Additional Tactics Used By My Critics

MORE TACTICS USED BY MY CRITICS THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED SINCE I WAS BANNED

Lap Dog’s Invitation: This is a situation where some editors regularly tell lies, often break the rules of Wikipedia, and may start edit wars and cheat to get a new contributor banned, and then the new contributor is sent instructions that if they want to get back into Wikipedia, they have to assume good faith in the editors who banned them, and not comment on them or their conduct, but agree to demonstrate the ability to co-operate with them in the future. That would turn Wikipedia into a Liars Paradise, because honest, self-respecting individuals would not degrade themselves like that. Also called Toady’s Mail: RSVP come back crawling on all fours please.

The no-win content control mechanism: When I saw that there were only four lines of text, and no references on the Da Costa’s syndrome page, I started improving it, and later, when I included information about my own research, it was deleted on the grounds that I had a conflict of interest, so I started adding information from verifiable independent sources. When that was deleted, and replaced with disinformation, I had two choices; (a) leave it there and be called a good, co-operative Wikipedian or (b) replace it with the correct information and be constantly harrassed and banned for being disruptive. These were Gordonofcartoon’s words on the Arbitration page . . . “this involves a classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipedia:Tendencious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. here

Victory by Deletion (as previously described before I was banned): Also called Editorial Whitewash. see also Damnatio memoriae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

180 Degree Spin; That is a situation where the editor makes a foolish mistake, and when criticised, implies that the person who reported the mistake was being foolish. For example, when an editor moved the words “Soldier’s Heart (novel)” from the “See Also” section at the end of the Da Costa’s page to the top line, I thought that it was inappropriate to give that label undue prominence. Nevertheless, I decided to read the book to see if it contained anything useful, but found that it was written by a childrens fiction author, and was about a teenage farm boy who enlisted in the Ameican Civil war and went through four battles, and was wounded in the last one, and some years later considered suicide, probably because of the disabling consequences of two bullet wounds. However there was nothing in the text about the symptoms of Da Costa’s syndrome. When I asked the editors to give me page numbers where they thought the symptoms were mentioned, and they couldn’t, they spun the arguement around by trying to portray me as having a poor understanding of the “See also” section and “hatnote” policy. These were WhatamIdoings words at 23:41on 29-6-08, which were presumably designed to annoy me . . . “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’.” here

They argued that items in the “See Also” section AND “the top line of the page” did not have to be relevant to the topic, but they were evading any mention of the fact that they were using the book because of it’s title, and because it was about the American Civil war, but they didn’t know that it was irrelevant until I told them.

The Soldier’s Heart (novel) and the link to the childrens fiction book were added to the list of “See Also” items by Gordonofcartoon on 20-12-07 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=179268306&oldid=179126578 . . . The novel was moved to the hatnote position at the top of the page by WhatamIdoing on 29-5-08 here. . .

After I criticised them for the inappropriate use of hatnote policy WhatamIdoing made these comments . . . “you’re wasting your time. You complain here that I made Da Costa’s syndrome comply with WP:HATNOTE and WP:LAYOUT#See_also: Yup, I’m guilty as charged. It’s yet another example of me wanting articles to comply with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I don’t apologize for it, however . . . But I say again: You are wasting your time. You cannot change Wikipedia’s policies by leaving messages on my talk page” at 18:30 on 10-1-09 here

Note that the hatnote had already been deleted by another editor two weeks earlier on 22-12-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=259521516&oldid=258182319 . . and the link to the hatnote label was deleted by a futher editor three weeks later on 2-2-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152 . . . but the label of Soldier’s Heart is still mentioned in the first sentence.

Note also that WhatamIdoing would have been aware of the deletion of the hatnote, and hasn’t argued with the editors who removed it, and it hasn’t been put back in the six months since.

The discussion of that matter can be read in various places, including 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 . . . and from the second paragraph onwards here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F

and WhatamIdoing’s comments about the matter can be seen on the arbitration page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

Note that throughout the entire process my two critics were doing everything they could to give prominance to the label of SOLDER’S HEART, but when I mentioned on my subpage that it was only one of the many labels WhatamIdoing asked me to prove it by asking me to provide a reference, as cut and pasted here with my comments in black print and WhatamIdoing’s words which I have highlighted in red print . . . “Other popularly[peacock term][citation needed] used[by whom?] labels included soldier’s heart . . . [1][2] WhatamIdoing 5-10-08. Those words can be seen in the last paragraph here

The Elephant in the Room (something so obvious that you can’t fail to notice it): Important research information that I have provided from verifiable, top quality, independent, peer reviewed, medically reliable sources that my two critics don’t want the readers to see.

The Besser Block Man: Besser blocks are large bricks which are piled one on top of another to build a wall or a house. In Wikipedia, my two critics have been adding fictional character flaws in me to gradually build up a case for blocking me. For example, they will try to convince readers that a new contributor like myself has a low level of intelligence and poor comprehension, because I don’t know as much about policy as they do, and they will add a gratuitous link to the definition of the word ‘stupid”. When I criticise them for their mistakes they will try to give the false impression that I am angry at them, and to intensify the false image, they will selectively use the words ‘ I am “mad” at them’, instead of “angry” at them. When I criticise them for linking to a children’s fiction novel, they will try to create the impression that they are not immmature for adding the link, but that I am an immature person who they feel needs to be patronisingly apologised to: for example with these words by WhatamIdoing. . . “I just want to add that I’m sorry you read that book. Paulsen makes a living from writing deliberately depressing books to promote his anti-war/anti-military views. He has a particular talent for sympathetically disgusting descriptions. I have read about ten of them and only found one that was worth my time. They are, unfortunately, officially recommended or required reading in many, many American schools”. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008

That process could also be called the LEGO MAN, which is gradually built up for the sole purpose of eventurally knocking it down.

After several months of choosing such methods against me I decide to make it clear that their comments are offensive, and then they charge in with accusations that I am a disruptive person who is making hostile personal attacks on them. At the end of 12 months they have built up a completely false image of me like a Besser block house of bricks. I continue to write in a matter of fact manner, and am perceived by most neutral editors as polite, and my critics have to be careful not to tell obvious lies about me so they go to a POV Civil Pushing page, where they falsely accuse me of repeatedly putting my theory in Wikipedia, when it hasn’t been there for a year, and they say I am CIVILLY pushing the idea. They also try to convince other editors that I am disruptive by describing me as using “low grade” incivility. Ultimately they use their false “Besser block house of faults” to describe me as an angry, disruptive, hostile, uncivil, policy violating contributor. The process could also be called Systematic Character Assassination where the objective is to make the person look so unlikable and despicable that the readers don’t have the will to consider the possibility of merit in their contributions. re; Vilification, where the image is built because no-one can see any good in the deeds of a villain and they want him to lose. They then try to get the Besser block man banned, and all of the contributions deleted before the other editors learn the difference between fact and illusion.

