same paragraph
of the policy page. . . "False accusations of tag-teaming" . . . It
is often difficult to tell the difference between tag-teaming
and consensus-based editing.
Consequently,
some editors
that are failing to gain consensus for their
preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that
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
|
More Tag-teaming and
POV pushing by my two critics
While I was contributing to the Da Costa's
page in Wikipedia my two critics were OBVIOUSLY deleting information
that they didn't personally like, and scouted around deliberately
looking for policy reasons as their EXCUSE for deleting it. Their
biased choice of words, and their misrepresentation of their
real reasons was OBVIOUS to me because I was familiar with the
topic, but their words were chosen to sound reasonable and believable,
and polite to anyone who couldn't see what they were doing, so
I will give one of many examples.
They were telling all of the other editors
that all of my references were unreliable, so the easy way of
dealing with their nonsense and lies was to use one of the references
that they provided themselves.
It was a research paper by Oglesby Paul
who wrote a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in 1987 in
the British Heart Journal. It discussed about a dozen different
ideas about cause from the time of Da Costa until then, and concluded
that all of them had evidence for and against, so the origin
of the disorder was still unknown. I therefore abbreviated it
down to one page of text for Wikipedia.
My two critics put a cruft template on
the page, which had the symbol of a broom, which they would have
chosen to make a snide remark about it being, in their opinion,
rubbish that needed to be swept away. Soon after that one of
them deleted 99% of it, and the description of a dozen different
possible causes disappeared, because they reduced it to one sentence
about anxiety. However, they made their opinion and their bias
obvious.
Many months later they started the same
tactics again, about two days before I was banned, and once again,
they were offensive, and told lies, and misrepresented the facts
about the same article, and were trying their hardest to annoy
me by making an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, as if I would
take them seriously, while at the same time they chose their
words to sound reasonable, polite, and believable to other editors.
I have cut
and pasted part of their discussion below
On 1-8-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "OK, here it is: http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/58/4/306.
Do
we all have access?
Re-reading, the thrust of Paul's summary
appears to be a) "The etiology is obscure" (which
is in the abstract); b) "it probably exists much as before
but is more often identified and labeled in psychiatric terms
such as "anxiety state" or "anxiety neurosis";
c) there's no harm in those diagnostic labels "as long as
the essential importance of the syndrome, its prognosis, and
treatment are properly appreciated". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
And the
next day WhatamIdoing wrote
. . . "Yes, that's how I read it: Etiology unknown, Medical
classification psychiatric/anxiety. WhatamIdoing" (talk)
05:53, 2 August 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266789799&oldid=266722358#Oglesby_Paul
I did not answer their question because
it had already been discussed before, and they already knew that
I would not agree to representing an article about 12 different
theories by commenting on only their chosen ONE. They were just
being deliberately stupid to annoy me. I also got the impression
that if I did answer their question, they would just invent another
one, and continue doing so relentlessly.
I will now give some exact quotes from
Oglesby Paul's research paper from his introduction and his third paragraph which
provide the
correct interpretation of his paper
In 1987 Oglesby
Paul actually wrote . . . "Although the symptoms may
seem to appear after infections and various physical and psychological
stresses, neurocirculatory asthenia is most often encountered
as a familial disorder that is unrelated to these factors, although
they may aggravate an existing tendency . . . (and) . . . For
the purpose of this discussion, a broad definition of Da Costa's
syndrome that is applicable to military and civilian patients
is : a disorder of unknown origin" etc.
Note that when Gordonofcartoon asked "Do
we all have access?" he sounded like a courteous editor
asking a sincere and helpful question, but he already knew that
all three of us had access to it, and he knew that I had read
every word of it, and he knew that I knew more about it than
he did, and he knew that I had previously added an account of
a the full history of a dozen theories before. He was just asking
a deliberately stupid question for the purpose of annoying me
and fooling the other editors.
Note that there have been more than 100
different theories on cause, and Oglesby Paul chose to include
about a dozen of them in his history report, which is perfectly
reasonable, but my two critics reduced it to their one favorite
choice, which is a ridiculous and biased way of discussing the
history of the topic.
