Criticism Of Wikipedia

Criticism of two of Wikipedia’s editors ©

Why the criticism is necessary The public needs to know who is in control of World Knowledge and Why. My comments are specifically about two of the editors.

The ‘ignore all rules’ policy gives Wikipedia the feature of ‘survival of the cheats’ instead of ‘survival of the best’, and the policy which states that ‘the truth doesn’t matter’, gives some of the editors an excuse for deleting anything they want, any time they want. See my reports here and here.

I invite high school and university students, and other clubs and public speaker organisations to debate the issues discussed on this webpage, and to discuss them by email and on twitter. See also this article which was started on 2-1-12 here, and you should find this article very interesting here, and their attitude towards new contributors and how they treat people who disagree with them. They call them Lusers, bastards, jerks, little shits, and prey. e.g. here. See also here.

They also called them immature, and said that their contributions were worthless cruft (rubbish), that Wikipedia administrators were incompetent, that doctors gave sloppy diagnoses, and that articles in top quality medical journals were garbage.

If you want to know how and why my two critics deleted scientifically proven facts, and replaced them with their opinions you can get some analogous ideas by reading “The Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. See here and also here and here

‘Normal’ processes of transparency should apply in Wikipedia

I recommend that Wikipedia requires the standard of ‘transparency‘ in all major disputes such as Arbitration cases, and that they condemn the actions of editors who sneak around like slimy ‘edit warring’ rattlesnakes to plot and scheme ways of subverting the ‘normal processes‘. They should also ensure that there is sufficient time for both sides of the story to be presented, particularly allowing for responses to false ‘accusations’, and that they should not allow grandstanding individuals to barge in on disputes and subvert the ‘proper process‘ of ‘consensus‘. See my report here.

One of the many problems to be solved

I seem to have difficulty convincing people that my two critics are blatant and disgusting liars.

The problem would be due to the fact that most people are not familiar with the topic that I was editing. Hence, for example, they would not know if my main critic was telling lies about Sir James MacKenzie or not.

I will therefore try to explain it with a comparison.

When my main critic described Sir James MacKenzie as an ordinary man who just walked in off the street, joined a society, and attended an ordinary meeting in 1916, it is the equivalent of describing Ludwig van Beethoven and a deaf and dumb hillbilly who scribbled on bits of paper, and played the piano in a backwater village. See here, and my report here

Mid term assignment for high school students: Write an essay about “Double Standards” and post it onto Wikipedia to be used as a new policy. Address the issue of courtesy being required by all editors, and that new contributors do not have to be polite in situations where other editors are using “attitude readjustment tools”, edit war jargon, ‘strategic rudeness’, and double talk in the form of humorously slapping people in the face with wet trouts etc. i.e. good manners for all, or good manners for none. No Personal Attacks on anyone, or make it an all in defamation festival.

Assignment 2: Make a list and count the number of lies that my main critic told about Sir James MacKenzie. The evidence is provided here.

Assignment 3: Make a list and count the number of lies that the same editor has made in the examples linked to this index here. After completing that task comment on whether that individual is trustworthy or not, and, if the administrators do not permanently ban them, would you believe anything at all that your read in Wikipedia? i.e. is it a reliable sources of information?

Two questions for Wikipedia Administrators: What can be done to address the imbalance between rule-abiding new contributors, and experienced, sly, corrupt, edit warring editors. e.g. see here

Also what do you do about individuals who do hundreds of routine edits to establish the illusion of ‘usefulness’, while they are just “lurking” over their ‘watchlists’ of up to 2000 articles, so that they can delete any good information which they don’t want the public to see??? (Their “obvious” real objective is “content control”) See here and here

The secret edit war methods used in Wikipedia, which the public are NOT told about.

I have met some people who won’t criticise Wikipedia for fear of retaliation against their biographies and reputations by the anonymous editors, and their friends or associates. Maybe that is an ‘unsolvable problem’.

My main critic introduced the concept of ‘strategic rudeness‘ to Wikipedia with the suggestion that it was a method used by ‘intelligent’ people to achieve power over others. I therefore recommend that other editors use it as their way of driving that individual out of Wikipedia,

You can also hound and harass her with the same type of “attitude readjustment tools” that she used against me.

She also told me that ‘she didn’t write the rules’, but had to obey them just like me and everyone else, but after 12 months of hostile arguments she arranged for me to be banned at the last minute by suddenly ‘ambushing‘ me with the ‘ignore all rules‘ policy. I suggest that other editors ban her exactly the same way.

She also contributed to the page called “The Last Word“, and after getting the decision to ban me, she thinks she has won. I suggest that she be given the same message on her way out.

In Wikipedia the highly experienced TROLL MAKERS can disguise their misbehaviour, and the honest editors who react “normally” to such systematic harassment get banned??

What to do about the tactics used by my two critics

My two critics used innumerable and rather childish tactics to block and ban me. One of their early methods was to use LART tools as part of their organised edit war which they were conducting ‘behind my back’. Another one was to use ‘strategic rudeness’ to defame and discredit me. Eventually, when all of their stunts failed, they ambushed me by abusing the “ignore all rules” policy.

They took advantage of the fact that I joined Wikipedia as a genuine person who didn’t expect to find that sort of conniving.

I therefore suggest to anyone, inside or outside of Wikipedia, who doesn’t like their methods, or the way they treat new contributors, that those two individuals have many strategic weaknesses, but I will suggest three of the main ones.

Firstly, they are both pathological conformers.

Secondly, neither of them could win a dispute against me without telling lies, so they will continue to tell lies in future disputes.

Thirdly, neither of them could win their disputes against me by staying within the rules, so they will continue to ‘ignore the rules’ and ‘break the rules’ in the future.

I am a creative person, and suggest, to other creative individuals, that you devise your own methods to exploit their weaknesses and counteract their tactics.

Thank you, and Good luck.

Watch out for the trolls

Trolls are unethical editors who break Wikipedia’s rules about good manners by using “attitude readjustment tools” to annoy and harass new contributors to incite and inflame them into a hostile reaction.

Their objective is to make administrators believe that the new contributor is the cause of the trouble who needs to be banned. See also here and here and here, and my report about The Trollsy Twins here, and their Wicked Witch of the West tactics here, and a website which describes trolling as a type of mental illness here.

Any editor who deliberately uses Lart tools to invite other editors into behaving like trolls, and to provoke respectable individuals into becoming trolls, should be branded as a Super troll. Behaving in that manner to put others into a position where they have no choice but to lower themselves to the same grubby level of gutter tactics is inexcusable, but my main critic is very good at making plausible excuses for her own inexcusable behaviour.

Watch out for ‘extreme’ double standards in the rules

According to the rules of Wikipedia, all editors are required to treat each other with courtesy and respect, even during heated arguments, and they should avoid profane and offensive language here.

There is also a rule which advises the editors to comment on the topic only, and not the person here.

However, my main critic always treated the rules as if they applied to everyone else except herself.

If Wikipedia wants the public to take their rules seriously they should have a “zero tolerance policy” for editors who use “attitude readjustment tools” and enforce it with immediate and permanent bans.

See my report on their bad manners here, and how they made me their target here, their personal attacks against me here, and here, and their straw man strategy here, and their manufactured bandwagon tactics here, and here, and the complaint about the failure of their own ‘attitude readjustment tools here.

Be prepared

I am very good at arguing because I base all of my strategy on facts and evidence. However, while I was in Wikipedia I always had one editor who put me on a watchlist and hounded and harassed me for 12 months. In fact she has been described as having a history of joining personal attacks on other editors.

That individual is childish, and has no strength of character, and hides behind an anonymous ID, and takes no “real” responsibility for her actions. She has the honesty of a fork-tongued rattlesnake, the manners of a troll, and knew the language of edit wars. She also faked consensus, and used the tactic involved in Gaming the system“, and “Wikilawyering, and used “straw man” arguments, and “setting up to fail” tactics, and had “The Last Word”. See more here.

When I criticised her for doing something silly she would argue that my criticism of her was stupid, and when I won an argument she would tell other editors that I lost. She would accuse me of breaking every rule in Wikipedia, while encouraging her friends to ignore the rules, and she rewarded another editor for using the “Ignore all rules policy” to get me banned. You can see my reports on some of her personal attacks against me here. See also my report in the way she cheats here.

If you join Wikipedia and have the displeasure of dealing with that unethical and thoroughly disgusting person I suggest that you immediately prepare yourself by learning all of those tactics, and develop counter measures to neutralise the false advantages. i.e. Use her own methods against her. (See here, and The Golden Rule again here). Good luck!!!

jjij

(Note My main critic used the language and tactics of Trolls and flamers to provoke other editors into becoming trolls, and then argue that they should be banned for being unprovoked trolls. e.g. She would waste my time by asking me deliberately stupid questions, and by asking me to prove the obvious. One of the most obvious methods used by trolls is ‘attitude readjustment tools‘ which she told other editots that she had used against me, but failed here. A good definition of trolls and flamers can be seen here).

Are you prepared to be slapped in the face with a wet trout and hit over the head with a 2×4 block of wood for the fun of it???

There is an essay in Wikipedia called WP:TROUT, which is also described as WP:WHACK! and WP:EPICFAIL, which has a window at the top that contains the words . . . “This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.”

It refers to treating other editors by metaphorically slapping them in the face with a wet trout, in order to make them take the ‘clue’ or ‘get the hint’, or obey the orders. It also suggests slapping ‘new contributors’ in the face with a ‘minnow’ for the same reason. It is related to the word clue, which refers to a ‘clue stick‘ which is a metaphorical 2×4 block of wood that is used to hit an opponent over the head to make them obey you.

However, there is a policy which states very clearly that all editors should always treat all contributors, including new ones, with courtesy and respect at all times, (WP:Civil) .

My main critic is arrogant, and doesn’t give a dam about policy, and has that attitude, and treats new people, and admins with that sort of contempt regularly. e.g. see here.

She treated me that way for 12 months while I was sensibly complying with the ‘civility’ policy by maintaining good manners, despite her extremely offensive remarks about my contributions being worthless nonsense.

I eventually responded equally, in a quid pro quo manner, by telling her to stop acting like an ape who was beating her chest as she swung through the wiki trees.

Naturally, she didn’t tell anyone else that she had been metaphorically ‘slapping me in the face with a wet trout’ for 12 months, but acted with furious and hostile indignation, to convince the other editors that i was an impolite editor who had made an extremely offensive remark about her which was unprovoked.

However, if I was to respond in an equal manner, I would tell her that she deserved to be slapped in the face and have her mouth washed out with soap. Of course, she wouldn’t see that as humorous, and neither would anyone else, but she would continue to insult me and use the trout essay as her excuse.

World domination of information

According to a 5AA radio report on 15-3-12, Encyclopedia Britannica has announced that it will stop making it’s printed edition, but still continue it’s digital version. The only sources of such information now are it’s digital version, Google, and Wikipedia. The listeners were told that Wikipedia was used because it was ‘convenient‘, but the public should be skeptical of everything they read from such sources, and students should be taught how to evaluate the reliability of internet information.

In my experience the information in Wikipedia is controlled by anonymous and biased individuals who will determine what the public get to read, and what will be deleted. Some of those individuals will be the agents of large organisations, and they work in coordinated, or loosely organised gangs and affiliations to run edit wars, where the winners determine what the public will, or will not be able to see. Their anonymous identities, their ability to write, and include loopholes in the rules, and the ‘ignore all rules‘ policy, make it relatively easy for them to control information. e.g. See here

Please make up your mind before reading any further

Before you read any of my webpages I would like you to consider the fact that I am an ordinary, friendly, and generally polite person, just like you, who joined Wikipedia to add useful information which can be easily verified by anyone who goes to the trouble of reading the links and references which I provided. However, I had two critics who want you to believe that I am a worthless, non-notable, uneducated, ignorant, disposable, fringy kook whose suggestions are stupid or strange rubbish, and whose ideas are nonsense, and who has difficulty co-operating with others, and is disruptive to good intentions, and has the personality of a big ugly hairy monster called a troll, which lives under bridges and in caves, and only comes out at night to make a pest of itself. When you have made up your mind please proceed. Thank you.

Who are the anonymous editors

From what I can determine there are two types of editors. The first are those who joined with the genuine objective of adding to the sum of all knowledge.

The second are propagandists who joined up to add loopholes into every rule so that they could use them as excuses to delete the type of information which they don’t want the public to see.

They regard the ordinary members of the public as if they are just sheep and cattle who will believe what they read without bothering to check the facts for themselves. See here.

People who are interested in propaganda techniques should study the behaviour of my two critics very closely. Unfortunately other propagandists probably will, and the general public probably won’t, and yet, ironically, it is they who need to know how and why they are being fooled. See also here and here.

Also see how they created confusion by being anonymous (by using Wikipedia ID’s, but not their own), and then, how anonymous internet adresses were added to the confusion by themselves, or their friends here.