Punching Bag: A person who produces ideas and can’t cope with criticism.

The AGF flaw: The AGF policy requires all persons in wikipedia to assume good faith in everyone else, so as to create a co-operative, harmonious and constructive environment, which sounds admirable, and worthy of complying with. However the experienced editors (who know how to ignore their own rules) can take advantage of that by being arrogant, makiing derogatory remarks, and “speaking down” to the newbie, which leaves the impression that the editors are “authorative”, and the newbie is “stupid”, and “subservient”, and obsequiously obedient. That objective sooner or later becomes obvious from the pattern of edits, so the contributor has two choices -(a) continue to comply with AGF and civility policy and continue to apppear progressively more submissive, or repspond in a forthright manner, in the full knowledge that the editors tactic will be to start a banning process on the grounds of violating WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY, and WP: Tendendcious Editing etc. It is the classic example of being given two choices where both are designed to block the person from contributing. re: the double bind, used for the purpose of creating a NO-WIN situation.

The Empty Head: This is where an editor adds a persons real name to the discusssion page, when it isn’t necessary, and at the same time hides behind their Wikipedia ID to give out insults and criticisms. Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing are supposed to respect the purpose of anonymity that goes with having an anonymous ID, and use only that ID, and comment only on content. However my two critics kept referring to me as self-identified, when my name was first given, only because it was necessary to prevent another person from being accused of violating my copyright. Since then I have added it to the Da Costa’s page, but it has been removed and not put back by me since December 2007, and when I politely suggested that if there was no mention of my research in Wikipedia, they should not use my real name, but simply link to previous discussions if other editors needed to know – here are Gordonofcartoon’s dictatorial words of advice to another editor 18 months later . . .“don’t post real names of editors. It will get you blocked.” [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] 15:13, 11 June 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Banfield . Note also that when I have asked them about their extreme bias, heated attitude, and any conflict of interest they put up a great wall of silence and excuses such as they don’t have one.. I don’t know, or care about their real names, or need to know for Wikipedia purposes, but I have found that WhatamIdoing has a trophy for an article on fatigue, which is a possible explanation for the hostility. I am certain that the practice of revealing a persons real name, while the editors kept their own a closely guarded secret, would drive most people out of Wikipedia, because it wasn’t an even playing field.

The critics heel: This is the vulnerability of an inexperienced critic to criticism from someone who has seen all of their tricks before and can routinesly identifiy them. c.f. Achilles Heel.

Precious Critic: A critic who complains when someone criticises them.

Primitive Critic: A critic who has not adapted to the internet, and who complains because it s not the same as the old world. Also called a stone carver or a block head – compare with Luddite, and printing block.

Wikipediac: A person who thinks that they can control content in Wikipedia – compare with megalomaniac.

WP:OWNEROUS: An editor who acts as if he owns Wikipedia and accuses new contributors of WP:OWN when they add a small amount of independently sourced information that is not even their own information, and when they don’t want to own Wikipedia.

Blind in one Eye: This is where a group of editors can see fault in an outsider, when it doesn’t actually exist, but can’t see fault in one of their own members even when there is a massive amount of evidence.

Lead Boots: This is an editor who lies, cheats, and breaks all of the rules of Wikipedia, and damages the reputation of Wikipedia. re: it’s like trying to save someone who goes swimming with lead in their boots. If you try to save them, you will both drown.

The Narrow Tunnel of Vision: This is where my two critics focused everyone else’s vision on the reference to a medical consumer’s page, in order to criticise the reliability of my sources, so that the other 60 reliable references would be out of focus, and pre-judged as not being worth the trouble of looking at.

Pushing the Barrow: This is where the editor repeatedly gives out sly insults and makes snide comments until the new contributor presents a matter of fact objection, and then the editor presents a parallel series of excuses, such as they are rule-abiding editors giving sincere advice, and that the contributor should assume good faith that the advice is well intended (WP:AGF). Even when the advice is clearly derisive they refer to it as WP:WikiLove, and imply that the criticism is for the good of the contributor. As another example, when the editors are being asked to refrain from being sarcastic they play dumb and pretend that they don’t understand what aspect of their ambiguous comment was the issue etc. They keep pushing that barrow until the new contributor snaps into an uncivil remark or breaks and is banned or leaves Wikipedia. The editors think that because their methods have always been successful in the past, they will always be successful until, inevitably, they try their stunts on a new contributor who can see what they are doing, and the wheels fall off and the editors trip over and fall into their own barrow which is by then full of it.

Puppy Hound: An editor who tries to hound, harass, and provoke a contributor who has experience in dealing with controversial topics; like a puppy yapping at an Alsatian.

The Pansie Division: This is a group of editors with very broad, but shallow knowledge, who argue that a person with an interest in a particular topic, and a lot of acquired knowledge in it, should not be allowed to add content to that subject in Wikipedia, until they have first demonstrated their ability to comment constructively in subjects where they have absolutely no interest whatsoever. It is the equivalent of telling a weight lifter that they cannot compete in a weight lifting event until they have first shown their ability by winning a flower show. The contributors who spend time on one subject are called SPA’s (single purpose accounts). It is also evident that editors with shallow knowledge, who are not good enough to win content arguments, will use the SPA argument as a ruse to get the contributor topic banned. It is also used as a Divide and Destroy tactic so that the contributor has to spend so much time on other subjects, that he cannot win otherwise easy arguments. The other ruse is to focus on SPA arguments to divert attention away from the fact that reliable and verifiable sources of information have been provided from multiple independent sources, not just one source.

Changing the focus of fault; When my critics moved the label of Soldier’es Heart to the top of the Da Costa’s page to give it prominence, I read the book that it was linked to. None of the symptoms of DCS were mentioned in the text so it was irrelevant. However, to give them the benefit of doubt I asked them to give me some specific page numbers to check. If they told me that they had given a link to the book without actually reading it first, or if they read it and said that they couldn’t find any typical DCS symptoms, or if they found some symptoms and I described the fact that they were not evidence of DCS, they would be seen to be at fault. In order to avoid having to admit they were wrong, they firstly evaded the question, and secondly changed the focus of the discussion to faults in me by devising an argument that I had poor understanding of hatnote policy. e.g. at 1:56, 28-6-08 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. Note that the hatnote and the link to it has since been deleted by two other editors on 22-12-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=259521516&oldid=258182319 . . and on 2-2-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152 .