Note also that it was a reference that
they supplied, so if it was good enough for them, it should be
good enough for any other editor to use, or they should NOT have
used it themselves. In that regard, if they criticised all of
my references, and I have used one of theirs, then they are definitely
being offensive and ridiculous.
Note also that Oglesby Paul's article directly
addressed the history, and so did many of my other references
such as those by Sir James Mackenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul
Dudley White, and Charles Wooley, and a dozen others, and that
I did not just cite them in passing but put them in context and
in chronological order, whereas my two critics deleted everything
that they didn't want in Wikipedia.
Note also that Oglesby Paul's article was
not just a good source of information, but an excellent one,
and that it is a secondary source, and that it did directly address
the relevant history and so did a dozen other references that
I supplied for verification. Note also that I was not giving
my interpretation of his account of the history, but was reporting
on his interpretation, whereas my two critics were deliberately
misrepresenting it.
I would spend months carefully looking
for the best references that complied with Wikipedia policies,
and my two critics would spend about ten minutes reading the
title of childrens fiction books, and the first paragraphs of
research papers, and losing arguments with me, and then selecting
policy reasons as their excuse to reduce my contributions down
to nothing, and replacing it with their bias.
This is an example of the many lies that
one of my two critics wrote about five months later . . .
On 26-1-09 WhatamIdoing
wrote . . . "And above all, why doesn't the history section
rely on the history papers? They do exist, and a couple
are even cited in passing. But Posturewriter has instead relied
on his own interpretation of primary sources instead of basing
the history section around good secondary sources that directly
address the relevant history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 26 January
2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266789799&oldid=266722358#Da_Costa_Article_page_text_replaced_with_the_text_from_the_Posturewriter.2FDaCostaDraft
**********
Verification
Details
At 21:59 on 18-12-07 WhatamIdoing
edited the Da Costa's page and added the following words . .
. "It has been called effort syndrome and neurocirculatory
asthenia. (PMID 3314950)" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=178810277&oldid=178805088
About 6 hours later, at 5:43 on 19-12-07
another editor named Arcadian added the full details of the reference code to
automatically include it into the reference list at the bottom
of the page, and PMID3314950 referred to an article
by Oglesby Paul in the Bitiish Heart Journal. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=178892400&oldid=178810817
Oglesby Paul described
about a dozen theories of DCS in a ten page essay about
the history of the topic in that journal in 1987 so I reviewed
it and wrote brief accounts of each idea and then reduced
it to about one page of information and added it to Wikipedia
at 8:20 on 10-2-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190352656&oldid=189009579.
I gave this explanation for adding
the information . . . "(added 1987 history re; Oglesby
of Harvard; controversies past and contemporary~~~~posturewriter)
Almost immediately (in less than five hours)
Gordonofcartoon deleted it at 13:10 on 10-2-08
and replaced it with one sentence about anxiety in the
overview section. These were his words "A 1987 historical
overview by Oglesby [1] described it as having "a long and
honourable history in the medical literature", considering
it to still exist - labeled as "anxiety state" or "anxiety
neurosis" - and affecting 2-4% of the population".
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=190352656.
He gave this excuse. . . "(This is an encyclopedia,
not a treatise! - condense extensive Oglesby recap to overview)"
What he actually did
was delete every idea about cause except his own single choice
- and as you can see - it was blatantly obvious, and note that If
he had made a genuine and intelligent attempt at reducing it
to one or two pargraphs that covered the controversy of ideas
on the topic, in order to co-opertivelty comply with neutral
point of view policy (WP:NPOV) I would not have objected.
Six months later, on 1-8-08
Gordonofcartoon
asked the following question about
Oglesby Paul's paper as if to give the ridiculous impression
that we had never discussed it before, and as if he was asking
a sincere and helpful question for the first time . . . "OK,
here it is: http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/58/4/306. Do we all have access?