The are extremely sly, devious and thoroughly disgusting and treacherous manipulators of knowledge and people.

A conflict of interest? – not co-operating with the aims of Wikipedia???

When I was about 40 years old I had a blood test, followed by a CAT scan, a bone marrow biopsy, and surgery to remove a small lymph gland to be inspected by microscope, and was then told by a medical specialist that every part of my body was riddled with cancer, and that I had a life expectancy of two months with no hope of a cure. At that time it didn’t bother me because I had many other illnesses in the past, and as far as I was concerned it was just another one being added to a long list.

However, I also considered that I would not have long enough to study and cure the cancer, and there would be no point in earning money because I wouldn’t live long enough to spend it, so I decided to spend my remaining time compiling all of the information about posture and health which I could find from magazines, medical publications, and history, into one book.

I then managed to still be alive when the cancer was cured 8 years later by a stem cell transplant. In the meantime the book had reached a size of 1000 pages, and I had sold most of them to school and public libraries so that parents and teachers could read it for free and learn how to prevent the numerous and varied ailments in their children, which had caused me so many problems throughout my life.

A few years later I was told about a person called Jimmy Wales, who together with some friends had set up an internet encyclopedia with the objective of putting all of the information from all parts of the world, covering all topics, into one place, and providing it to the public for free.

However, it had a bad reputation of being compiled by a bunch of anonymous amateurs, vandals and propagandists, and school and university students were told by their teachers and professors that if they used it as a reference in any of their homework or exams they would get an automatic fail.

Nevertheless, occasionally some friends of mine suggested that I put my theory in it, so one day I joined up.

I soon found that the rules prohibited a person from writing about their own ideas, but then I received an email from a person who appreciated my book, and it’s usefulness to understanding their own health, and was willing to do it. However, a few weeks, or months later six anonymous editors entered a discussion in six hours, and said ‘delete, speedy delete, delete’, and within a week it was gone.

That did not particularly bother me, so I just started looking for other topics to add information to when I saw the article about Da Costa’s syndrome.

Almost immediately two offensively arrogant individuals started insulting me and put me on a watchlist, and began following me around and criticising everything I wrote, and making sure that it was all deleted. In the process they were telling lies about me, the rules, and the subject, and were insulting me and my motives.

Some months later an anonymous editor who had joined Wikipedia a year or two earlier when he, or she, was still a teenager at university, read their comments, and believed their nonsense without bothering to check the facts properly and wrote these words . . .

“I personally think that at this point in time, what Posturewriter has done is so disruptive that the Wikipedia community should not tolerate that. Therefore, I am going to propose a much harsher solution: ACB blocking of his account, perhaps hardblocking as well. Creating sockpuppet to try to get a point across is not a thing that a responsible editor should do. I have been dealing with sockpuppets for a year now, and I find them not only extremely disruptive, but it degrades Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. That is our mission: to create a reliable source for people around the world to come to for expanding knowledge. If we let this one go, what’s the message we are sending to other vandals? We cannot let it go, and we have to show EVERYONE that sockpuppetry will only bring forward their end on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am suggesting an indefinite, irreversible ban on Posturewriter, his accounts, and his IP addresses” Arbiteroftruth 04:12, 24 July 2008 (end of quote). See here.

The accusation of sockpuppetry had absolutely nothing to do with me mentioning my theory, but was related to a series of four slab deletions of the entire text on the page about Da Costa’s syndrome, where I had asked administrators to check to see if my two critics had done it under different anonymous identities, in order to evade blame.

e.g. See here, and my report here.

The ‘sly’ editors who ‘control’ information in Wikipedia

At one stage i entered a very brief discussion to defend myself when one of the editors disappeared immediately, never to be seen again until he barged in on an arbitration page and ignored the rule which required decisions to be made by a ‘consensus’ of many individuals. He banned me on his own, and told about a dozen other editors that he would argue with them if they challenged his action.

Several months later my main critic gave him a barnstar as a reward for ‘ignoring All the rules‘, and in her ‘typical’ ‘sly‘ way used an edit ‘trick’ to hide the fact that it was for banning me.

In the meantime i was told that I could appeal the decision and get back into Wikipedia, but only if I promised not to criticise the editors who banned me, and ‘assumed good faith‘, and treated them with courtesy and respect, and did what they told me to do.

I will let you draw your own conclusions about what I thought of that idea.

I would also like you to think about the personality of the editors who are still there and in control of the information that you and 7 billion other people get to read.

I can describe what is seriously wrong with that system, but I cannot make anyone inside or outside of Wikipedia fix the problem. See more here

Typical of the childish nonsense that I had to put up with

My main critic is an extremely immature adult who spent 12 months putting her own “childish” “spin” on everything by trying to convince other editors that she was a prim and proper person, and I was ignorant and stupid. For example, whenever her choice of references was questioned she would respond with indignation like this . . .

“Please explain why a report by Paul Wood, MD, FRCP, published in BMJ, is “unreliable.” On what grounds, exactly? Are you aware Paul Wood was a physician at the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart, in the Effort Syndrome Unit itself? Do you think he somehow held that position without knowing anything about the sole subject of the entire unit?” (end of quote) here.

However, whenever she was trying to “mock” my use of references she would write like this . . . “We don’t blather on about “In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa’s syndrome in the British Heart Journal…” This is an effort to tell the reader “You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He’s important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal.” Paul’s paper was a routine review paper. Proper style skips this sort of stuff and gets to the actual point.” here

You can also see by reading the same discussion that she tries to explain things to other adults by writing in a type of condescending baby talk.

You can also notice how my two critics reacted like spiteful sooks when, on 5-10-2008, a neutral editor told them that my article was “a lot better” than theirs.

Firstly, my main critic cut and pasted my essay onto her own subpage and subjected it to 80 ‘nitpicking’ criticisms. here.

Secondly, she launched into a month of lies and arguments against the neutral editor, from then until the 3rd of November, and then, when I found out about it, she continued her ridiculous arguments against me until the 11th January 2009. (in the same discussion here).

Thirdly, they started several other discussions to criticise me, and finally, one of them set up an arbitration page where the two of them ranted and raved with more lies and nonsense until they convinced one of the administrators that I was a ‘disruptive’ ‘troll’ who was interfering with their attempts to produce a good article? See here, and here.

A different take on the same issue

When I started adding to the topic of Da Costa’s syndrome I included some of my own research and ideas, but two arrogant editors deleted it on the grounds that I was a “non-notable” person, and in their personal opinion, my findings at a respected medical research institute were nonsense. They continued to criticise me as follows –

Step 1. They said that they appreciated my contributions from other authors, so I added more, and then they deleted them on the grounds that they were ‘rubbish’.

Step 2. They argued that I could only provide information from ‘top authorities‘ who were ‘experts on the subject’, who had ‘reviewed‘ the opinion of many ‘other people‘ in the general literature, and whose articles had been published in ‘top quality’, ‘independent’, ‘peer reviewed’, ‘medical journals’.

Step 3. I continued to add to some of my references which already met those standards, and they deleted them on the grounds that, in their opinion, they were ‘unreliable’, and didn’t even meet Wikipedia’s basic standards.

Step 4. They wrote the following words to a ‘neutral editor’,, which I quote again for this context . . .

“We don’t blather on about “In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa’s syndrome in the British Heart Journal…” This is an effort to tell the reader “You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He’s important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal.” Paul’s paper was a routine review paper. Proper style skips this sort of stuff and gets to the actual point.”(end of quote) here

As you can see I co-operated, and provided everything they wanted, which was a ‘review’ from a top quality Harvard professor, which had been published in a top quality, independent, peer reviewed medical journal, but they still invented ways of describing me as a stupid person who was doing everything wrong???

They were both liars who were deliberately defaming my character to discredit me. See more here and here.

See my report on their ‘straw man’ tactics here, See also here and here and here.

The article

If you was to read Wikipedia’s article about Da Costa’s syndrome which was written by my two critics, and is still there now, you would get the false impression that it was written by someone intelligent who knows what they are talking about, however that is only because it is steeped in jargon which sounds “educated”.

You would get the impression that the symptoms are caused by the fear of battle, or incidents of severe anxiety or exertion in the persons life where they panic, and puff and pant, get breathless, and their heart pounds, they feel faint and dizzy, and collapse with exhaustion from worry.

However, while something like that may or may not have happened in soldiers during battle, it is not the only way it happens in normal life. For example, it can affect children for no known reason, occur gradually, or follow a viral infection, and the chest pains usually only occur in the lower left side of the chest about once every few months. The breathlessness is better described as a type of abnormal sighing which may occur ten or a hundred times a day, while the person is reading a comic, or watching television, or is involved in equally banal activities. The faintness may or may not occur in any particular week, but when it does, it usually only occurs in the morning when the person gets out of bed and stands up for the first time that day. The dizziness may occur when the person squats down and leans forwards, or when they bend their head back to look up at high shelves. The fatigue takes two forms. Firstly the person has an abnormal pattern of sleep throughout the day and night, and secondly the symptoms do not necessarily occur while resting, or in light activity such as walking, but do occur out of proportion as the level of exercise increases, where, in some patients it is the only time that several of those symptoms occur together.

The treatment and history sections of the article which contain some of those aspects were written by me and copied by them, but they removed the features which distinguish the ailment from others, and they deleted most of the history.

Their version of the article is of inferior quality because it is full of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misleading statements and bias, and is not consistent with a proper or balanced assessment of the research literature.

The reasons for my criticism of two of Wikipedia’s anonymous editors

While I was involved in Wikipedia I had one main critic, and her constant assistant who were trying to get me banned on the grounds that I had written a theory and a book, and therefore had a ‘conflict of interest’ and was breaking the rules of ‘neutral point of view’ by pushing my own point of view.

They also wanted other editors to believe that I was criticising them because they were stopping me from “pushing” my own point of view.

However, I stopped mentioning my theory in January 2008, and had been discussing other ideas, and continued to do so, but those two anonymous individuals managed to get me banned a year later anyway.

I am still criticising them now because they were telling blatant lies about me, and my ideas, and the topic, and the references.

The fact that they are liars is easy to prove, verifiable, and readily available to anyone who wants to check the evidence. e.g. starting here.

See also, the report of John Seigenthaler who discusses how anonymous editors told lies about him, and how difficult it is to do anything about it. here.

I went to a discussion to defend a woman who had been falsely accused of breeching my copyright

At one stage, after joining Wikipedia, it was necessary for me to go to a discussion to defend a woman who had been falsely accused of breeching my copyright, and I had to give my real identity, and provide proof that I had actually been involved in formal medical research, and had published a book.

Soon after that I began editing a page about Da Costa’s syndrome, and two anonymous individuals started another “talk” page and put my real name in large bold print near the top, and began insulting me and criticising almost every word I wrote. See here

During the next year they set up about a dozen new discussion pages and mentioned my real name, and linked back to all of those details at every opportunity.

e.g. Ten months later one of them then wrote these words to get me banned . . .

“The dispute concerns Da Costa’s syndrome and Posturewriter (talk · contribs), who has self-identified [1] as MA Banfield, an author with a self-published book – externally reviewed here – and website promoting his Posture Theory about the syndrome’s cause.” Gordonofcartoon 18:16, 20 July 2008. (end of quote) See here

However, in stark contrast, whenever I asked those two to give me their real identities, and tell me what their experience was, they reacted with great hostility, as if I was breaking the major rules of Wikipedia, and invading their privacy. For example, six months after I was banned one of them wrote these words . . .

“”I’m not prepared to quit being anonymous. See this page (and others on the same site, e.g., here) by a permanently banned editor for one reason: Would any rational person really want to make their identity available to a person like this? . . . I edit Wikipedia to get away from my real world commitments. I want my work to be taken or rejected for its merits, not because I’m a person who’s supposed to know something.”WhatamIdoing 00:54, 21 July 2009 (end of quote) here.

I too would like the quality of my edits to be based on their merits, and not on who I am or am not, but my two critics, who demand that consideration for themselves, did absolutely everything they could to make it impossible for me. See my report here.

Note also that Gordonofcartoon was trying to make other editors believe that I was using Wikipedia to promote my own book, but he is not telling you that they deleted everything about it 6 months earlier. He also wanted them to believe that I had a ‘conflict of interest’, but he set up several discussions, and ‘failed’ to get any clear ‘consensus’, and that decisions about it were made in violation of the rules. He also wanted editors to believe that I was a SPA, (single purpose account), but he doesn’t tell them that my book and website discuss hundreds of different topics.See here

Everything that those two editors wrote about me was designed to defame me and my motives, and to discredit me, and all of the information which I provided from top quality, independent sources.

Why I argued against a couple of fools

If the two editors were only insulting me I wouldn’t give a dam, and I wouldn’t waste ten seconds of my time arguing with them, but they were effectively insulting 2-4% of the population, and I wasn’t going to let them do that, so I responded to their comments in a casual and orderly way, usually at the end of each week, but sometimes, on other occasions, and I would provide evidence that they were writing nonsense, telling lies, and breaking the rules of Wikipedia, and they called that my ‘tri-weekly whinge’.