Policy Freaks: Editors who are policy experts and who use an endless supply of policies to obstruct a contributor when they can’t win content disputes.

Jargon Freaks: People who try to bamboozle readers with esoteric jargon so that they can’t make a proper assessment of an argument. re: they can’t argue in plain English without making themselves look ridiculous. Also called Jargon Addict – re; dependent on jargon to win.

Jargon Twister: Someone who turns plain English text into jargon to make it impossible for the ordinary reader to understand.

Jargon blind: A reader who can’t read jargon. to be compared with an English speaking person who can’t understand Chinese.

Jargon Tripping: Moving a page of plain English text into another one of incomprehensible jargon. e.g. trying to move the topic of Da Costa’s syndrome into part of a page titled “Somatoform Autonomic Dystfunction” (especially when that page does not already exist and has to be set up first). e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Proposed_page_move

History Picker: Someone who knows the full history of a topic but selects a small section to report on, generally to mislead the readers by deleting the most important aspects. c.f. cherry picker.

Mainstream Drowning: This is where the editors are pre-occupied with mainstream “official” opinion to the exclusion of anything which brings doubt on it. re; If it was mainstream to believe that the world was flat, an editor who provided independent verifiable information that it had been proven round 100 years earlier would be banned for tendencious and disruptive editing, and violation of civility guidelines, and described as not having the ability to understand the way things are done around here (in Wikipedia), and the information would be deleted (buried in the history of edits – drowned).

Academic Freedom: The freedom to study information from any source, and to write without fear or favor. c.f. pure science

Kid Kallow: A young editor who acts as if he believes that he has acquired the knowledge and experience of a mature adult, and who gives instructions to someone twice his age, in the manner of a prissy school teacher admonishing a child.

Shallow diving champion: An editor who speed reads the first paragraph of a research paper before joining a discussion.

The School of Red Herrings: Where lessons are learned from observation and experience: This is where my two critics add multiple policy objections, arguments, excuses, or other tactics for the sole purpose of diverting the readers attention away from the information contained in verifiable, reliable, independent, peer-reviewed secondary sources that are WP:MEDRS and accurate. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing and click here to see my references

Impossible to Please: Editors who keep adding new policy objections after the previous ones have been complied with. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

Stifle with a million rules: Using policies to obstruct every contribution until the contributor stops adding any form of content on any topic from any source. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

Deaf Intentions: This is where an editor blocks a contributor from adding to the topic page, but advises that they can still influence the content by contributing to the discussions on the talk page, but then they proceed to completely ignore, argue with, or disregard every suggestion, other than the occasional one for token purposes. Also called “no compromise intended” and “all talk and no action” e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Colloquial_term_.E2.80.98Soldier.E2.80.99s_Heart.27.3F

See also Gordonofcartoon’s advice Guido den Broeder . . . “Remember WP:SOAP and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This is not a venue for general discussion on the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Cruft

Eristic Editor: An editor who edits a topic for the sole purpose of controlling content with no intention of contributing to it. (there has been no content added to the Da Costa page since I was banned). Also an editor who argues for the sake of arguing. i.e. without any regard for arguing properly re: WP:IAR

Dishonorable Editing: Any editing which fails to respect and honor the policies of Wikipedia by violating them, and especially where the editor contributes to writing the policies, and expects others to abide by them, and any use of WP:IAR to achieve the editors objectives. Editors who do not have the appropriate attitude and do not comply with policy should understand that they are degrading the standards of behaviour and do not belong in Wikipedia, and should voluntarily leave, or be banned.

WP:IAR: Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules Policy; Anarchy – a state of lawlessness – the absence of orderly government.

LIAR: An editor who pretends to be rule-abiding in order to get respect and support, but who also use WP:IAR, ignore all rules policy and secret edit war practices. e.g. these are the words of another editor named Coppertwig:. . . “Well done, Gordonofcartoon: articulating the honest motives behind your actions in order to help Posturewriter assume good faith; as recommended [[WP:Assume good faith# Demonstrate good faith|here]]. <span style=”color:Purple; font-size:1.8em;”>?</span> [[User:Coppertwig]] 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC) here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=228209801&oldid=228208626

Faithless LIAR: An editor who requires new contributors to assume good faith in them, while they are organising edit wars and using WP:IAR

Universal LIAR (ULIAR): An editor who uses specific techniques such as the deletion of verifiable information contrary to their views, and watering down or altering statistics to change reader perceptions, where the techniques applied to one topic can be used on any topic to make Wikipedia an unreliable sources of information.

IAR power: a method to give Liars power; re the editors who tell everyone that they are rule-abiders, when they have a track record of ingnoring their own rules.

WIAR Power (pronounced wire power): This applies where Wikipedia eventually contains a page of information on every person on the planet. All individuals value their reputation so none of them would be willing to add information that was different from the existing content because they would know that the editors could delete it from the topic page, and then go to that individuals bio page and replace favorable comments with a negative account of them. If the person complained about the way they were being treated the editors could do what they wanted regardless because of WP:IAR policy which allows editors to ignore their own rules. People would refrain from criticising Wikipedia for the same reason.

Multi Liaring: Deleting verifiable information and statistics at the same time.

Caffe LARTAY: A beverage that new contributors should have for breakfast before contributing to Wikipedia – it has poor taste, but is harmless.. re; the edit war jargon LART – Lusers Attitute Readjustment Tools here http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/L/LART.html

Content Control Freak: This is an editor who tells lies, and breaks the rules of Wikipedia, and starts edit wars to ban any new contributor who adds information about a topic that they don’t like. They do the same thing a second and third time and find it so easy that they become complacent, and their lies become more and more frequent and more blatant, and they boast about fooling new contributors by breaking the rules. It is a case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and those editors become the ardent defender of the policy that allows editors to break the rules, because they find it so convenient.

Two faced fork-tongued Rattlesnake: An editor who claims to be rule-abiding while breaking the rules and falsely accusing someone else of breaking them.

Cupcake Freak: A person who claims that they do not have the time to edit important medical articles but they can find the time to edit articles about cupcakes.

Silence of the Lambs: the reluctance of people to defend themselves against criticism due to fear of the consequences – the fact that consequences are possible is the deterrent regardless of whether they occur or not.