- Note that the only editors involved in the
discussion were Gordonofcartoon, WhatamIdoing, and myself. See
here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266789799&oldid=266722358#Oglesby_Paul
The
Tag teaming was everywhere here an example related to their Double
standards
At 8:29 on 19-8-08 I wrote . . . "Gordonofcartoon; Please stop referring
to "everyone's suggesting" something, when you are
quoting the ideas which you have sewn into the heads of other
editors while Wikipedia forum shopping [65]. Your biased editing
is the problem, and I am confident that I would be able to collaborate
with editors who interpreted policy properly and consistently,
and accepted information from the FULL RANGE of RELIABLE SOURCES
that represent NPOV"Posturewriter (talk) 08:29, 19 August
2008
At 19:37 on 15-8-08
WhatamIdoing posted these words addressed to me . . . "Furthermore,
if you want to know how I work in articles, you can just look
through my contributions. You'll find, to name just one example,
that both of the references cited at the T-cell lymphoma stub
were added by me, and that both of them are secondary sources
that meet our normal reliable source guidelines. WhatamIdoing
(talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
At 8:29 on 19-8-08 I wrote . . . "WhatamIdoing; I have given evidence
that you use DOUBLE STANDARDS and EVASIVE TACTICS to disrupt
my contributions, so it is not a good idea for you to confirm
that BY EVADING THE SUBJECT AGAIN. The cherrypicked aspects of
your editing on a new, very small, non-typical medical page are
irrelevant here [66]. You need to demonstrate the use of the
same sourcing policy by editing the Varicose veins page which
is more typical of medical pages e.g. [67] and here [68] where
there are multiple PRIMARY SOURCES which you would not accept
on the Da Costa's syndrome page e.g. here [69]. Posturewriter
(talk) 08:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
At 12:48 on 19-8-08
Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I am confident that I would
be able to collaborate with editors who interpreted policy properly
and consistently'
So go and do it. Here's the link -> Special:Random. Gordonofcartoon
(talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
At 1:43 on 23-8-08 I wrote
. . . "Gordonofcartoon; Please don't twist my words to divert
attention away from your responsibility to prove that you edit
consistently. In that regard I have asked you to apply your interpretation
of sourcing policy for the Da Costa's syndrome page, equally
to the Varicose veins pagePosturewriter (talk) 01:43, 23 August
2008 (UTC)posturewriter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Evidence_of_the_Deliberate_and_Typical_Evasive_Tactics_used_by_my_Critics
At 7:37 on 25-8-08 I wrote . . . WhatamIdoing; Since I offered you the opportunity to prove
the consistency of your editing by applying your no-primary source
policy to the Varicose veins page eight days ago here [70] you
have added several hundred edits to other pages here [71], but
none to the Varicose veins page here [72], because you know that
you would be confronted by multiple editors telling you that
you were being disruptive to their contributions. You also know
that most, if not all of them, would refuse to co-operate with
you and you would find it impossible to get consensus. Please
don't argue about this, or bring up any more policies, or set
up any more forums. I would like you and Gordonofcatoon to simply
refrain from editing the Da Costa pages, and any of my other
contributions in futurePosturewriter (talk) 07:37, 25 August
2008 (UTC)posturewriter
The conversation continued but regardless
of what they said they were never going to apply the same standards
of sourcing on the Da Costa's page to other pages.
One of my
two critics tried to get the page on Tag-teaming deleted????
At 1:52 on 26-8-08
WhatamIdoing saw a discussion about a page on Tag Teaming and
(of course) went there to have all evidence and discussion, and
definition of that type of editing behaviour deleted. The following
words were written by WhatamIoing . . . "Delete
(or move to userspace) I don't think it adds anything that isn't
already present in better documents. Additionally, it seems to
be open to abuse, with people on the losing end of any consensus
claiming that it's not a real consensus, it's just a tag team.
See here, here, here -- and the page has only existed for how
many days?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=prev&oldid=234261533
At 5:54 on 11-9-09 WhatamIdoing
rewrote the following section so
the new words were as follows . . . False accusations of tag-teaming
. . . "It is often difficult to tell the difference between
tag-teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors
that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes
will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag
team". here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=313141652&oldid=310936127#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming
It is one of many examples where WhatamIdoing
tries to change policies and guidelines and perceptions to justify
or make them ambigous to allow for the distortion and rigging
of outcomes. Note that when WhatamIdoing used the word every it
was a ridiculous way of interpreting the tagteaming behaviour
with Gordonofcartoon where they worked together as the only two 90% of the time.
|
My
contribution to the Da Costa's page, and my two critics attempt
to disrupt it
(This
information supports a previous essay here)
While
I contributing to the Da Costa page content, my two critics were
using a never ending series of arguments and policies to disrupt
the process. However, they were accusing me of being disruptive,
and they set up a Requests for Comments page to discuss putting
a topic ban on me. During that process two neutral editors suggested
that it was in part, or fully, a content dispute that could be
settled by each party writing their own version on subpages so
that neutral editors could later merge them and ensure that the
Wikipidia article was unbiased.