For example, according to one of my main critics own references it is a common condition, but she also used the Rare disease database as a reference. See her reference list with number 4 – the Rare Disease Database, and number 7, Oglesby Paul here, and see my reports here.

I would like you to also consider the fact that the best medical brains in Britain were recruited to study the problem, and it is easy to diagnose. Those researchers included Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Clifford Allbutt, John Parkinson, Sir William Osler, and Thomas Lewis, who was later knighted for his study of this topic. Similarly, some of the best researchers in the United States were assigned to study the problem, and they included Samuel Levine, Marcus Rothschild and Frank Wilson. See here, and my report here

However, my main critic, who is only an anonymous middle aged woman, of no known experience, expertise or even knowledge of the topic, but argued that it was just “a vague nineteenth century syndrome”, and then wrote these words . . “we can’t justify investing several editors time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article“. See here. (Note that when she said “we”, and “several editors” she was “only” referring to herself and her constant assistant who was always there to agree with all of her nonsense).

Consider also that the condition is seen in children, women, and civilians before they enlisted in the army, but she argued that “Soldier’s heart” should be the “chief” alternative label. See here, and my report here.

Any administrator who reads Oglesby Paul’s review of the topic will easily see that my main critic was telling a massive number of lies in her 12 months of arguments against me.

See Oglesby Paul’s pages 306, 308, 311, and 313 here.

The editor who was relentlessly criticising me is a very stupid, conniving, manipulative, calculating and extremely deceitful individual who should be banned. See an index to my reports about her lies here.

Are you with me yet???

I know a lot about Da Costa’s syndrome, so I know when my two critics are being ‘stupid’, but you might not. However, supposing you was a meteorologist, and you knew a lot about the weather. What would you do if an editor acted like a crystal ball reading circus gypsy who could read your mind, and she said something like this about you . . . “he doesn’t even “seem” to “understand” that it is all about “the weather” and not “meteors“. e.g. See one of her ridiculous rants by reading the discussion here. What would you do if they had been accusing you of breaking the rules with almost every word you wrote, and you tried to defend yourself by providing evidence that they were breaking the rules, and they responded by accusing you of being “rude”, and breaking the rules of WP:Civil, and “Assume good faith” WP:AGF, and “No personal attacks” WP:NPA, and called it an “attack essay”, and told you to stop using your page as a “Soapbox”, and that you should be banned for Wikilawyering. I was just gob smacked by their never ending flood of ridiculous nonsense, and thought that they were both nitwits. e.g. see here

A summary of a year of disputes, and their Spin

My two critics were always losing arguments against me, so naturally, they wanted to get me blocked from editing, and they tried to do it by setting up pages for that purpose. However, they failed to get consensus, but on one occasion, “one” administrator threatened to block me anyway. On another occasion the consensus was clearly against them, and in another instance one administrator threatened to block me, but he didn’t know that he was breaking the rules by making that decision while a proper process was still active.

A typical example of the trickery in their arguments is where they would take “one” of my references, by a medical consumer, to a “Reliable Sources Noticeboard”, and then tell other editors that they got “100%” agreement that it was unreliable – but they didn’t mention that I had 60 others from Da Costa, MacKenzie, Lewis, P.D.W. and Paul Wood, and journals such as J.A.M.A. etc,

They were always trying to make it look as if they were in the right, and I was in the wrong, but if you have a close look you can see that they were actually “whinging” about how many times they “lost” arguments.

This is the sort of thing they wrote . . .

“This has be trundling along for 12 long months now. We’ve “tried” COI 1, and then we “tried” COI 2, but we “need some more eyes” for a real consensus, and we’ve “tried” Wikiquette’s Alert which became “stuck“, and an MFD which failed for “procedural reasons“, and we’ve got the “strongest consensus ever” from an RFC, and 100% of editors have agreed that his references are unreliable, but this disruptive editor is exhausting the patience of the entire Wikipedia community of rule abiding editors. We need a solution: the buck has to stop somewhere.” (end of paraphrase). e.g. see here

Other editors would read that sort of rant, and conclude that I was an “evil troll”, who needed to be “punished”.

They invented fault with everything

Supposing Wikipedia policy said that you should avoid “original research”, and that they “preferred” articles which “reviewed” the general iiterature on the topic. Supposing that the policy also said that you should not use articles from “magazines”, but should supply information from top quality independent research journals, and gave the Journal of the American Medical Journal, as an example.

However, no matter how good my references were my two critics would just “invent” something to say which was wrong with it. For example, when I used a “review” from the “Journal of the American Medical Association”, they would say something like this . . . “Oh yes but he “chooses” something which is “just” an “op-ed” which was written by a “non-expert”. They were both offensive bullshit artists.

Wednesday’s featured item

I provided Wikipedia with an article about Da Costa’s syndrome, and supported it with 60 top quality references which included . . .

1.A study of 300 patients by Jacob Mendez Da Costa in 1871.

2. A study of 200 patients by Sir James MacKenzie in 1916.

3. A book by Thomas Lewis in from 1919, and the second edition in 1939. (Lewis was Knighted for his studies).

4 A review of the literature of internal medicine, by J.L.Caughey from 1939.

5.A 20 year follow up study of 173 patients by Edmund Wheeler, which was published in the journal of the American Medical Association in 1950.

What would you do if two anonymous editors deleted almost all of it and then tried to convince another group of editors that your use of references was unreliable, and didn’t even meet Wikipedia’s basic standards, by saying this . . .

“he then cites, say, a case study involving a single patient, to make sweeping statements about the condition”.

See my reference list here, and their comments in their rant here.

Is history obsolete?

It took me five years of detailed assessment to conclude that the pressure on the chest and abdomen, due to poor posture, was the basic cause of the symptoms of Da Costa’s syndrome. In the next 20 years I was able to conclude that other factors contributed to the problem, such as a thin physique, abnormalities in the chest shape, and the tight wasted corsets worn by nineteenth century women.

In that process I was checking the literature to see if anyone else had made similar observations, and found many examples where the authors would mention the “ typical” thin physique, or the typical stooped posture, or the typical chest shape, and in some cases they would include photos of patients with those features, or lists of the same symptoms for women who wore corsets etc.

However my main critic wants you to believe that I am a fringy kook with silly ideas so she wrote things like this . . .

“Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself for a century now) and to seriously outdated materials”. See here.

While it is true that those physical features were observed and commented on ‘a century ago’, they have nevertheless, also been mentioned since. in the histories written by Thomas Lewis, in 1919, and Paul Wood, 1954, and one of her own references by Oglesby Paul, in 1987, and in many other publications. See my reference list, and numbers 1, 33, and 5. here, and one of my reports here

The ‘selective’ deletionist’s

A.K.A. Deceit by Omission

Firstly a quote from Wikipedia

“We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge . That is our commitment—and we need your help.” here. In order to make the readers of Wikipedia believe that Da Costa’s syndrome is a mental illness involving an anxiety disorder my two critics deliberately deleted all information about the typical patient having a thin and stooped physique, with a long, narrow chest, and other chest wall deformities, and they would not include a link to a reference which contained a photo of the life sized portrait of a typical patient which was displayed in the Museum of the Post-Graduate Medical School of London for several decades. See here. They have also deleted my reports of all scientific studies of the 1940-s and 50’s which discovered many physical and physiological abnormalities, and which mentioned those aspects. My complete essay can be seen here, and their article can be seen by scrolling down past the deletions here. Information about the involvement of posture and, or physique, can be seen in the report of Jacob Mendes Da Costa, whose study of 300 soldiers, which was published in 1871, determined the name of the ailment, and in Chapter 3 of Thomas Lewis book of 1918/19. He was knighted for his research into this ailment, and Paul Wood O.B.E. who had a chapter in his book about it which had the full page picture of the thin and stooped physique of the typical patient. He was Britain’s top authority on the subject, and Charles Wooley’s history of the subject which reported on five of the main theories and labels in 1976. He was a world expert on the topic, and Harvard professor, Oglesby Paul’s history of about ten of the main theories and labels in 1987. See numbers 1, 5, 11, 33, and 34 on my reference list here. Comments about the typical physique are also reported in references number 4 (Paul Dudley White -1951), 23 (Sir James MacKenzie – 1916), and 36 (Hurst – 1974), and others. By contrast my main critic is an anonymous middle aged woman who said that she is not a doctor, and has no intention of becoming one, and didn’t know much about the topic until I started providing information for Wikipedia. In her personal opinion the information about posture and physique in the first five sections here, was deleted because it isn’t worth mentioning. It is pitiful that she thinks that she now knows more about the topic than all of the ‘real’ experts in the history of the research. However, her version of the article does not meet Wikipedia’s goal of becoming the sum of all knowledge, and it does not comply with their requirements for ‘neutral point of view’. She needs to be banned for sabotaging Wikipedia’s main purpose for existing. My main critic is always giving other editors advice about how to determine the reliability of information in publications, and has recently argued that they do not need editorial boards to do ‘fact checking‘ because “One proper editor is sufficient to meet the policy requirements about ‘editorial control'”. See here. I would like some of the other editors and administrators to read my references, and determine her own ‘reliability’ for fact checking – and ‘supplying’. e.g. See also here and here and here.

The War of Words

On a recent episode of the TV show called “Fry’s Planet Word”, British entertainer, Stephen Fry, was discussing the fact that throughout history, the rulers and elite members of society were the only ones who could afford to learn how to read and write, and hence had the ability to control what the public thought. He also mentioned that invading armies would burn the libraries to gain power over the people of that nation. He then described how the invention of the printing press enabled the mass production of books, which made them cheaper and more readily available to the ordinary person, and hence produced the ‘democritisation of knowledge’, where vast numbers of people could learn and contribute to our understanding of the world. He also mentioned the development of the first encyclopedia, which presented information in an organised manner, from every aspect of history, science and philosophy etc. Nevertheless, the choice of information was determined by the small number of elite individuals who wrote and published it He then interviewed Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, who described the objective of providing the sum of all knowledge, from all people, and not just the elite. In my assessment that original objective is good, but the information is now being controlled by anonymous ‘edit war lords‘ who fill the pages with information that they want the public to know, and delete everything which they don’t want them to see. (c.f. burn it). They also conduct ‘edit wars‘, and use Lart tools to drive out anyone who adds such information. I have also concluded that some people join Wikipedia for the sole purpose of learning the rules so that they can achieve power and control over the content of articles. Furthermore, if they lose an argument they will write a new rule, and loopholes in the rules so that they can win all future arguments, and secure their position of control. Consequently when someone new joins up and adds information which such existing editors don’t want the public to read they will say that is a against one of the rules, and delete it, and if they run out of rules to accuse someone of breaking, they will use the ‘ignore all rules’ policy to ban them.

What would you do if two editors did this to you?

What would you do if you had been told to use ‘review articles’ and not ‘original research papers’ as references, so you did, and they said it was just a ‘routine review’.

What would you do if you was told to use review articles from top quality research journals, so you used one from the Journal of the American Medical Association, and they said that it was just an op-ed written by an author who wasn’t an expert on the topic.

What would you do if you was adding information to the history section of the page and they told other editors that most of your references were ‘old’, ‘out-of-date’ and ‘from before most editors were born’.

What would you do if you used a reference by a researcher who had been knighted for his contributions to medicine, and was the chairman of a meeting about the topic, and they told other editors that he was an ordinary man who just joined up and attended an ordinary meeting.

What would you do if you used a reference by one of the world authorities on the topic in 1951, and they deleted it on the grounds that it was ‘old’, and then used a research paper by the same author from 1941, in their version of the article.

What would you do if you used that top quality reference to verify 18 different statements, and they criticised you for using the same out-dated reference 18 different times.

What would you do if you provided scientific facts that were discovered and proven, and described in a 1951 book, and they deleted it on the grounds that the book was ‘old’, and yet the facts have not changed, and the book is still readily available in modern universities.

What would you do if you used that 1951 reference, and they told you that you had to take it to a ‘Reliable Sources Noticeboard’ to convince that group of editors that it was reliable before using it again.

What would you do if you used another reference and they deleted it as ‘old’, ‘ordinary’, unimportant, or ‘rubbish’, and later used one by the same author and argued that . . . ‘he was a most authoritive member of a prestigious organisation in charge of the department which was devoted to the study of this very subject’.

What would you do if you started improving an article when it had absolutely no references whatsoever, and later, after you had added 60 from top quality research papers and books, they told other editors that most of your references did not even meet Wikipedia’s basic standards.

What would you do if an anonymous woman told a group of editors that she didn’t know much about the topic until you started adding information to it, and yet, within the first month she was acting as if she was a world expert, and was later casting judgment on minute details from your own ideas, and the finest details of the research papers of other authors from the past 140 years. See the paragraph here, and her comments about my ideas here, and her nitpicking of my essay here.