Rushing Bunny: An editor who does more than 300 edits in a day and adds references to books and research papers without reading past the title on the cover or the first paragraph.

Bunny Soup: An editor who tries to win arguments by using references, but doesn’t read past the title of books or the first paragraph of research papers, and is therefore easily recognisable as flawed, and easy to discredit.

Bunny Princicple: Don’t give yourself time to stop and think about what you are doing, just run, run, run.

Two Headed Goose: A tag team of two editors who set up a series of increasingly fussy policy requirements, but never accept any contribution; re two editors who set up a wild goose chase.

Verifryability: The editors ability to fry verifiabie information by deleting it. Also called cooking the books.

System Rigging: a synonym for WP:IAR that is used only by editors who are aware that they can ignore all rules to achieve their objectives.

Stacking: The combined use of WP:IAR, attitude readjustment tools, and edit war tactics that are used by experienced editors to gain advantage over a new contributor.

Fickle editing: This is where my two critics were constantly changing the policy interpretations, and if that failed to achieve their objective of content control, they rewrote the policies.

Edit magic: Making verifiable information disappear under a carpet of policies without the readers noticing.

Edit Spellbounding: The process of making contributors assume good faith, while the editor is ignoring all rules

Magicians Brew: A more drastic method of trolling a new contributor after the attitude readjustment tools have failed as explained by these words . . . “a concerted campaign to drive away the editor by convincing him that Wikipedia is controlled by a particularly rude version of the Wicked Witch of the West” . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing

The one way mirror: Wikipedia editors have softwear available to them to track the edits of all new contributors as standard administrative practice. However if they see a new contributor using different methods of tracking their critics it is called stalking, and a violation of WP:NPA (no personal attacks). Only naive contributors would tolerate such blatant double standard. It is evident that my critics have been tracking my contributions to ensure that any that were not deleted by other editors would be deleted by themselves until there were none left.

The time ambush; My critics never told me how long a discussion page would take for completion. e.g. I wanted to know if I was required to respond to a particular criticism in five days, 7 days, or 14 days etc., so that I could think about my answers, prepare them, and post them before the due date. However, when I asked how long the Wikiquette discussion would last, no-one would tell me, and my critics accused me of deliberately using delaying tactics. Another example was when I told the editors on the RFC page that I would be preparing a sub page in the next few weeks, they closed the discussion before I returned . . . and . . . when I told the Arbitration page that I was going to present a response to my critics on the following Sunday, an editor suddenly arrived at the page and banned me on Wednesday here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#User:Posturewriter.

Speaking on behalf of the clan: This is where my critics choose their words to give the impression that their interpretation of policy represents the general view of Wikipedia editors so that my criticism of them will be interpreted as a criticism of all of Wikipedia. Their objective would be to have all of the editors against me. However, only two editors, namely WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. have been doing more than 90% of the critising, and have forum shopped to get help from many other editors, but only a small number assisted them in getting me banned. Also called Tarring Wikipedia with the same brush.

The carrot and the stick: This tactic relates to training horses by rewarding them with a carrot each time they do something you want, and punishing them by hitting them with a stick each time they do something you don’t want. In Wikipedia it has a corollary with my critic, named WhatamIdoing, rewarding Wizardman with a barnstar for closing the RFC page while it was still active, and imposing a virtual topic ban on me, and then rewarding Moreschi with an outlaw halo award for banning me before 12 arbitrators could make a decision. By contrast, several editors supported me but Guido den Broeder was banned, and NapoliRoma put his foot in it (his words), but left because the water was obviously too hot, and SmokeyJoe and Avnjay both supported me until my two critics, WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, harassed them with relentless derogatory remarks about the competence of their interpretation of policy and knowledge of the subject.e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

Note that my critics didn’t make the same derogatory remarks about Wizardman or Moreschi who don’t appear to have any qualifications, knowledge, or interest in medical topics

Double standards: In every example of criticism against the way I presented the Da Costa page, I can find other pages where such criticism has not been made, but when I mention it my critics either ignore the fact or make policy excuses for it and refuse to go to those pages and make them comply with the same policies. They say such things as they haven’t got time. For example they will say that the page is too long, but it is easy to find longer ones, or that the section headings are out of order or not typical, but there are many pages with more sections, and tailor made sections, or other arrangements of sections. They will say that all information has to be from reviews published in reliable sources in the past two years, but there are many topics with references that go back 100 years etc etc see more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#More_Evidence_of_Disruptive_Dual_Editing_-_Wikipedia:Tag_teaming_Used_by_my_Critic and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ehlers-Danlos_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=295063202

They have also been self-righteosly asking me to read the Wikipedia guidelines and abide by them ‘like all of the other rule-abiding editors’, and yet rewarded an administrator named Moresci for being the ‘only’ administrator who was prepared to break all the rules in order to ban me. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661

Uncivil Double Standards: This is where my two critics had the attitude – Don’t do what we do, do what we */#@%&# tell you to do.

Dictatorship of Policy Interpretation: Most policies in Wikipedia are ambiguous and flexible, or multiple paragraph guidelines that need to be interpreted with common sense. For example, the purpose of reliable sourcing policy is to maximise the likelihood of the information being factual, and not just opinion or guesswork, or to verify something that someone said, or didn’t say etc. Consequently the MEDRS policy suggests that you get information from secondary sources which means that a person of knowledge and experience has reviewed the research of many scientists and drawn a conclusion that represents what a large number of independent people collectively discover, confirm, or conclude. For medical topics those should be published in reputable journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association etc. I therefore chose from several sources, one by Streeton that was published in J.A.M.A. My critic didn’t like that information and so chose to interpret the policy differently by saying that it was just an op-ed (opposite the editorial, not a proper editorial), by a non-expert, not a real expert, and it was eleven years old and therefore superseded. I could respond by stating the obvious fact that WhatamIdoing was not using common sense, and was being deliberately pedantic for the sole purpose of deleting a good reference, but then WhatamIdoing would interpret me as violating WP:Civil. Note that my critics are invariably ill-mannered, uncivil, and disruptive, and call their comments ‘editing’. Essentially they are saying that they are the only ones who have enough common sense, knowledge, and experience with editing to do it correctly, and that everyone else is wrong, which means that they can do (or want to do) anything they like, including breaking all the rules, and they can arrange for the banning of their own critics, and the deletion of criticism against themselves. Perhaps they are not using policy for the purpose of improving Wikipedia, but for the purpose of giving themselves a sense of power.