I
agreed to do that, but my two critics tried to disrupt that sensible
method. Extracts from those discussions are shown below.
|
A
COMMENT ON THE SUGGESTED SOLUTION FOR PROVIDING AN NPOV ARTICLE,
AND THE RESULT
On 4-8-08 Avnjay made the following suggestion about what
I should do . . . "instead
of an essay on COI (which sounds a little patronising to me) he writes a version
of Da Costa's demonstrating his understanding of WP:COI, WP:MEDRS,
WP:NOR" . . . AvnjayTalk 13:06, 4
August 2008 (UTC) - here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=229769192&oldid=229760697
Note that NPOV refers to 'Neutral
point of view', COI refers to 'Conflict of interest',
MEDRS refers to 'Medically reliable sources' - and 'sources'
means 'references', and NOR means 'No original research'
and I was not having any difficulty understanding those basic
and perfectly reasonable concepts.
I started writing the essay soon after
that and when it was finished I posted it onto a Wikipedia subpage,
and then Avnjay (a neutral editor) read it and wrote these words
on 5-10-08 . . .
(two months later)
"To be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a
lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently
up and I
can't find anything which is COI,
unsourced (97 different sources
quoted!!), or biased" . . . AvnjayTalk 10:51, 5 October 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
..
|
|
Evidence
of Gordonofcartoon's unco-operative attitude
and disruptive conduct
"At 20:36 on 3-8-08 on
my talk page, and a few minutes later at 20:43 on the RFC talk
page the editor name Avnjay
wrote these words . . . As far as the article is concerned here
is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly they can put their
idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki
policy but not the article's subject
(I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then
read the articles and check
the references and combine the articles.
After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!" .
. . here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Comment_re_Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay
Gordonofcartoon's response the following day at 11:31 on 4-8-08
was "Short
answer: no" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=229752771
At 11:18 on 8-8-08 SmokeyJoe
wrote these words " Posturewriter - If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome), get
it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article,
then go for it.
At 16:30 on the same day 8-8-08
Gordonfocartoon's response was "No. I'm fed up with this. We deal with it
now" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Regarding_Posturewriter.E2.80.99s_comments_of_08:42.2C_8_August_2008_.28UTC.29.
At 07:15 on 15-8-09 I wrote these
words on the RFC page . . . "I think that your recent suggestion
of the 8th August was a good idea re; "If you want to create
a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome),
get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article,
then go for it" here [56]. It relates to my endorsement
of Avnjays suggestion first, and yours second. You could edit the page with Avnjay
if you wish although you have not previously offered to, and
ensure it was complete, NPOV, and in compliance with policy." . . . Posturewriter (talk) 07:51, 15 August
2008 (UTC)posturewriter
A few hours later, at 15:30 on 15-8-09
Gordonofcartoon gave this typically deceitful, uncompromising,
and disruptive response to my offer to write a subpage essay
. . . "Discussion
over: no-one's interested in seeing further essays from you here". [[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
The situation
was that there were uninvolved
and independent editors who were
interested
in providing a solution to the dispute about bias, but Gordonofcartoon
was refusing to co-operate and spending all of his time trying
to be as disruptive as possible by trying to talk them out of
it.
|
|
Just
like Gordonofcartoon, his tag-team mate WhatamIdoing was doing everything possible to be
unco-operative in finding an independent solution to the dispute
about bias.
The section of WhatamIdoing's own
UserTalk page where WhatamIdoing was being insulting and argumentative,
provocative, and annoying, and doing everything to disrupt the
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
These are
some extracts to exemplify it
At 10:51 on 5-10-08 Avnjay had read my essay and
wrote . . . "Hello WhatamIdoing! . . . To be honest, in
my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far more detailed
than the one that is currently up and I can't find anything which
is COI, unsourced (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased.