What would you do if you added information to a topic from reliable independent sources, and they deleted it on the basis that it was nonsense, and you later noticed that anonymous editors were adding exactly the same information to other pages about related subjects.

What would you do if you added a paragraph of useful and factual information to six different topics, and later found that they had followed you to every page, and deleted every word that they thought had been added by you, which hadn’t already been removed by other editors.

What would you do if you responded to their relentless criticism of every type of reference you used, by adding six different types to support each of the most important statements, and you later found that they were describing that practice as ‘non-encyclopedic’ ‘citation overkill’ which made articles ‘unreadable’.

What would you do if you just won an argument, and they told another group of editors that you lost.

What would you do if they just lost an argument, and said that the discussion ‘failied’ for ‘procedural reasons’.

What would you do if two editors set up a discussion to get you blocked on the grounds of conflict of interest, and another editor said that they were both liars, and only one editor agreed with them, and they then spent a year telling many other groups that they won that dispute by ‘consensus’. See here, and their admission of no consensus here, and their complaints about their failure to get agreement from the Conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN) here, and a neutral editor telling them that there was no evidence of conflict of interest in my article here, and there relentless complaints that I had a conflict of interest here etc. etc.

What would you do if two editors were telling lies about a topic, and told you to go away and prove that you was a good editor by adding useful information to other pages which had nothing to do with that subject.

What would you do if an anonymous editor told you that something in the “Related” section of an article, did not mean that it was actually ‘related’ to the topic, but had been put there by another editor just because he thought it might be interesting.

What would you do if they set up six different discussion pages to get you blocked, and then told other editors that they couldn’t remember all of the discussions because they were spread over too many pages.

What would you do if they were criticising you on a dozen different discussion pages, and you didn’t even know that some of them had started.

What would you do if the rules said that you could use common sense in determining page style and layout, so you chose to write the history section in date order, and used bold print for each year, and they said “we can’t even get him to quit bolding the dates”.

What would you do if they told lies about the rules, and they then told other editors “we can’t get him to obey the rules even if he understands them.”.

What would you do if they accused you if breaking dozens of rules, and then said “we can’t be expected to tell him all the rules because is is like shoving beans up his nose”.

What would you do if your references included studies of 300 patients, and 200 patients, and a 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients and they said . . . “he then cites, say, a case study involving a single patient, to make sweeping statements about the condition”.

What would you do if there were no references on the page when you started, and the first three you added included one by the person who the ailment was named after, and the other two were books written by a person who reviewed the history, and who was knighted for his contributions to the research, and then you added 50 more in the next 12 months, and they said . . . “So he chooses a properly published secondary source — but from nearly a century ago, and which is known to disagree entirely with current scientific consensus. No, we say: it needs to be a properly published, secondary source that is reasonably current.”. e.g. see my first edit here, and their comment here.

What would you do if they said that you must find some modern references, so you supplied about ten, and they then accused you of disruptive editing, and then set up a discussion to get you blocked and banned.

What would you do if you defended yourself from constant criticism, and they told other editors that your response was a litany of ‘complaints’.

What would you do if there were only two individuals constantly criticising you, and they tried to create the illusion that you have been arguing with dozens of people by telling other editors that ‘we’ keep telling you this, and ‘we’ keep telling you that.

What would you do if only two editors were constantly criticising you and one of them wrote that you was “exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors”. See here.

What would you do if you had a sense of humour and saw their tactics as amusing, and they described your response as ‘hostile sniping’.

What would you do if they asked for your personal opinion, as an expert on the subject, to answer some of their questions, and then said, that it wouldn’t be used on the topic page, but give it to them anyway.

What would you do if they made several obviously sarcastic remarks, and then argued that they were polite editors, who never used sarcasm, and resented the accusation.

What would you do if you responded to relentless criticism by writing an essay about everything your two critics were doing wrong, and then they told other editors that it was “an extended personal attack” which breaks the rules which require everyone to ‘Assume Good Faith’ in others (WP:AGF), and later told them that it was an “attack essay”, and that you were breaking the rules of their “No Personal Attacks” policy. e.g. here

What would you do if they told you to ‘play the game’, and ‘obey the rules’, or be banned, and later told their friends that the ‘ignore all rules’ policy should be the major policy.

What would you do if you considered their arguments to be childish and laughable, and one of them said that perhaps you was finding it unpleasant to work in an environment which required co-operativity, and that you might be happier if you got out of Wikipedia and found yourself another hobby.

What would you do if the rules of Wikipedia require all editors to be courteous and polite to everyone at all times, and you found out that they had been using ‘attitude readjustment tools’ to hound and harass you with inflammatory and provocative insults to drive you out of Wikipedia.

What would you do if they claimed to be respectable ‘rule-abiding’ editors, and you found out later that they had rewarded an administrator with a barnstar for being the only person who was willing to use the ‘ignore all rules’ policy to ban you.

If any member of the public joined Wikipedia today, and tried to add useful, scientifically proven facts, which were verifiable in reliable top quality research journals, what chances do you think they would have if those two editors started arguing about it?

Neutral Point of view about the cause of Da Costa’s syndrome

The rules of Wikipedia require editors to present a neutral point of view in their descriptions of each topic. However, my main critic wants the readers to believe that Da Costa’s syndrome is a set of symptoms which are caused by anxiety and classified as a type of mental illness called somatoform autonomic dysfunction. The general idea is that anxiety or fear affects to autonomic nervous system, which in turn affects the function of the heart and lungs etc. to produce the symptoms which include chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue.

However, in order to make that idea sound believable she deleted the evidence that the chest pain could be caused by leaning at awkward angles, such as when bending to crank a car engine, and she deleted the scientific evidence that the symptoms are generally mild at rest, but mainly occur during exertion, and increase out of proportion as the level of exercise increases. She also deleted a 20 year follow up study which showed that the patients didn’t suffer from any more of the other diseases which are generally considered to be caused by anxiety, than healthy people.

She also deliberately deleted evidence that the anxiety theories are only one group amongst hundreds of others, and that all of them have evidence in favor and against and that none have been scientifically proven, or universally accepted.

My main critic is an arrogant piece of work who thinks that she is more intelligent than anyone else and that all of the other editors and administrators of Wikipedia, and all of the readers are as dumb, naive, and as gullible as sheep and cattle, and that none of them have got enough sense to check the research history directly to determine the facts for themselves.

If anyone such as myself does know the facts, and provides the information to Wikipedia, she describes them as disruptive individuals with behavioural disorders who are interfering with her ability to write an accurate article. She then proceeds to tell lies, defame their character, and ignore all the rules in order to get them banned.

She makes a mockery of Wikipedia’s objective of becoming the sum of all knowledge.

I can only hope that I am not the only person on the planet who is intelligent enough to see what she is doing, or the only one who has the strength of character to do anything about it.

The modern labels for that condition are the chronic fatigue syndrome or orthostatic intolerance etc. which affects more than 200 million people. See also here, and here, and here, and you be the neutral judge here.

Facts versus opinion

The symptoms of Da Costa’s syndrome include occasional sharp stabbing pains in the lower left side of the chest. They can occur when sitting in a chair and reading a newspaper. (it is usually the only symptom they get at that time).

The breathlessness can occur at any time, but more often during exercise such as walking, especially up a hill, or when jogging, where the person may have to stop and take two or three extra forced, deep breaths, perhaps every fifty yards or so. (it is usually the only symptom which occurs at the lower level of exertion).

The faintness may also occur from time to time, but more often first thing in the morning, when the person gets out of bed and stands up suddenly. (It is usually the only symptom they feel when they stand suddenly).

As you can see the symptoms may effect one person, but they occur in different situations.

My main critic once argued that all of the symptoms could be explained by a bad breathing habit, and ‘Hyperventilation syndrome’. See her ignorant and contradictory double talk here.

However, in her latest version of the article, which is still the current one in Wikipedia today, three years later, she describes it as an anxiety disorder where the person is in a constant state of anxiety. (where fear causes the pulse rate to increase, the breathing to become faster and shallower, and the person to become faint, dizzy and exhausted). See here.

In order to make her version believable she deleted all of the scientific evidence that each of the symptoms could occur at different times, in different situations, for different reasons, and arranged for me to be banned.

(Note that she also made her version sound believable by linking to official website’s, lists, and dictionaries which give over-simplified summaries of the topic, and that she copied a small amount of the evidence of physical cause and treatment methods from me, but deleted most of it. Her version of the history section is also just a copy of the first part of the history that I wrote. She deleted the later 90% which covered the 20th century. The four lines of text that was in Wikipedia before I started improving the article can be seen here).

One of the editors should be investigated

The rules of Wikipedia were once few and simple, so it was necessary to have an “ignore all rules” policy to deal with any situation that wasn’t covered. Essentially an essay was just an essay, a guideline was a set of instructions on how things ‘should’ be done, and a policy was a set of the most important rules.

I would like the founders and administrators to investigate the behaviour of the editor called WhatamIdoing who has been using sly and under-handed methods of changing the way those differences are interpreted, and has also been recommending that the ‘ignore all rules’ policy becomes the major policy, despite the fact that there are now hundreds, if not thousands of pages of rules. That anonymous person wants to control the interpretations, so that she can control the content of any article, in a manner that appears to be neutral and proper.

Such methods will be supported by the anonymous agents of any organisations who wish to control the information about their products, but are disruptive to Wikipedia’s ambition of providing all information from all sources.

See my reports here and here and here

I have a right to defend myself

Two of Wikipedia’s editors spent 12 months writing a countless number of lies and insults in order to defame my character and discredit me, and get me banned. In defence, I have since presented some information about myself here, and here, and here. Some examples of how those two anonymous individuals teamed up with ranting tirades of never ending criticism of everything about me and my contributions can be seen here, and here, and here. According to the rules of Wikipedia they are supposed to focus on the content and NOT the person, here.

Wikipedia should not be a place for ‘grubby’ victim blaming exercises

The topic of Da Costa’s syndrome in Wikipedia looks as if it has been written as a victim shaming and blaming page where all of the scientific evidence and proof of physical cause has been carefully deleted and replaced with psychiatric explanations and labels. e.g. see the evidence included here, and excluded here. That page is essentially just a calculated appeal to prejudice.

My legal rights

When Charles Darwin wrote his theory of evolution he wanted to avoid the controversy relating to the idea that humans evolved from monkeys, so he didn’t publish it until he found out that someone else was about to publish a similar idea and get the credit for it. However, I have actually published most of my ideas, and avoided the personal effects of controversy by not including photos of myself in any of my essays. Nevertheless I have a legal right to claim authorship of my own ideas, particularly where I developed them due to circumstances where nobody else had any satisfactory explanations for the problems that I was trying to solve. They include the idea that the fatigue of Da Costa’s syndrome is due a blood vessel disorder, and that it can be diagnosed with tilt-table tests and exercise tests, and that the symptoms can be relieved and managed by maintaining exercise and lifestyle within limits.

A lesson for my two critics – the mushroom farmers

“You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”, and I don’t care how many people you make look stupid, gullible, useless, and ridiculous, because you definitely haven’t got enough brains to fool me, and neither of you have got any ethics.

Stop treating the public as if they are just mushrooms who you can keep in the dark and feed on bullshit.

See also “Straight from the horses mouth” here

Another report relevant to the issue of the “truth” in Wikipedia can be seen here.

My main critics use of policy makes her look stupid in 30 seconds

My main critic claims that she can become an instant expert in any narrow subject here, and that she didn’t know much about Da Costa’s syndrome until I started editing the topic here.

However, she spent the next twelve months acting as if she knew everything about the topic and I knew nothing, and telling everyone else a pack of lies about me, the topic, and the reliability of my references.

I have been studying this subject for thirty years and can prove that she is a stupid “instant expert” in 30 seconds, because she does things in such a hurry that she hasn’t got enough time, or sense to read her own references.

Please set your stop watch.

In her version of the article she places it in the category of imaginary illnesses (somatoform disorders) which you can see at the very end of the page here

In her reference number 5, on page 770 it states “There are three good reasons why the pain is not imaginary” See the opening words of the third paragraph here.

Thankyou for your valuable time. Please tell your friends by phone, email, or twitter.

I had provided verifiable scientific proof that the symptoms had a physical basis, but she was childish, and was deleting most of that evidence and “loading” the page with her bias that the symptoms were imaginary or psychological in nature.