Selective Neutrality: Also called Neutrality by Exclusion: and False Neutrality: According to my critics Wikipedia requires all editors to comply with NPOV policy, which refers to presenting a neutral point of view from all sources on all topics. However their MEDRS policy requires that all information about medical articles can only come from top quality, independent, peer reviewed medical journals. Needless to say, that makes the concept of neutrality impossible because there are statistics which show that for every 1000 members of the population there is only one doctor which makes them a one in a thousand minority group. The other relevant fact is that students are generally selected for medical education on the basis of being in the top 5%, or in some cases the top 10% of the population in their IQ tests. Those statistics may make the average doctor more intelligent than the average person, but there are at least 50-100 others per doctor at the same level. There are also many different types of intelligence, and many types of study such as the history of topics. In Wikipedia the advice was to only use information that has been published in the last 2 years which means that it comes from less than 1% of that available in other publications. In regards to the favored scientific method, it has been said that the more science discovers, the more you learn that science doesn’t know, so according to Wikipedia most information cannot be discussed. The other significant factor is that the medical profession are a human group and as such have their own point of view, self interests, conflicts of interest, and prejudices that would be different from all other groups in society. They naturally protect themselves from criticism and would be much more likely to publish information in their journals that suited or favored their particular POV. The only way to be neutral in knowledge is to include all sources of information, rather than favor one source to the complete exclusion of all others. Also all statements made on topic pages must be from verifiable sources. However, some MEDRS sources, such as some research journals, are only accessible to fee paying members, which seriously violates the fundamental Wikipedia principles that all discussions should be open and accountable. That situation allows certain privileged groups of individuals to talk about the public, instead of with the public, so Wikipedia needs to change it’s core principles, or ban references and links to those journals, or require them to make the information freely available.

Here are some exracts from Wikipedia guideline WP:ELNO: External Links, which includes a list of the types of sites that are to be avoided . . . “6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation 7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country” see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&diff=295621329&oldid=295352952#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia criticism; “Other critics allege that NPOV privileges “mainstream points of view” and imagines that they are neutral, when often mainstream points of view legitimize existing power relations” here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view_and_conflicts_of_interest

Neutrality Destruction: This is where a person adds useful information from verifiable sources that brings neutrality to a biased article, and the editor deletes it on the grounds of POV/Pushing so that the only information that remains in Wikipedia is the original biased version.

Eraser spin:The deletion of sections which discredit an editors POV or that show their own culpability in violating policies, and arguing that they did it because of faults in the contributor or the content.

Policy Weasel. An experienced editor who lies about policy, and who misrepresents it in devious ways to mislead or block a new contributor. For example, by falsely arguing that an old reference is not reliable according to MEDRS policy because it is out-of-date, when in fact, it is appropriate in history sections for OBVIOUS reasons.

Sacred Monkey: An editor who has violated all of the policies and principles, and ignored all the rules of Wikipedia, but is still being defended and protected by the other editors.

The Real Trolls. In Wikipedia a troll is an annoying pest who edits anonymously with slab deletions, or, is ill-mannered and bothersome, so they are eventually banned for being disruptive. However, experienced editors would have seen that pattern of behavior and the consequences, and could easily turn it around to suit their own purposes. For example if they didn’t like the content being added they could criticise the new contributor in a deliberately annoying and systematic manner, such as nagging, nitpicking, and finding fault with everything they added until that person lost their cool, and said colloquially ‘OK, I’ve had enough of your garbage – get stuffed’. The experienced editor would then use the response as evidence of rudeness and disrespect and have them banned for violation of AGF (the policy that says you should assume good faith in the editor who was ‘nitpicking’), or for violating WP:CIVIL (the policy that says you should be polite at all times, even through a hellstorm of criticism), and for disruptive editing. However people like myself have had a lot of experience in dealing with controversy and have seen that tactic more often than most people have had hot dinners, and it is ‘obvious’, and easy to identify, and has become tedious and fails to affect me. In those situations the most ‘obvious’, blatant, and serious trolling occurs when THE REAL TROLL shows their TRUE COLORS by METHODICALLY encouraging other editors to BREAK ALL THE RULES to get me banned.

Machine Gun Editing: This is where an experienced editor who knows more than 100 policies and does up to 300 edits a day can set up a page which makes dozens of accusations about policy violations, and provides multiple paragraphs of argument per day to get a new contributor banned as quickly as possible, when they know that the contributor is only familiar with a small number of policies and practices, and prefers to contribute once per week. Also called All guns ablazing, or Blitz Krieg editing.

Dodging Machine Gun Bullets: Responding to critics who tells lies, breaks all the rules, deletes verifiable information, and relentlessly criticises everything. e.g. responding to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880 Also Bullet Net, used to routinely catch the bullets and dispose of them one at a time.

Critical Fallacy: The fundamentally flawed process of an editor finding fault with every contribution and every action made by a contributor in order to discredit them. The critic clearly exposes their extreme bias because no contributor could be wrong about everything they wrote, especially where many other editors supported them sufficiently for them to be in Wikipedia for 12 months. Also, where the editor is clearly trying their hardest to find faults it is called Indiscriminate Fault Hunting e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880

Putting the carriages before the train: This is similar to putting the cart before the horse, but involves a whole series of events. e.g. where a person is told that they must comply with Wikipedia policies in order to add content to Wikipedia. When they add one item they are told it is not compliant with policy A, so they add one that does comply and are then told that it violates policy B etc. After complying with policy requests 12 times they are described as having a history of 12 policy violations. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

The string-along: This is similar to the wild goose chase, and is related to the Wikipedia concept of Policy Creep. It generally involves being strung along with a false promise that if the person does a series of things they will be given something in return. In Wikipedia it involves telling the new contributor that they must comply with policy in order to add content. When the contributor adds one item they are told that it is not compliant with policy A, so they add one that does comply, and then they are told that it violates policy B etc. After complying with policy requests for 12 months the editors use WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules) to ban the contributor – i.e. all policies mean nothing.