. . . could I ask you to have a look at it
and gently, gently,
comment on it? Thanks! Hope you're
well", AvnjayTalk 10:51, 5 October
2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing replied; "Avnjay, I realize that you're not competent in
the subject matter, but an editor
of your experience should have noticed that he doesn't use 97 different sources. For example, he lists the same thoroughly outdated
(1951!) textbook eighteen separate times. There are in
fact only 24 references, assuming you count the two "references"
to Wikipedia articles (one to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and another
to Posturewriter's own work at Da Costa syndrome. You might also
have noticed that he selectively quotes very short phrases
from some of them. The most recent source is eleven years old
(see WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence -- and it is about Chronic
fatigue syndrome, not Da Costa's.
Would you like a detailed response?" WhatamIdoing (talk)
16:15, 5 October 2008
Note that I was not familiar with all of
the Wikipedia codes on how to add references to an automated
reference list so Avnjay made some constructive amendments to those codes
to remove duplication and reduce the list of 97 links
down to 24 references that had been cited multiple times.
By contrast WhatamIdoing was (a) not being useful or constructive,
and (b) trying to imply that I was ONLY using 24 references,
and not 97 - without telling Avnjay that there were NONE when
I first saw the article.
Avnjay then wrote
these words to WhatamIdoing . .
. "Ouch! I went back and added the 97 bit some time after
I had written my post (but not saved it) which just goes to show
you should never add in anything at the last minute! So, quickly
sweeping my foolishness under the carpet, I've been through and collated all the sources
now and changed a fair bit to better reflect the manual of style. A large part of his article is on the history of the syndrome hence
all the old sources (an exception in WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence). There is one current source in the Merriam Webster
Medical Dictionary and I have added two recent (2004) ones from
the current article and the Dorland's dictionary. I will let
Posturewriter know he needs to add some more. As far as short quotes go, they
do seem to be referenced and do make for easier reading than
lots of long quotes. I shall, however,
suggest he lengthen them. Do you know of any which are quoted
out of context? By all means, if you have the time and inclination,
give me as much detail as you can muster, but I can fully understand
if you are sick of this by now! I am really keen though to keep working with Posturewriter
as I do believe a better article can be produced here. Plus I think Wikipedia should be a place of unending
optimism! :) Have a good day!!" AvnjayTalk
15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing replied; "I tried marking things that need
repaired, but it's basically a disaster. The history
section is much, much,
much too detailed. It
inappropriately blends in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment"
. . . etc. etc.
Note that WhatamIdoing did absolutely nothing useful,
but just
kept finding fault with everything
I wrote, or added, and the criticism went on relentlessly for
months. Those discussions can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#Da_Costa.E2.80.99s_Syndrome
WhatamIdoing also set up another page called a sandbox and cut and
pasted the entire subpage text that I produced, for the sole
purpose of criticising as many comments or references as possible
(more than 80) see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter
|
Summary
If you read the full discussions
you can see that I was doing everything possible to find a way
of providing an unbiased article, but my two critics were doing
everything possible to disrupt the process and ensure that they
had complete control of content.
|
|
THE DISRUPTIVE EDITING ACCUSATION
(and
verifiable evidence that my critics have been telling blatant
lies)
After failing to get me blocked on the
Wikiquette alerts and MFD pages Gordonofcartoon
started an RFC (request for comments
page) on 20-7-08, to get a topic
ban preventing me from contributing
to the Da Costa's page on the grounds of a dozen or so policies
here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Statement_of_the_dispute.
"At 20:36 on 3-8-08 on
my talk page, and a few minutes later at 20:43 on the RFC talk
page an editor name Avnjay
wrote these words . . . As far as the article is concerned here
is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly they can put their
idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki
policy but not the article's subject
(I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then
read the articles and check
the references and combine the articles.
After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!" .
. . here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Comment_re_Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay
Gordonofcartoon's response the following day at 11:31 on 4-8-08
was "Short
answer: no" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=229752771
At 13:02 the same day 4-8-08
Avnjay made the following suggestions . . .
"Posturewriter agrees not to edit
related articles for a while (which he has already agreed to)
Posturewriter writes
a version of Da Costa's on a sub-page
demonstrating his understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:COI
I'll combine Posturewriter's
article with the current one according to WP:MEDRS
Any substantive changes
to the combined article (by any editor) are
discussed first although hopefully
there won't need to be any!"