My two critics are Your problem, not mine

If you are a young person paying insurance and superannuation, you expect that if you ever get an illness, that your doctor will be able to diagnose it and the insurance company etc will pay you your entitlements. However, if at some time in the future, you become ill, there is a fair chance that you will be told that there is no way of scientifically testing or proving it. You will then be referred to a psychiatrist who will give you a few labels, and you will be denied your entitlements on the grounds that nothing physical could be found, and that it is just “all in your mind”. You will, in that process be called a coward, a fake, a lazy person, or a mental case. My two critics are not your solution to that problem; they are part of the problem. I therefore suggest that you keep a record of everything they have written, and if and when you find yourself in the same predicament, that you arrange for them to be permanently banned. At the moment you are healthy, and it is probably beyond your comprehension to think that it can and does happen all the time, to people just like you,

What are their motives for hiding scientific information

I would like you to consider why my two critics systematically deleted the scientific evidence that the chest pain, the breathlessness, and the fatigue of Da Costa’s syndrome are real, and why they tried to argue that it was not the major type of chronic fatigue syndrome. See here and here and here Without the evidence you won’t be able to succeed in claims for compensation etc, so in that regard the deletion of that evidence from Wikipedia is a case of my two critics committing the criminal offense of obstructing justice. Medical consumers organisations, and other groups who are interested in the rights of patients should thorougly investigate their motives for editing in that manner. The motives of my main critic in particular, could involve an association or allegiance with the insurance or pharmacological industries. In that regard, the lack of scientific information available to the public would mean that insurance companies could save billions of dollars by not having to pay entitlements, and the drug companies could make billions in profit from patients who don’t know how to control their symptoms by physical means, and have to rely on medications which cost them up to, or more than $100 per week, making them a human cash crop. See my comment on a picture of a ‘plateful of colorful pills’ here, and another editor commenting on the ‘sheer number of medications’ recommended, and their ineffectiveness here, and my report on the relationship to that topic here

Academic Jealousy

By the time I was 35 years old it was obvious to me that I had the good fortune of being able to solve some major medical mysteries, and, despite the fact that my ideas had not been published in formal medical journals I had the evidence to prove it in other sources. It was also obvious to me that some people had put a lot of time and effort into gaining Universtity qualifications, and had then spent a decade or two trying to solve the world’s problems, but unfortunately had not been successful. Given the nature of their objective there is no shame in that. However, some of them think that the only people who have a ‘right’ to solve problems, are qualified like themselves, and that ‘ordinary’ people are not entitled to try or get any credit for that. They are seething with resentment and ‘academic jealousy’. My two critics fit that description perfectly.

My main critics childish editing practices

While I was in Wikipedia I was confronted by an individual was always telling the other editors that my references were unreliable, so I decided to use one of hers to support my statements. It was Oglesby Paul’s history of Da Costa’s syndrome and it became obvious that she had not even bothered to read her own references. I called Oglesby Paul a ‘notable medical authority’ (see here), and she said ‘neutrality disputed’. Paul said, in the third paragraph of his introduction that it had an unknown cause here, and she said ‘citation needed’. Paul said in his conclusion that it was easily diagnosed with these words “The diagnosis is usually not difficult for an interested reasonably intelligent physician“(end of quote), and she said ‘citation needed’. He reviewed ten theories which had been used in the past, and when I described them as ‘popular’ she said ‘by whom’. Paul said that none had been proven, and she deleted nine and left her own prejudice that ‘anxiety’ was the cause. Paul said this . . . “It is important to be able to recognise the condition irrespective of the label used.“(end of quote). He reported that it has been common in the past, and despite the change of labels, it was still common, and she deleted that statement and added a link to a website called the “Rare diseases’s DataBase”. See an example of her childish editing here, and part of my report here and here Note also that Da Costa’s syndrome is also commonly discussed by fifteen year old teenagers in their first year of medical school, and can be accurately and reliably self-diagnosed by any patient of similar intelligence.

The new ‘label’

I know that Da Costa’s syndrome is the main type of chronic fatigue syndrome, but I also know that a fussy pedant would try to dispute that for ‘technical’ reasons, so at one stage I added some information to the page to say that they were similar, and I used one of the top authorities in history of the topic as a reference (Paul Dudley White). My main critic then argued relentlessly for months about it, but if you have a look at her version of the article you can see that she wrote exactly the same thing, except that she used jargon instead of plain English with these words . . . “The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome” here.

Orthostatic intolerance is due to a weakness in blood flow which can be measured when a person moves from the laying to standing position. The same weakness of blood flow causes the fatigue. You can also see her reference number 11 (the OMIM website here). This is a quote from that site . . . “This syndrome, first described by Da Costa (1871) . . . is similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome (Schondorf and Freeman, 1999).”

See also my report here

I can use her article about Da Costa’s syndrome to prove that she is a liar in a few seconds

If you place a Da Costa’s patient on a bed and measure their pulse rate and blood pressure when tilting it at different angle there will be changes in pulse rate etc that are different to healthy people, so those physiological changes can be used to diagnose the ailment.

This is what my main critic wrote in her version of the article on 26th January 2009. . . “a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities” (See that comment by scrolling down to the text here) This is what she wrote on the Da Costa’s syndrome talk page half a year earlier on 7th June 2008 . . . “Some researchers will tell you privately that giving someone a DCS diagnosis before giving them a tilt-table test is malpractice” (See here) Note also that DCS is the abbreviation for Da Costa’s syndrome, which is the label that was previously used for the chronic fatigue syndrome. See my report here You can see that she also mentioned Oglesby Paul’s research paper, and you can read my report on her blatant lies about it here. Paul states on page 311 that according to Cohen and White the condition affected 2-4% of the population at the average age of 25 years. See here. That amounts to a total of 200 million people in the world. Anyone who tells lies about that many adults is an idiot who should be diagnosed as a malevolent sociopath.

Privately (in confidence – now you know the truth)

Privately, my main critic, and her “colleagues”, know that Da Costa’s syndrome is a real physical illness which can be proven to exist by scientific tests on a tilt table. However, publicly, she and her team mate spent twelve months arguing that it was a mental illness based on the vague ‘self-reports’ of patients where there is no physiological evidence that it is real. e.g. See here, and the article which remained after I was banned here. Note her ridiculously biased choice of references and notes here, and her attempts to associate it with trivial or imaginary symptoms by including the category of Somatoform disorders at the end of that list, which links to this list here. Would you just sit back in your comfortable lounge chairs and let her describe the illnesses of your own children and parents as being mental, when she knew that it wasn’t true, or would you actually do something constructive and effective to stop her.  

Surprising or Not?

If I had been told that it was possible for a shameless and prolific liar to become the sixth highest contributor to policy and control 2000 pages in Wikipedia, I would not have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, and now I have the evidence to prove it. I also have a responsibility to tell the founders, the administrators, their readers, and the public that the Wikipedia ID of that anonymous editor is WhatamIdoing, and that she was assisted on one topic by Gordonofcartoon. She is anonymous but claims to be intelligent because she has university qualifications, but won’t tell anyone what they are. I can only assume that it is a B. A. (a degree in bullshit art), and that she fits into the category of O.Q.U.B. (over qualified and under brained). She wants you to believe that because I don’t have a degree that I am a stupid fringy kook. However, when I was a teenager I found myself arguing against other people who would claim that little green men from Mars had landed in the hills in their flying saucers and were about to invade the earth, or that their mothers could gaze into a crystal ball and predict the future, or that you could break a forked piece of stick off a tree and use it as a divining rod to locate water under ground. Also as an adult, every major radio announcer in Adelaide will remember me from my arguments with top scientists and professors who claimed that Agent Orange was safe enough to drink, Maralinga fallout was harmless, and cigarette smoking did not cause lung cancer etc. The reason that I argued when I was young was because I found it to be easy and amusing. As an adult I found that it was necessary for someone from the general public to challenge professional bullshit artists. In Wikipedia I was arguing with a couple of idiots who were acting as if they were children playing an internet game. e.g. see here. They were treating the readers as if they were as gullible as sheep and cattle, and they were playing war games, and acting like ugly trolls, and Wicked witches, and recruiting mischevious monkeys in their attempts to drive me away. e.g. see here and here

Burying my opponents in their own bullshit

One of my methods of arguing was to bury my opponents in their own bullshit. For example, when someone told me that they could predict the future by looking at the pattern of tea leaves in the bottom of a tea cup, I would ask them to give me their own money so that I could bet it on the winner of a horse race, and give them half the winnings. I would then wait for their ridiculous excuseses for not giving me their money. When a University professor said that Agent Orange was safe enough to drink I asked him to prove it by giving a glassful to his grandchildren but, of course, he wouldn’t. When two critics in Wikipedia linked a childrens fiction book to a medical topic, I asked them to give me the page numbers where the symptoms were accurately described, but they gave a series of excuses for not doing that, and changed the subject to hide their mistake from other editors.

Injustice in Wikipedia

There was no neutrality in the decisions to block and ban me

The decision to block me was made before I gave my side of the story here.

I was criticised without being invited to give my side of the story here.

The decision to ban me was made without me being given the opportunity to respond to this criticism here.

It was comparable to being in a boxing ring where one boxer has lead in his gloves, and the other has his hands tied behind his back. The game was rigged by a grubby cheat, and the outcome was ridiculous.

Sham investigations

My book called “The Posture Theory” describes the physical basis for many health problems, and an editor named Penbat set up a page in Wikipedia to discredit it. His article is called Posture(psychology) here. He has also established a page called ‘Setting up to fail‘ which describes ‘sham investigations‘. “lambs to the slaughter’, and ‘wild goose chases‘. e.g. here.

For example, my main critic, who called herself “WhatamIdoing“, would delete a reference on the grounds that it broke the rules about “original research” and say that it must be a review article. I would provide a review, and she would reject it on the grounds that it was old, and tell me to find a modern one etc. She just invented excuses for rejecting everything I added. e.g. See my report here. She would also advise me that the correct place to discuss an issue was on the Da Costa’s syndrome talk page, not the topic page, and when I recommended an improvement for the topic page she would say that the evidence wasn’t good enough. She set up several ‘investigations’ such as MFD’s and ANI’s but she would ignore them if the decisions went against her and then set up another ‘investigation’ until she got her way.

She is a manipulative idiot who thinks she is clever and important but I was laughing at her making a pest of herself with bullshit, and telling my friends that she had the brainpower of a rabbit.

It was obvious to me that she wasn’t going to stop rattling here silly beak until I was banned.

Popular Lies

My main critic tells the lies that a lot of people want to tell, and a lot of people want to believe, and that very few people have the courage to criticise. They haven’t got enough sense to consider the consequences to their own lives, or that their own decisions will be ruled by the bullshit they read. Another lie has been told in the past – that the gas chambers of Auschwitz concentration camp were shower blocks, and nowadays people complain and say ‘how could it happen’ and ‘why didn’t somebody do something about it at the time’. The same reason is evident today in Wikipedia.

My main critic is a liar and a cheat

I have provided evidence and proof that my main critic is a prolific liar and a shameless cheat, and she can’t prove me wrong, but she sometimes tries by telling more lies. e.g. here She responded by saying this “repeatedly calling me a liar is a violation of WP:No personal attacks” See here She is telling lies about that policy so I will quote from it and provide the link . . . “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.( end of quote) here I am providing the evidence and the links and diffs to Wikipedia so I am making serious accusations properly, which means that I am not breaking any rules. You can see how she has been manipulating the rules to keep the evidence out of sight of other editors and administrators. I would like any of the administrators who value honesty and integrity to ban her.

Her corrupt way of getting me banned

When a neutral editor told my main critic that my essay was a lot better than hers she went into a jealous rage of ranting lies and criticism and started to plot and scheme to get me thrown out of Wikipedia. She later told more more lies to a dozen editors on an arbitration page. She then obviously bribed an administrator by telling him that she would give him a pretty barnstar if he ignored all the rules and banned me on my own before I had the opportunity to prove she was telling lies again (See here and here) She was desperate to avoid the risk of neutral editors making a decision in my favor again. She now wants other editors to believe the ridiculous illusion that I was banned by a fair process which involved the consensus of a dozen sensible, neutral, and respectable rule-abiding editors. See some of the evidence here

Good manners in Wikipedia

This is a quote from the Wikipedia policy about good manners, called WP:Civil . . . “Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative. See here

This is a recent and typical example of the type of lies that my main critic tells about the policies . . . “Civility is not friendliness or cooperativeness. It would be nice if all of us were friendly, cooperative people, but we don’t actually require that. See here

I warn you in advance that if you discuss this with her, she will give you an excuse.

See more examples of her inappropriate attitude and violations of the civility policy here

Mirror, mirror on the wall Does the Wicked Witch of Wikipedia have good manners? Please show me in her own words, not pictures!

The following text was written by my main critic. However, I have deleted my ID and the topic of Da Costa’s syndrome, and replaced it with her ID, and the subject of Women’s Rights.

My purpose is to give you another perspective on exactly how disgusting her manners are. Her words were as follows . . .