The Nonsensification of sense: My critics were arrogantly trying to convince the readers that my theory and research were nonsense, however Here is a very basic summary of my Posture Theory – Poor posture causes a lot of aches and pains, for example back ache, so improving posture relieves that pain. Similarly poor posture compresses the ribs to cause tenderness in the muscles between them, and that ultimately results in occasional chest pains etc. so improving posture relieves the chest pains. The theory also proposes that the fatigue is due to postural pressure on the air in the chest which reduces blood flow from the feet to the brain, and that such repeated pressures have a long term effects on circulation. Therefore improving posture reduces the frequency and severity of the pains, and the fatigue. There are various similar suggestions included in the theory, and I have never said that poor posture is the only possible cause of the symptoms, or that it is a cure. In fact, I called it a theory because it is an idea to be evaluated, and my book is 1000 pages of the evidence to support it. Here is a summary of my research – I suggested that some people who experienced abnormal fatigue, and symptoms related to exertion, may have had a chronic physical impairment, and that if the patients were asked to train within their own limits, they would gradually improve their fitness to whatever upper limit they had. Many researchers had previously been arguing that the fatigue was due to laziness, lack of exercise, or a fear of exercise, and that the patients refused to exercise because they were fond of illness and didn’t want to get better. The fact that 80 people volunteered for the course, and 12 completed 3 months of fitness training, and several of them improved, was evidence that my suggestion was correct, and it definitely, and convincingly proved that those volunteers were not lazy, afraid of exercise, fond of illness, or unwilling to regain their former health.

Most people agree with me that those ideas are perfectly reasonable and logical but my critics try to portray them as being ridiculous by taking my words out of context. For example here is WhatamIdoing’s offensive attempt to oversimplify and ridicule my theory by summarising it as meaning . . . “standing up straight cures disease” here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#Personal_attacks . . . and here is WhatamIdoing’s comments about my research . . . “you can’t fix nerves by lifting weights” etc. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Fit_the_second . . . it is just another one of WhatamIdoing’s deceitful straw man arguments because I didn’t say that you could fix nerves, and weight lifting was not a part of the fitness programme.

Note that I spent five years trying to determine the cause of the symptoms but, like most good ideas, they can be easily simplified in five minutes. It is obvious that WhatamIdoing is deliberately misrepresenting my theory and the fitness research.

The Straw Man Arguments: This is where my critics can’t argue against the facts that I provide, so they deliberately misrepresent my words to create a false impression that my side of the argument was wrong. For example, when I said that Da Costa’s syndrome was an old label for a condition that had some of the symptoms that were seen in the modern definition of chronic fatigue syndrome, they argued that I was wrong for trying to PROVE that they were the SAME. i.e. my statement was correct, so there was nothing to criticise, so WhatamIdoing twisted the words around to invent the illusion that I was wrong. WhatamIdoing then started pontificating like a sanctimonious editor who had a justifiable reason to complain about my contributions. This type of argument is defined with these words from Webster’s dictionary – “Present your opponent’s argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you’ve refuted the original” here http://www.Webster’s-online-dictionary.org/definition/straw+man. See also here.

Other examples are where they interfered with my attempts to complete the history of Da Costa’s syndrome, and, then argued that I was deliberately avoiding modern references because they made the old ones obsolete. Also, I referred to some scientific facts from a 1951 text book, and they argued that the text book was old, therefore the independently verifiable, peer reviewed scientific facts were out-of-date. Also where I added 60 references, they focused a disproportionate amount of criticism on one by a medical consumer that wasn’t from a medical journal, and used it to argue that all of the others were unreliable.

The Straw Theory: This is an altered and weakened version of a theory created by a critic so that it can be proven wrong so the readers think that the original theory is wrong. For example, it has often been reported that the typical Da Costa’s syndrome patient had a thin and stooped physique, and a long narrow chest, and the posture theory explains why that “typical” physique would dispose to the symptoms of chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness and fatigue, which is perfectly logical. However my critics are trying to create the illusion that I am trying to prove that poor posture causes all cases of Da Costa’s syndrome, and all modern types of chronic fatigue syndrome, so that the existance of patients who do not have that physique, will make it look wrong. Also called a Shadow Theory; re shadow boxing; there is no real opponent capable of hitting back.

(If you read my article for Wikipedia you will see that I have referred to different causes, types, and combinations, and J.M.Da Costa reported simliarly how long marches AND poor food AND fevers in combination was more likely to produce chronic breathlessness and fatigue etc, AND that tight waist straps contributed to it. I have also made comments on many theories, where they all have contradictions, but I have not said they were all wrong.)

Filling the silo with corn: My two critics have contributed more than 20,000 edits between them in four years and have established the perception of ‘value’ to Wikipedia, and a position to reward or punish other less experienced editors. Hence other editors would want to co-operate with them to curry favor, and would be reluctant to criticise them for fear of hostile and relentless repercussions that would result in the blocking of their advancement in Wikipedeia, or their banning. The other editors would therefore tend to support them against any new contributor regardless of the merits of the situation.

Making Defense Impossible: My two critics frequently responded to my contributions with indiscriminate criticism, in a manner that would generally be called arrogant, ill-mannered and disrespectful. However, according to Wikipedia discussion policy all editors are supposed to be courteous to all other editors at all times, regardless of their conduct, and regardless of whether they agree with them or not. My critics obviously ignore that policy when it relates to their own conduct, but use it when I criticise them. Hence they say that I am violating WP:Civil, and also, WP:TE (tendencious editing), and WP:DE (disruptive editing), and of course WP:AGF which requires me to Assume Good Faith in their decisions. i.e. They deliberately interpret policy to allow them to criticise me, and block me from criticising them, which achieves their objective of making their attacks possible, and my defense impossible. Also called AGF trickery.

See also the discussion about the novel Soldier’s Heart which WhatamIdoing moved to the top of the DCS page. When I read it and found it to be irrelevant Gordonofcartoon argued that it was a violation of Original Research policy to read it and discuss it. i.e. at 00.07 on 30-6-08 Gordonofcartoon accused me of violating “WP:NOR, a core policy” here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F

WP:V: Verifiablity practices in Wikipedia where the experienced editors argue that everyone should asssume good faith that everything they say can be verified without them having to provide independent verification, even for statements that are obviously wrong, and where new contribtors have to prove independent verification for every word they write even if it is obvious to a five year old child see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880

WP:OR: In wikipedia, as it is actually practiced, if an editor provides a link to a childrens fiction novel for a medical topic and a new contributor reads it and finds that it is irrelevent to the topic he can’t say so because readng someone else’s reference is a violation o WP:OR (you are not allowed to do oringinal research). see at 00:07 on 30-6-08 here 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 (I assume that my critics were able to link to the childrens fiction novel because they didnt bother to read it, so they can’t be accused of violating WP:OR. re; If they didn’t do ANY research – they can’t be doing ORIGINAL research – just violating common sense).