At 8:42 on 8-8-08 I replied
with these words . . . "Avnjay; I endorse your solution
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 etc. . . . 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=230574769&oldid=230384573
At 11:18 on 8-8-08 SmokeyJoe
wrote these words " Posturewriter - If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa's syndrome), get
it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article,
then go for it.
At 16:30 on the same day 8-8-08
Gordonfocartoon's response was "No.
I'm fed up with this. We deal with it now" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Regarding_Posturewriter.E2.80.99s_comments_of_08:42.2C_8_August_2008_.28UTC.29.
At 1:43 on 23-8-08 I wrote the
following words on the RFC talk page . . . "Avnjay; In response
to your suggested solution to this dispute, I would like you
to set up a sub-page for the placement of the full range of reliably
sourced NPOV information about Da Costa syndrome, and would be happy for you to edit
it to ensure that the page complies with wikipedia policy and
guidelines. I would be agreeable for Smokeyjoe providing
some additional constructive input as NPOVPosturewriter
(talk) 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=235145436&oldid=234570222#An_NPOV_Solution_to_the_Wikipedia:Tag_teaming_Dictatorship_of_page_Content
Also in August 2008 I wrote
the following words on the RFC talk page . . . "SmokeyJoe;
You suggested setting up a userspace page for Da Costa syndrome
here [95]. I have
courteously accepted yours and Avjays offer [96] to edit it for
NPOV purposes. Please compare my
willingness to co-operate with the characteristic snubbing, no-compromise,
attitude of my critics here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=235145436&oldid=234570222#An_NPOV_Solution_to_the_Wikipedia:Tag_teaming_Dictatorship_of_page_Content
At 7:57 on 30-8-08 I made the
following request on the RFC page. . . "Avnjay; Please set up the user sub-page and I will start adding information to it next
Sunday. If you wish
to have WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon contributing to the
discussion I would have no objection.
However, in order to ensure NPOV
I think it is essential that you and SmokeyJoe, or any other NPOV editors make all the decisions
about what is or is not compliant with policy" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=235145436&oldid=234570222#An__NPOV_Solution_to_Content_Dictatorship_by_Elitist_.28arrogant.29_Editors
On 21-9-08 I wrote these words on Avnjay's talk page. . .
"Thankyou for
setting up the Da Costa's syndrome subpage
here [[2]]. I am in the process of providing the text and will
be checking it during the week ready to post it on wikipedia
next Sunday. Could you please set up a reference section at the
end of the page so that the citations will be added to the list
automatically. Could you also set up an associated talk page
so that you and SmokeyJoe can make any comments related to improving
it to encyclopedic style and compliance with sourcing and other
policy. You could make your comments at any time, but I would
like to consider them and respond once a week, on Sundays, and
would hope to complete the task to a satisfactory format in about
a month. When we have reached a consensus about it's suitability
you and SmokeyJoe could start the process of merging it with
the existing Da Costa page, or any other Da Costa subpage via
a different discussion process where the discussion would involve
all interested parties. I hope this plan is acceptable, and if
you wish to make any suggestions or alterations to the timeframe
or process I will respond next Sunday. Thankyou again for your
interest and assistance and for reviewing the discussion pages
related to this topic here [[3]]Posturewriter (talk) 02:33, 21
September 2008 (UTC)posturewriter"
On 26-9-08 Avnjay replied . . . "Hello Posturewriter, sorry
for slow reply I have been away. I have added a references section
to the sub-page (for more info on this see Help:footnotes). The
talk page can be started by clicking on the discussion tab at
the top of the page or by clicking here. I will look in on the
page from time to time and look forward to reading your work!
No trouble about the help - I
am glad to see you haven't been blocked.
AvnjayTalk 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)"
On 28-9-08 I responded with these words "Avnjay; "Thankyou for providing the subpage
and adding the reference window code to it.
I have provided the text for an article on Da Costa's Syndrome
today here [[4]] and would appreciate your commentsPosturewriter
(talk) 08:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)posturewriter"
On 2-10-08
Gordonof
cartoon wrote these words about
me on Wizardman's talk page . . .
< | |