“This is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor case, but it may illustrate some of the damage: We have identified a one person account, run by an anonymous individual who “just happens” to be a middle aged woman. Her real article, “Women’s Rights”, was deleted as non-notable through AfD. A few days later, she decided to hang her idea on the peg of “Premenstrual Syndrome” (a vague 20th century idea, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder). It’s overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can’t justify investing several editors’ time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting her personal views. Considering the basic priorities, the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles, like Meningitis or Mental health. . . . She’s (finally) mostly given up on getting her name and her website (with her expensive self-published book for sale) in the article. She comes by every week or two and adds bona fide medical publications on the subject — but always and only those articles which support her particular views. Of course, the condition is entirely related to females, so most of the refs are from uneducated women. No men have ever supported her view. Five editors have directly told her that using Wikipedia to promote her personal ideas is not accepted. We’ve been at this for more than six months, and she’s undeterred in her overall goal . . . My existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don’t reach as far as her village in Africa, and the editor remains unscathed. It’s back at WP:COI/N for a second go-round. I expect no practical improvement: she’s not particularly rude, so why bother blocking her? Unless I’m willing to undertake a concerted campaign to drive away the editor by convincing her that Wikipedia is controlled by a particularly rude version of the Ghosts in a dungeon, then I’ll probably still be removing the same trash and leaving the same explanations and warnings on talk pages at the end of the year. And that, by the way, is the only effective solution currently in place: When I am no longer willing to put up with this self-promoting nonsense, I can team up with other disgusted editors to be so mean and rude to the SPA that she leaves in disgust. It’s not just the good editors who can be driven away by bad behavior. Unfortunately, every time someone resorts to that approach, Wikipedia’s reputation is damaged . . . Her entire statement could, and in my opinion should, be handled in the footnote. An enormous amount of garbage crawls into her writing this way. In the end, she puts a lot of effort into achieving very little, and requires an enormous amount of other editors’ time to prevent the article from turning into objects promoting her POV. I am running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues because I no longer have any hope that she is willing to apply Wikipedia’s core principles, even if she understands them, because the actual scientific views disagree with her personal POV. Her interactions with anyone that doesn’t agree with her rapidly devolve into hostile whinging. (I recommend looking over her user talk page.) I’m tired of the POV-pushing and the edit wars (which she’s currently blocked for). This editor is apparently not capable of editing without pushing her POV. I understand: she believes that her ideas about breast cancer and pills have practically saved her life. But it’s not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think that a broad topic ban (including Women’s Rights, Women’s Health, and any articles even slightly related to Premenstrual Syndrome, Pregnancy, Post-Natal Depression, or the Menopause) is an appropriate outcome. We need another solution.” (end of quote) signed by The mirror of my critic, 02:25, 18 May 2008 See here, and the end of her rant at 20:25, 27 January 2009. See here

(As I said at the outset, this was not about the content, but about the arrogant, ill-mannered and disrespectful style of writing used by my main critic. The section above was added in mid December 2011).

A bit of calm and common sense assessment is required here

When my main critic accused me of an enormous amount of hostile sniping she was not telling you that for every paragraph of useful information that I wrote once per week, she and her team-mate would write two paragraphs of criticism each, or four times the volume of words, often within a few minutes of me adding the information. You also need to take into consideration that I had to deal with those two ranting fools, when no-one else was involved. My main critic was also regularly doing 100 edits a day on other topics. One of the reasons that I didn’t do more than one or two a week was because If I made ten comments a day they would have criticised me 40 times a day.

They would also ask me to prove the obvious. For example, if I said that water was wet, they would say “Posturewriter, we have told you repeatedly before, but you never listen to us. You cannot add any information to Wikipedia unless it is supported by a reference from a top quality independent research journals in the past two years. We have told you before, and we are telling you again, we are not interested in your stupid idea that water is wet”. See my report here

To give you a more pertinent example, I have said in my theory that poor posture can strain the muscles of the back and compress the chest, the lungs, and the stomach to eventually cause backaches, chest pains, breathlessness, and abdominal pains. My two critics told the other editors that all of my ideas were “fringy “,”self-promoting”, “nonsense”, and “crap”, and argued that they were mostly, if not all based on references that don’t even meet Wikipedia’s basic standards of reliability. What they didn’t tell them was that my article about Da Costa’s syndrome contained more than 60 references, and that their small list only contained 18, and about half of them were by the same authors as mine.

As far as the chest pains, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue of Da Costa’s syndrome are concerned, I have suggested that they may also be caused by poor posture, but my two critics want you to believe that 200 million patients are imagining them, or that they were all soldiers, and that the only possible cause was the fear of battle.

One of my supporting and verifying references was Paul Wood O.B.E.

According to Wikipedia policies anyone can add any information to an article as long as they can verify it from top quality independent sources. One of my references (number 33 here) was a book by Paul Wood who was Britain’s top authority on the subject in 1956. My main critic also used a different reference by exactly the same author, and when challenged about his reliability and authority, she defended it vigorously here. This is a quote from his book pages 939-940, which describes the chest pain . . .

“It is immediately abolished by the intramuscular injection of 2ml. of novocaine at the site of maximum intensity of tenderness . . . it arises locally in muscle or fascia, and suggests that it is related to ‘fibrositis’ and low back pain. It may be initiated by fatigue or strain of respiratory muscles in cases with respiratory neurosis, by strain of certain muscular attachments involved in such actions as cranking a car engine or lifting a heavy weight, by incessant or by faulty posture. It is exaggerated or perpetuated by the belief that it arises in the heart.” (end of quote).

Note the obvious fact that anxiety neurosis is not the “only” cause, and that not every patient worries about it being caused by their hearts, which leave the obvious possibility that there are cases where ‘faulty posture’ is the ‘only’ cause. As I said before, my theory has evidence to support it from top quality independent sources. See also here

The most logical sequence is this . . . poor posture causes the chest pains, and the chest pain causes some people to worry about their hearts.

My main critic wants you to believe that anxiety causes chest pain, and that posture has absolutely nothing to do with it. She is a fool.

My main critic spent 12 months telling me to be polite while she was trying to convince everyone else that I was stupid

My main critic spent twelve months hounding and harassing, and defaming me with lies and nonsense to get me blocked and banned from Wikipedia, so since then I have been providing evidence and proof of her massive number of lies. However, she always has a way of casually convincing the other editors that the massive amount of evidence against her simply doesn’t matter. For example, she recently wrote these words. . . “The blocked user now has his own website, where he vilifies me personally but has completely stopped harming Wikipedia . . . Difficult blocks are too often greeted with hand-wringing about how awful it is that the biased, hateful, power-tripping admin interfered with this person’s human right to edit Wikipedia” (end of quote) here She was deceiving them in her “typical” way again, because she wants all of the editors and members of the public to believe that she is a very respectable rule-abiding editor of great authority and prestige. However she didn’t tell them that decisions to ban someone are very serious, and need to be made by a consensus of about a dozen “uninvolved” assessors, and not by one admin who did it by using the “ignore al rules” policy (WP:IAR), and who she later rewarded with a “barnstar” called the “Outlaw Halo Award”. See my report here She thinks that I, and the other editors, administrators, and members of the public are as dumb and gullible as sheep and cattle. e.g. see the illustration at the top of the discussion here (You won’t notice this either, but my website has been established since 1994, long before Wikipedia, but she wants you to believe that I started it after I was banned, just to vilify her. Did she fool you? – if she did, then you now have some insight into how she does it.)

Introduction

One of the problems of this page is that I am not particularly interested in criticising Wikipedia itself, but mainly just two individuals, and others who share their attitude and style. My main critic is an extremely arrogant, ill-mannered, and manipulative individual who knows that there are some other editors who want to decieve the public in the same way, and that there are some who are naive, and will come to her defence in order to protect Wikipedia’s reputation, instead of solving their problem by banning her. Now it is the pathological liars and the highly paid professional liars who control Wikipedia. When a neutral editor described my version of an article as being a lot better than hers she started a furious and spiteful agenda of revenge which didn’t stop until she succeeded in getting me banned. See the third sentence here, and her rant of nitpicking here, and her silly arguments on the arbitration page here She has been a major contributor to policy and medical topics for several years, and yet she is a prolific liar, so unless the founders or administrators arrange for her to be permanently banned they do not deserve to be regarded as a respectable organisation or a reliable source of information. e.g. See one of my many reports here I was educated to establish facts and evidence, so I am truly astonished that she hasn’t been banned already. I am also truly amazed that anyone such as herself can consider themselves to be intelligent when they leave a trail of evidence in Wikipedia, especially when you consider that people who join are advised that everytning they write will be on the permanent record.

The History of Official Modern Mainstream Opinion about hysteria

According to my main critic everything in Wikipedia must be consistent with modern mainstream opinion otherwise it is old, out-of-date, and obsolete, or it is just the non-notable nonsense of fringy kooks, and will be deleted. She is the type of person who has failed to learn from history, and is destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, which is okay for herself. However it is not acceptable for her to be making me or anyone else the victim of her failure to learn one of the most valuable lessons in life. To illustrate what I mean I will give you a brief account of one of the official mainstream medical opinions of past centuries. The word hysteria comes from hyster – the womb, and ia – the state of, and means illness caused by the womb. It was once thought that the womb was like a small animal which sometimes wandered up to the stomach to cause stomach pain, or kept walking to the chest to cause breathlessness, and up the throat to the head to cause headaches. We now all know that the womb does not, and cannot dislodge itself from it’s position to move about and cause such ailments, but that idea has been replaced by equally dubious concepts about the mind supposedly causing the same set of symptoms. The fact to be learned from history is this. Just because something is ‘modern’, or ‘mainstream’, or ‘official’ in the dark ages, or in the 17th, or 21st centuries, doesn’t make it true. It just means that some people believe it themselves, or want you to believe it, and that people who don’t consider the facts and evidence, and the history of the world, will believe it.

The total control of world knowledge and opinion can be achieved by one or two anonymous editors per article

Most people have the impression that the information in Wikipedia has been provided by millions of editors who ensure that it is comprehensive and reliable. However, in my observations many of the articles are completely controlled by anonymous paid, or unpaid individuals, or small groups of 2-6 editors. The editors who got there first are not only controlling the information, but have also been writing or influencing the policies which give them the ability to interpret the rules to suit themselves. i.e. they add their own information because of one rule, and delete yours because of different one. They can also accuse you of breaking a rule, and then get one of their friends or associates to delete information for that reason.

The outside public therefore needs to study what is happening there.

For example, when I was contributing with the ID of Posturewriter, to an article about “Da Costa’s syndrome”, I had one critic, named WhatamIdoing who was dictating the content, and her constant tag-teamer, named Gordonofcartoon, who was always agreeing with her. The main individual would be telling the other editors and administrators what to think and what to do.

You can see evidence of that on the Da Costa’s topic and talk page here, and here, and on the Conflict of interest pages, e.g. here, and on the POV/Civil/Pushing page here, and on the RFC discussion here, and on the Arbitration page, which you can see by scrolling down from here.

She also appeared to be co-operating with three other anonymous editors in transferring information whIch I provided to the Da Costa’s page, to another page called “Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome” here, and the anonymous editors may have been herself, using another computer in her house, or her local library, or her friends houses, or may have been her email friends interstate or overseas. “Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome” is one of the main alternative modern labels for Da Costa’s syndrome. The treatment section is dominated by medications, and with 200 million patients consuming prescriptions drugs which cost up to $150 per week, the industry is lucrative, and could be paying her to promote pills, and delete information about side-effects. She is also one of the main contributors to the topic of “Orthostatic Intolerance” (another alternative modern label for Da Costa’s syndrome).

WhatamIdoing is also the main contributor to the topic of “Hyperventilation Syndrome” here, and in the early discussion about Da Costa’s syndrome she argued that habitual hyperventilation “explains all of the symptoms” here. However, she lost that argument and you will notice that it isn’t mentioned on the current Da Costa’s page here

Gordonofcartoon is the main contributor to the link page about “Soldier’s heart” here, which was an alternative label for Da Costa’s syndrome in the early 20th century. There was originally only one novel on that page, until he added six poems, plays, and television shows etc, to make it appear to be ‘a regular disambiguation page’.

WhatamIdoing also has more than 2000 people or topics on her “watchlist” which included me, and Da Costa’s syndrome. Whenever anyone makes any changes to those 2000 articles she checks them, and if she disagrees with anything she deletes it or argues about it.

Other topics which she is the main contributor include “Fatigue (medical) here. She was given a prize for that before I started on the Da Costa’s page (where fatigue is the main symptom), so she has an extensive background of interest, and an entrenched set of opinions in the general area. That, in turn, gives her a personal POV (point of view), and conflict of interest (COI) in protecting her own personal opinions about such things. However, she is extremely secretive about her background and is determined to remain anonymous, and when asked to write an essay about herself and her interests she put on a pompous display of indignation and refused. She argued that she was a trusted editor because of her impartial neutrality, and had contributed to a wide range of topics, which proved she had no particular interest in any subject area. (That is the equivalent of a thief who robs a bank and hides the evidence from the police, and then protests his innocence).