WP:Consensus: In the practical sense in Wikipedia consensus is the illusion that everyone can participate in decision making processes where verifiable facts and evdenced determine content (in the colloquial sense it is an opinion reached by the process of collective evaluation and agreement – in reality it is often the result of many individuals caving into the pressure exerted by the most arrogant or dominant members of the group, where lies and nonsense are tolerated in order to keep the peace)

WP:NPOV: The illusion that all of the verifiable information that is provided to Wikipedia will be taken into account and represented when determining content.

Sly mail: Any form of communication between the editors of Wikipedia that is not open and accountable on the discussion pages for all to see, such as secret emails sent to their friends to recruit them into an edit war. Also any coded messages or hints, or links to single letters or words, or remarks in the edit notes of the edit history, which have been put there with the expectation that the general reader, or new contributor won’t notice.

Sly Creep: Any linking of an article to a single word or phrase that links to pages of information aimed at intensifying the impression left with the reader, where the reader is not meant to notice the affect on them. For example to say that Da Costa’s syndrome has been regarded by some studies as an anxiety disorder is reasonable in the proper context, but to link it to a page of text that lists 100 psychiatric labels with Da Costa’s syndrome as one word somewhere in the middle is exaggerating the relevance beyond what is relevant.

Reverse Spin: This is where new reliable information has been added to the topic to bring neutral point of view, and the information is deleted to return the page to it’s previous bias.

Snake Venom: Any form of foul language used by an angry editor, who doesn’t have enough experience to remain composed in an intellectual dispute.

Policy Tripe: The use of policy for purposes other than those intended by Wikipedia, such as to disrupt or block content.

Censorship of Sources: The deletion of reliable and independently verifiable sources of information, for the purposes of rigging the article with false impressions by favoring the deleting editors sources also called Reliable Source Rigging WP:RS:R

UkneelMePush: This is a situation where two editors act as a tag team and one gives their opinion, and the other uses policy reasons to stop anyone else from challenging it. This is similar to the stunt where one person kneels behind someone, and the other pushes them backwards. e.g. When WhatamIdoing moved a link to a book up to the top of the Da Costa’s syndrome page, I read it and found that it was an irrelevant children’s fiction novel, I suggested that it shouldn’t be used, but then Gordonofcartoon gave this reply . . . “You didn’t make valid suggestions. You made an argument based on a) your own analysis of a book (a classic example of the “unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position” that’s mentioned mentioned right up front at WP:NOR, a core policy) and b) on your continuing mistaken belief that a hatnote is a reference. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Wikipedia.3B_A_Democratically_Compiled_On-line_Publication.3F.3F.3F

Note that it was WhatamIdoing who actually used the book to advance their position and promote their arguments. All I did was read it and find that it was irrelevent, and recommend that it should not be used, which is what I am supposed to do to ensure that the informaion in Wikipedia is reliable.

Critics Bullivard: This is a one-way street situation where my two critics try to justify their criticisms of me, and self-righteously object to me criticising them.

Peer Pressurisation: This is where influential editors who tell lies and break the rules put pressure on other editors to condone their actions, and those editors then become implicated in the deceit and keep adding to the pressure and the recruiting of others until the whole group is infested and controlled by rule breaking principles. Also called Institutional Implosion of ethics or the Accumulative Lowering of Standards.

Yellow Pride: The fear that many people have of admitting they are wrong even when the evidence is provided and they make no attempt to deny it.

Theatrical Critic: This is someone who criticises what others do, but can’t actually do it themselves – like a theatre critic who can’t act.

Show Pony: This is an editor who prances about in Wikipedia pretending to know everything that someone else doesn’t. For example, WhatamIdoing has been to great lengths to convince other editors that I don’t understand the simple and obvious fact that Da Costa was describing many different conditions. I have provided information and explanations for the differences because it is OBVIOUS to the point of being tedious, but whatamIdoing has been presenting a variation of the same information as if it is a great revelation. e.g. This is the four lines of text that WhatamIdoing contributed to before I started here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=165216444&oldid=151708868 and this is some of the text that I provided http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266514750&oldid=266506092#The_relevance_to_modern_labelling_terminology_between_2000-2008 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266514750&oldid=266506092#Alternative_names_for_Da_Costa.E2.80.99s_syndrome and this is the sort of criticism I have had to put up with from WhatamIdoing e.g here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

The Sewn Assumption: this is where an editor will be critical of the contributor before anything has been done. For example WhatamIdoing fabricated the idea that I was deliberately avoiding modern references because they disproved the information that I had provided from the mid twentieth-century. However it was perfectly obvious that I was progressively adding reviews from history, and would have obviously included modern references in the process of time. It is also OBVIOUS that WhatamIdoing had the opportunity to add the modern information but deliberately didn’t, in order to intensify the illusion that I was avoiding it. Note that my actual intentions were to leave that section for any other editor to do, so that I could then discuss the changes in terminology with them, and if nobody did that I intended to do it myself. Ultimately I did have to do it myself on the sub page. c.f sewing the seeds of thought. e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#The_Physical_and_Physiological_Evidence_for_the_Symptoms and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing and see my references here

Fools History: This is usually a version of history that has been written in the past two or three years which suits modern prejudices etc. It generally falsifies real history which should be based on the actual evidence from the past. Also history should be based on the study of multiple versions of history from original sources, not on modern views published in one source. My critics want the other editors and readers to believe that their choice of sources are the best and that all of mine are wrong.

Fools Paradise: A place where an experienced editor who isn’t capable of winning content arguements against a new contributor, bans the new contributor,so that they don’t have anyone to challenge their opinions.

Dummy Editors: These are editors who invite you to discuss topics on talk pages, but they never actually discuss anything because they are too busy dictating orders on content. re: like a ventriloquists dummy – their lips move but nothing is actually coming out of their mouths. re: “all talk and no action” or “one-way street talk”. They want to do all the talking and all you are supposed to do is listen – the discussion is just for show.

Patronising Prattle: The tone of an editor who gives advice to adult contributors, in the manner of a school teacher admonishing a child, in order to create the illusion of superiority – as distinct from giving advice properly.

Scareeee Chickens: This is where the editors use childish methods in their attempt to scare away adult contributors. e.g they threaten to “nuke” them, or assault them with metaphorical 2X4 blocks of wood, or dress up as the wicked witch of the west, or attack them with a cavalry of flame throwing pixies and out of date, obsolete goblins e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing

Cesspit Diving: The practice of lowering yourself to other people’s level to deal with them. also called Gutter tripping.

Jargon File: This is an endless list of esoteric terminology that a poor editor uses to confuse readers when they lack the vocabulary skills or logical capacity needed to win an argument in plain English.