She is also the controlling influence on the topic of “Premenstrual Syndrome” e.g. here and here

She also did a massive rewrite, and completely changed the essay called . . . “The difference between essays, guidelines, and policies” which enables her to pick and choose any one of those “rules” to use as an excuse for controlling pages by deleting or adding anything she wants. See here

She is also the top contributor to the External Links Guideline, with 110 edits here, and the External Links Noticeboard, with 409 edits (since August 2009), compared to the MiszaBot 11, of 178, and the third placegetter of 117 (as of 23-12-11) here, where she could obviously make sure that no-one linked to my website, or any other website which she, or perhaps her unidentified vested interest group or sponsor, didn’t want linked to Wikipedia articles.

She is also a significant contributor to the Notability Guideline. I was banned in January 2009, and began criticising my two critics on my own website. I probably started commenting on the ‘Notability’ issue about six months later, by starting a section about where my own theories and research have been published. Since October 2009, she has added 44 amendments to that guideline here, and 406 comments to the discussion about it (as of late December 2011) (at that stage MiszaBot 11 has made 403 edits?) here. You could assume that she wants 44 new ways to argue that my ideas are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Needless to say my website was often on the top 10 for the Google search engine topic of ‘Posture’ before I joined, and while I was involved with Wikipedia their relevant pages moved to number 1 (by using different words, and different sources, on different pages, or copying the same ideas which I have developed).

She had also completed more than 18,000 edits in four years, and regularly completed more than 100 edits in one day (including large essays), and on one occasion she did more than 300 edits in one day. I suspect that, on days when she only does 20 edits for Wikipedia, that she is also editing other websites anonymously to make it look as if other “independent” and “reliable” sites agree with her. She could also be transferring (plagiarising) the knowledge of new contributors to other sites such as “WhoNamedIt.com”, “WrongDiagnosis.com”, the “Rare Diseases Database”, and the ICD-9 lists etc. etc. i.e. She could be a ‘control freak’ trying to dictate world knowledge, or s company could be paying her to control public opinion on particular topics.

For example, one of her methods of controlling the information about Da Costa’s syndrome would be to discredit anyone who adds information which she personally disagrees with. In that regard, according to my theory poor posture is caused by poor nutrition etc. and can then be the physical cause of many health problems. However she described that idea as “fringy“, “nonsense”. She also deleted everything about it from the Da Costa’s page within the first few weeks. She is obviously motivated to discredit that idea, so she may have sent an email to a friend who edits a foreign language version of Wikipedia and asked him to write an article which argues that poor posture is caused by psychological factors such as laziness or depression etc. After being advised that the essay had been completed, she may have then contacted a friend called Penbat, and asked him to translate if into English and make it the most prominent article about posture in the English version by placing it out of alphabetical order at the very top of Wikipedia’s list of articles about posture. See here and here (note that according to my theory poor posture causes health problems by compressing the internal organs, and that tight waisted 19th century corsets had the same effect, and that the new Wikipedia article called Posture(psychology) includes pictures of men and women who are slouching or wearing corsets???

Penbat also appears to be searching around for psychiatric interpretations and labeling for every type of human behaviour, and when he finds a new one he starts a new page in Wikipedia with that label as the title?

He is the main contributor to the topics of “Control Freak” here, and “Management by fear” here and “Superficial Charm” here

Arcadian made ten edits to the Da Costa’s page in one day, and is also the second top contributor to the page about Orthostatic Intolerance here and here

The dominant editors on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page are Ward20, RetroS1mone, Sciencewatcher, and Jfdwolff. See here

Ward20 and RetroS1mone are the dominant editors on the page called “History of chronic fatigue syndrome” here

You can check other pages that interest you or your family members to see similar dominance or control patterns. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that in itself. but I am pointing out the opportunity that exists for individuals or organisations to control world opinion in an encyclopedia which the public considers to be neutral, comprehensive, and reliable.

At one stage I suggested that a way of preventing article dictatorship would be to rotate the editing each year, where each dominant editor had to refrain from making changes for the next 12 months and give someone else a go. Naturally, my main critic rejected the idea, because she doesn’t want to lose control of any of the subjects that interest her.

Something about the editor who calls himself Doc who isn’t a doctor

The information that Doc gives himself on his User talk page makes him sound like a reasonably intelligent and responsible adult, and he probably is. However he thinks he has the maturity and experience to judge the character of people he has never met, and a right to treat them as if they are ‘vandals’. According to the rules of good manners (WP:Civil) he has no such right unless he is very thorough and very careful to ensure that he isn’t making a mistake before he does that. I am old enough to be his father, and in my opinion he has got a lot to learn about people before he can consider himself a good judge of character, or honesty. After making a complete fool of himself recently he has tried to produce a silly excuse by adding the following words to the top of his user Page

“[[WARNING]]: I don’t take myself too seriously, most of the time” (end of quote) here. He has linked the word “Warning” to here.

If he doesn’t take himself seriously, he should stop pretending to be administrator of great authority and experience.

However, I don’t wish any thing personal, but he has joined forces with my main critic, and has said some quite ridiculous and offensive things about me, when he doesn’t actually know what he is talking about. I would therefore like to give him some advice which is as friendly as possible under the circumstances. He should not mislead people into thinking that he has medical qualifications by calling himself Doc, and in so doing, he is probably breaking the rules of ID’s. He has said that he doesn’t need medical qualifications to make decisions on this matter, but if I am accusing WhatamIdoing of telling lies about a medical topic, it is necessary. See here WhatamIdoing is a prolific liar but he is trusting her just because she has edited several thousand pages, and appears to be trusted by others here. In that regard he is foolish and naive, because many people strategically establish the pretence of honesty in order to break the rules or the law e.g. see here and my report here. The reason she is still in Wikipedia is because she lies and cheats her way through arguments and harasses and blocks or bans everyone who argues with her. She does not win by merit, or within the rules. If Doc wants to make decisions in Wikipedia he should, in future, only do so on topics where he has knowledge, and not pretend that he can judge honesty or behaviour on any other basis. He should take some responsibility and check the evidence that I have provided, and when he has seen it, he should, if he wishes to be helpful, do what some other editors do. While I am blocked he should set up an arbitration page and transfer the relevant discussions and evidence there, and follow through on it until she has been permanently banned. He should not make any more excuses about this. If he acts like an adult, and co-operates with my request, and considers the evidence, and has the maturity and confidence to challenge Whatamidoing on an arbitration page, and if he asks me for, and gets more evidence, and succeeds in banning her, and thereby improve the reliability of the editors and content of Wikipedia, I will thank him, and consider him to be a person who deserves to be treated with respect. If he tries to ignore, obstruct, play dumb, hide, delete, or divert attention away from the evidence, I will consider him to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Who controls neutral point of view in Wikipedia and who was doing the hostile complaining? This is a quote from my main critics comments about me on the arbitration page “Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints.” (end of quote) here. However, if you check the facts you can see that the exact opposite was true. For example, I made most of the major improvements to the topic page, and had to respond to criticism 49 times on the Da Costa’s syndrome talk page. By contrast my main critic with the Wikipedia ID of “WhatamIdoing” made 69, and her constant assistant “Gordonofcartoon” made 60 critical or dictatorial edits, almost three times as many as me. See here. Another editor named Guido den Broeder made 51 edits, but he was only involved for a week, and my two crititcs arranged to get him banned. Since then he has changed his Wikipedia ID to Roadcreature. Also two neutral and uninvolved editors each suggested separately that it would be a good idea for each of the people in the dispute to write a version of the article so that the uninvolved editors could merge them later. The objective of the neutral editors was to ensure that the final article complied with the policy which required a neutral and unbiased point of view. I actually wrote an essay to meet all of those requirements, and my main critic didn’t, and instead of allowing the neutral and uninvolved editors to decide what to do, she cut and pasted my version and subjected it to “a hostile litany of complaints” . e.g. here. The CUPCAKE and MUFFIN argument Is Da Costa’s syndrome important If there had been an argument about why she didn’t write a separate version she would typically say that, in her opinion, it was a trivial topic, and that she had more important things to spend her time on. This is a quote from one of her hostile arguments on a discussion that she set up about Da Costa’s syndrome on a page called Civil POV pushing . . . “This is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor case . . . (a vague 19th century syndrome) . . . “It’s overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia we can’t justify investing several editors’ time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting his personal views. the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles.” (end of quote) here. She is an arrogant person who deludes herself that her opinion has some value, as you can see by other articles which she edits, which she obviously sees as being more important than a very common illness which causes considerable problems for 2-4% of the population, which equates with 200 million people world wide. As of the 4th October 2012 she was the major contributor to the page called “Cupcakes”, with 71 edits here, and the second highest contributor to the page about “Muffins” with 25 edits here. I have had this ailment for more than thirty years, and had to study it myself because none of my doctors were able to explain or relieve the symptoms, and I had to research and develop my own methods of treating it, which have been copied all around the world. Although it has not had any effect on me emotionally, I am aware of how difficult it is to live with, and that 50% of patients become depressed within five years, and a considerable number go mad or commit suicide. The public, and medical consumers organisations in particular, should know how offensive that editor is. She would like to see patients with chronic illness silenced, and put on a ship of fools, and sailed off to nowhere. If she has got enough time to edit articles about cupcakes and muffins, and yet claims that she hasn’t got enough time to write a version of a medical article where she “pretends” to be an authority, then there is something seriously wrong with her attitude. She is an insolent, disrespectful, immature, and irresponsible fool. The opinion of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul While my main critic thinks that cup cakes and muffins are more important than Da Costa’s syndrome, there are completely opposite opinions from intelliget people such as this statement by Harvard professor Oglesby Paul . . . . “The first world war saw an amazing concern for the syndrome described by Da Costa. Some of the best medical brains in Britain were recruited to study the problem.” See here, and one of my reports here.

My main critics assistant was a liar

On 23-3-2008 my two critics lost an argument against me, because one of them, Gordonofcartoon, didn’t even bother to read past the first paragraph of a research paper. He also didn’t bother to read the reference list at the end of the article, where two of the references included Sir Thomas Lewis, who gave Da Costa’s syndrome the alternative label of the Effort Syndrome.

Despite losing that argument and making an utter fool of himself he didn’t apologise, or admit that he was wrong, He just said . . . “I’ll leave it for now – see what others think”. See here

Also, despite the fact that nobody appeared to “think about it” or agree with him, he deleted the information about that article here. Also, despite losing that argument he set up another discussion to argue that I should be blocked for having a conflict of interest.

Despite the fact that he failed to get enough editors to form a consensus about that, a single administrator threatened to block me if I added any more information to the topic. Also despite the fact that Gordonofcartoon lost the argument and failed to get consensus he spent the next twelve months giving all of the other editors the false impression that he won, and that he had consensus to block me, and that I was being disruptive for arguing with him.

See him setting up a “conflict of interest” discussion, and failing to attract enough editors to get a consensus on 27-3-2008 here, and again on 13-5-2008 here.

All decisions in Wikipedia are supposed to be made by consensus, where, in practice, the consensus is determined by a clear majority, and not just by “one” administrator. See my report on how they faked consensus here

Their regular “pattern” of disruptive behaviour

You can also see one of their strategies. Namely, that whenever they lost one argument, they would start two or more new ones, so that when they lost the second, they could keep on complaining. The eventual result was that after they had lost six arguments they were accusing me of violating dozens of policies (e.g. see here). They were doing that to create the illusion that they had been winning all the time, and that, by not following their advice, I was exhibiting a regular pattern of disruptive behaviour?

Anonymous editors don’t have a conflict of interest?

My main critic is an anonymous middle-aged woman who does not have enough courage to give her real identity, or the maturity to take responsibility for the things she writes, or sufficient self-respect to be held accountable for her own personal opinions.

When I asked her to tell the other editors her real name, and write an essay about her own “conflict of interest”, to explain her “hostile attitude” toward me, she responded with her predictable display of “pompous indignation”.

Da Costa’s syndrome and physical evidence

This is what Jacob Mendez Da Costa wrote in 1871 on page 25 of his research paper . . . “The pulse is always greatly and rapidly influenced by position. Thus in one case (Case 12), in which, in the standing posture, it was from 105-108, it became shortly after lying down rather less than 80”. Nowadays that problem can be diagnosed by placing the patient on a bed, and then measuring their pulse rate and blood pressure, and than asking them to stand up and doing the measurements again. A more detailed test is to place them on a tilt table, where the patients pulse rate and blood pressure can be measured as his body is being tilted at several different angles. The results show that patients with Da Costa’s syndrome have different measurements to healthy people, so tilt table tests can now be used to diagnose the ailment. This is what my main critic wrote in her version of the article about Da Costa’s syndrome . . . “a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities” here This is what she wrote on the Da Costa’s syndrome talk page on 7th June 2008 . . . “Some researchers will tell you privately that giving someone a DCS diagnosis before giving them a tilt-table test is malpractice.” See here  

The Wikipedia blackout and global control of information

The recent 24 hour protest and blackout of Wikipedia in response to SOPA (the stop online piracy act), and PIPA, shows how much control that organisation now has on World knowledge by the click of a switch or the tap on a keyboard. The affect on all knowledge indicates how easy it is for any group of anonymous editors to very easily control the type of information that the public gets to read about any one topic. While there are obviously some honest editors and administrators who have the best of intentions, the shortcomings need to be taken into consideration.