PsychoDrivel: This is the use of psychiatric terminology for purposes other than diagnosis, to insult, ridicule, discredit, or prejudice etc. (for ad hominem)

The NPA trick: This is where my two critics take every opportunity to use policies as an excuse for attacking me personally, and when I describe their tactics they accuse me of violating WP:NPA, (no personal attacks)

Semmelweis Reflex: Semmelweis developed the world’s first successfully applied germ theory but it threatened the status of the local medical establishment, so they rejected his ideas. Any group of individuals will tend to reject anyone or any idea that brings doubt on their own.

Island in the false sun: This is a situation where Wikipedia contains so much information that is so easy to access that no-one bothers to look elsewhere, because they think that it contains everything needed basking in the sun, when in fact it could become just a desert of monochromic sand.

All for one, and One for all in a ship of pirates: The policies of Wikipedia can be used for two purposes. Firstly for their initial and openly expressed purpose of producing a good and accurate encyclopedia, and secondly for the devious and covert purpose of controlling contributors and content. If I can identify that, then so can other editors, and they could continually adjust, amend and manipulate the policies to suit the second purpose. e.g. by ensuring that there are sub-clauses, ambiguities, and outs for themselves etc. There would be many editors who like things that way, and therefore many of them would not like someone like me describing their tactics. If that was so, then it would be possible for my two critics to recruit others to get me banned, and the descriptions of the tactics deleted, and they would all be willing to argue that I was being disruptive, and that they were all as innocent as new born lambs, and that the deletion was justified for proper reasons i.e. they could argue that all of their friends who had the same bias and objective were giving an NPOV based consensus. Nevertheless it would still be false NPOV and a false consensus.

Filling the sea with blood: In order to catch a fish on one hook the fisherman will first throw some blood in the water to attract a lot of fish to the general area to make a catch more likely. This is similar to an editor who tries to get a new contributor into a larger argument, such as an argument with Wikipedia, so that other editors, in the process of defending Wikipedia, will attack the new contributor in larger numbers. This is not just a case of the editors going to other editors for an opinion, but a case of getting those other editors prejudiced and hostile toward the contributor first. Also called burleying.

Pixie Troll: An editor of Wikipedia who pretends to be rule-abiding while breaking the rules. Compare with Wolf in Sheeps Clothing.

The Fussy rule writing Rule Breakers: An editor who devises minute details in policies that others are expected to follow, and who themselves use, or encourage or reward their friends to use WP:IAR policy to Ignore All Rules e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=294266374 and see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661

The Merciless Guideline: the Wikipedia guideling that advises new contributors not to enter Wikipedia unless they are prepared to deal with merciless editing.

Snowflake: An editor who thinks that they can win an argument with every new contributor who comes into Wikipedia. re: no more chance than a snowflake passing through a blast furnace.

Overinflated Blowfish: People who use jargon in a pompous and inapproriate manner as part of an ad hominem tactic against individuals who can translate it into simple English.

Red Flag: An arrogant editor who insults, tries to intimidate, and challenges the verifiable information of a new contributor, while having serious flaws in their own arguments. re; a waving a red flag at a bull. The following words come from one of many Wikipedia vocabulary pages (there may be thousands of such examples – Wikipedia:Don’t poke the bear – “Bears are lovely creatures that often hibernate and are, for the most part, non-violent. However, when poked, bears can become quite angry. As such, it’s always best to not poke the bear. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_poke_the_bear&diff=296823119&oldid=296821638

Hibernation: A recurring form of chronic fatigue syndrome seen in bears and other animals, which occurs in relation to changes in metabolism each winter.

Negatively Flawed Editing: A flawed and implausible method of editing where the editor tries to discredit a contributor by never commenting on any of the persons constructive and policy compliant contributions, and is always finding fault with every contribution, and ever aspect of the contributor.

Cheats Excuse: An editor who lies, cheats, and breaks the rules to win against a contributor, and then uses the excuse that they couldn’t win without cheating.

Cheats Bluff: An editor who lies, cheats, and breaks the rules to win, and carries on regardless, as if there will never be any consequences.

Ignore, Ignore, Ignore: The editors response to justified, verifiable, and proven criticism.

Justifying the Unjustifiable: My two critics spent 12 months arguing that I was supposedly violating almost every rule in Wikipedia, and that such action could get me banned. One of them ultimately rewarded an administrator for breaking the rules in order to ban me, and then presented him with a thankyou note and an award for doing so, and that links to a Wikipedia page with the following words . . . “By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist . . . They’re more what you’d call guidelines, than actual rules” here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na/Outlaw_Halo . . . see the thankyou note here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661

However, not everyone subscribes to that idea. For example, in the Olympics, an athlete who breaks the rules is called a cheat, and has to return their undeserved medal, and is banned. They also lose their status as a role model.

 Wikipedia the up-front Page on criticism of itself

When I started receiving comments from other editors on my UserTalk page it soon became obvious that it was all instigated by my two critics so it was starting to look as if everyone was objecting to everything I wrote. I therefore wrote an account of their tactics so that anyone reading the page for the first time would see what was happening in the proper context. That section, and that whole page, has since been deleted on the grounds that it contains personal attacks on them?????? Now no-one can see what is on that page, so there is no way that I can defend myself from lies about it’s content from inside Wikipedia. To make things worse there was a suggestion that the editors should add a summary to explain the deletion. That would of course be something like this . . . the page has been deleted because of Posturewriter’s disruptive content. Conveniently, all readers would have to believe that nonsense because no-one could check to see it for themselves.

The argument has been that I am making personal attacks on my two critics, when the fact is, I was just using a method of defending myself re; defensive people look submissive and wrong, and of course “attack is the best form of defense” despite what my critics want people to believe, that all new contributors should assume good faith and blind obedience to the editors who break all there own rules and who use edit war tactics????

Needless to say Wikipedia does exactly the same thing by having it’s own page devoted to Wikipedia criticism. They present their own response to give their side of the story before anyone reads anything written by outsiders.

I note also that the editors seem to have the knowledge, skills, and ability to manipulate search engine rankings, where their own page criticising themselves comes up as number one and two on the major search engines, and where they appear to have the ability to get some criticism removed removed or pushed out of the first page down the list to an obscure location.

If the editors of Wikipedia are going to be consistent they should replace my defenses against criticism, or delete their own page on Wikipedia criticism, and let outsiders do all the criticism while they remain submissively, and obediently silent??? Since they are unlikely to refrain from defending themselves they should put my defense back.