Experience versus “instant” knowledge

On 27th May 2008 my main critic tried to give another editor the impression of having vastly superior knowledge about Da Costa’s syndrome by listing five other labels for it. I watched the discussion for a while and then, about a week later, decided to link to a medical consumers webpage which listed more than eighty. She replied with these words about her small list of five (which she got from one website) . . . “Actually, I thought I’d just do redirects for the names in bold face at the top of this article. They seem be fairly well supported” (end of quote). In other words she hadn’t read enough about the subject to know for sure – they just ‘seemed’ that way to her. I also explained to her that not all of the labels meant exactly the same thing to every researcher, and gave her a quote from one of her own references which said “Not all patients with neurocirculatory asthenia have cardiac neurosis, and not all patients with cardiac neurosis have neurocirculatory asthenia” here, and she replied . . . “Thanks, Posturewriter. I’ve incorporated that information. Is there another example of this distinction being made explicit that you might like to include, or is this good enough for now?” (end of quote). You can see that I had all of the knowledge and that she was asking for more information to improve the article, but then she would typically rush off to other discussions where she would always put a spin on everything to make me look like an ignorant fool, and herself look like the “expert”. For example, six months later, in January 2009, she set up a discussion on a page called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (abbreviated as RSN), where she managed to convince a group of editors that the website which contained the list of 80 other labels was an unreliable source of information. . Soon after that she wrote these words on the arbitration page . . . “Posturewriter’s use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia’s basic standards. For example, a recent RSN question produced 100% agreement that the personal webpage of a patient is not a reliable source for facts about diseases.” See here and here and here Needless to say, that medical consumers webpage is a lot more reliable than my main critic who tells lies.

I invite you to be the “independent” judge

I would like you to consider the following facts and then read what my main critic told the arbitrators on the page where I was banned, where one admin ignored the principles of consensus and banned me on his own.

1. Da Costa wrote in 1871 that “undoubtedly” the waist belt and knapsack had something to do with the symptoms, and recommended that loose garments needed to be worn in order to assist with recovery. 2. Paul Dudley White started studying this topic in World War 1 when he was the assistant to Sir Thomas Lewis. He became the top authority on this topic in the U.S., and his book, which was published in 1951, contained a chapter on it. 3. I was writing the history section of the article where Wikipedia policy allows the use of ‘older’ references, for obvious reasons. 4. Sir James MacKenzie was Knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915, and opened a meeting about the topic in 1916. 5. I told my main critic that it was not appropriate to give prominence to the label of “Soldier’s heart” by having a children’s fiction novel called “Soldier’s heart” on the top line of a medical page. The dispute was eventually “resolved” when an independent editor deleted it from the top line about a month before the arbitration discussion. Another editor deleted the link to that novel a few days after I was banned. See here and here. (in other words she not only lost the argument against me, but was also told that she was wrong by at least two “neutral” editors on different occasions, and she didn’t argue with them, but just obediently let them delete the links). I would now like you to see how many lies she told to the independent arbitrators here Some of the evidence to support my statements can be seen. here and here Note also the issue of neutral point of view. She deleted all mention of my theory a year earlier, and it hasn’t been mentioned since. I did however mention a variety of other concepts. For example, neurologists favor the neurological cause, virologists favor the idea of it being a post-viral syndrome, and of course, psychiatrists favor the anxiety cause. My main critic has a bias toward the anxiety cause, and was pushing her own point of view by deleting most of the reliable evidence of physical cause. e.g. see my report here. She also excluded one of my references on the grounds that it was written by a medical consumer. without regard for the fact that it was compiled from the work of four doctors. Her lies about my contributions saturated every paragraph she wrote and were aimed at focusing your attention away from what she was doing, so I want you to judge her. Did she tell a lot of lies? Do you think she is a reliable source of information, or should be trusted for the accuracy and reliability of her ‘fact checking’. For example, was Paul Dudley White an unreliable source of information? did Sir James MacKenzie just join a society and then just show up at an ordinary meeting about nothing in particular? and is the link to the children’s story still in the article now?

My main critic is a liar and a fool

My main critic is a liar who wants you to believe that Da Costa’s syndrome is caused by laziness, the lack of exercise, the fear of exercise, and the fear of battle, which affects cowards who are anxious and timid about everything (e.g. see her notes in reference 13 here). She also wants you to believe that my suggestions about the weight and tightness of the knapsack straps around the chest are stupid, and have nothing to do with it, and have been proven wrong by her references. e.g. See her lies and comments here. Note also how she pretends to know about the topic of clothing and health, but actually didn’t read about it until after I provided Da Costa’s original research paper as a reference here. See also the fact that she mentioned tight chest straps as the cause in her version of the article, but she has not told the readers anything about her argument that it is wrong here). This is a quote from page 33 of Da Costa’s original research paper . . . “Case 185, a man who had been in sixteen fights, and for two years had been off duty a day, though gradually more troubled with palpitation, and much distressed while carrying his knapsack on long marches”. On page 38 he states “Hard field service was the chief assignable cause in 38.5% of cases . . . these increased and became marked after forced marches (as in Case 110 after a march of twenty-six miles in one day).” In his remarks on page 52 he concludes that his study “enforces the lessons” which include “that recruits, especially very young ones, be as far as practicable exercised and trained in marches and accustomed to fatigue before they are called upon to undergo the wear and tear of actual warfare; and it exhibits some of the dangers incident to the rapid and incessant maneuvering of troops . . . and . . . every commander should be made aware that in so using his men he is rendering some unfit for further duty”. (end of quote) He also concludes on the same page “that their equipments be such as will not unnecessarily constrict, and thus retard or prevent recovery”. (end of quote). As you can see my main critic is a liar and a fool who has provided Wikipedia with an article which contains lies, and misleading, unreliable, and poor quality information that misrepresents the study, findings, and conclusions of 1871. The only part which is accurate was provided to the treatment and history sections by me here and here, and used in her version e.g. here

The Da Costa’s syndrome debate

My main critic believed that the symptoms of Da Costa’s syndrome were imaginary and caused by anxiety, so her version of the article has it in the categories of “Somatoform” (imaginary) disorders, and “Anxiety” disorders. However, she is just an “instant expert”, so she didn’t know any more than four lines of information until I started adding to the topic. For example, she didn’t know that the condition was named after Jacob Mendez Da Costa because she gets all of her “instant expertise” from dictionaries which only give the label, and a small amount of information. She also didn’t know that he wrote a research paper in 1871, because she thinks that anything from two years ago is scientifically “old” ” out-of-date” and “obsolete”, and she ridicules and mocks anything older than fifty years by describing it as “from before most editors were born”. However, I added some information from Da Costa’s original research paper, which she “suddenly” became aware of. For example, Some of the soldiers were fit and healthy when they were carrying heavy sixty pound knapsacks up and down hills for days or weeks in the cold an wet, without sufficient food, rest or sleep, and when they contracted infections such as malaria or typhoid. When they felt faint and collapsed and fell out of line with exhaustion they were carted off to hospital where they spent several months recuperating. When they left hospital they had recovered from the fever, but were still suffering from faintness, fatigue and a type of breathlessness. Various surveys have since found that they continued to experience those symptoms ten or twenty years, or more later. In other words their condition is chronic. This is what I suggest that you make the subject of your debates. 1. Are the symptoms real or imaginary. 2. Are the symptoms due to the fear of exercise – Yes, or No. 3. Are the symptoms due to the fear of battle – Yes, or No. You can also consider debates about these questions . . . a. If you tell the patient that his symptoms are imaginary will he believe it. b. Were their symptoms caused by laziness. lack of exercise, and deconditioning. c. Twenty years after the war, during peace time, while walking in a park, is the patients breathlessness due to laziness, the lack of exercise, the fear of exercise, and the fear of battle. d. If a woman who has never been to war develops the same symptoms should she be diagnosed with “Soldier’s heart”, which, according to my main two critics should be the “chief alternative label”. e. Is the current article in Wikipedia likely to be considered reliable by patients and other people who actually know what they are talking about.

Three open questions to the administrators of Wikipedia

(I would like the public support on this)

I have been criticising my main critic, but in that process it has been quite difficult to do so without also implying that other editors or administrators are at fault, including all of Wikipedia. That has never been my intention but, I can assure you, that it is what my main critic wants, so that you will defend her actions.

However, I would like you to answer three questions.

1. On a page about Da Costa’s syndrome I presented the idea that the symptoms of faintness and chronic fatigue were due to an effect on the blood vessels (i.e. it is a vascular disorder), and it is a major part of the solution to a mystery which took me five years to solve three decades ago. However, more recently, between 2007 and 2009, two editors told all of you that my ideas were”self-promoting nonsense” and crap. If that is so then why has another editor named “Arcadian” put the same type of fatigue in the category of “Vascular diseases” in 2011. See here and here and here (The idea which took me five years to develop could have been stolen by someone else in five seconds, and then slightly modified and rewritten using different words or jargon). 2. When my main critic, named, “WhatamIdoing”, asked me to provide some “modern” information, I responding by presenting some modern references which said that the symptoms of Da Costa’s syndrome were similar to those seen in the current descriptions of the chronic fatigue syndrome, but she told me that I would never convince her of that. Why then did she say the same thing in her version of the article, and why is it still there in 2011. See here and here and my report here 3. My main critic told other editors that Sir James MacKenzie was not important, but was just an ordinary man who walked in off the street and attended an ordinary meeting. Why then has she used the notes from his meeting as a reference number 17 in her very small list of 18, when there have been thousands of research articles to choose from in the past 150 years. See here and here and here My main critic would respond to these questions by ignoring them as if they didn’t matter, or by making silly excuses such as it wasn’t exactly this or that, or it was a violation of policy A or Z. She is very devious and deceitful. I want your answers, and will make them public on my website.

Leadership by bad example?

My main critic seems to know a lot of trivia, and to write a lot about how things should be done, but she doesn’t comprehend the basic principles of social skill. For example . . . 1. She has bad manners so intelligent people will not treat her with respect. See here 2. She tells lies so intelligent people will not trust her. See here and here 3. She ignores all the rules, so intelligent people will not take her advice about policy seriously. See here She is completely lacking in the skill of leadership by example, so has no choice but to impose her opinions on everyone else. She couldn’t find anything within the thousands of pages of rules to ban me, so she arranged for someone else to ignore them, and then gloated about it by giving him an “Outlaw Halo Award”. See here Note also that 10 months after “ignoring the rules” to ban me, the editor who did that gave this advice to another editor named Pawel . . . “You can either play by the rules or get banned. And yes, I will be the one doing the banning. It’s as simple as that.” See here As you can see, there are a lot of editors who ignore all the rules, but have the audacity to tell everyone else to obey them or be banned. It is truly ridiculous.

Is there Corruption in Wikipedia decision making procedures?

While I was in Wikipedia I had two critics who were always losing arguments against me and seeking revenge by setting up more than a dozen discussions to get me blocked or banned. I will give you three typical examples. Firstly, they set up a discussion to get me blocked from an article on the grounds that I had a conflict of interest which was influencing it’s neutrality. However, only one other editor joined the discussion and he told them that they were both wrong. There was also one administrator involved and he threatened to block me before I had the opportunity to defend myself from those accusations, and after that it was too late, because he was never going to embarrass himself by admitting that he was wrong for not hearing my defence first. See here. The second example is a “Request for Comment”(FRC) discussion where my two critics essentially accused me of writing a biased article. I read the policy about “RFC” discussions and found that decisions could not be made while those involved were still actively trying to resolve the issue. The neutral editors said that I could solve the problem by writing an essay outside of Wikipedia, and presenting it to them to decide if it was biased or not, or for them to merge it with any versions produced by my two critics. I advised them that I would be happy to do that, but while I was away, and co-operating with a neutral editor on a subpage, an administrator threatened to block me if I added any more information to the topic, and my main critic rewarded him with a ‘barnstar’. See the RFC page here and it’s discussion page here and the barnstar mentioned here The third example is where my second critic set up an Arbitration page to get me blocked or banned. I told about 12 arbitration editors as politely as possible that I had two critics who had been losing arguments and ranting and raving for a year, and that they would continue to do so. However, I didn’t object, so long as the arbitrators provided me with the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself from all of the criticism at the end of the week. In the next few days my main critic joined the discussion and ranted and raved as usual, and then one administrator suddenly barged in on the discussion and banned me without giving me the opportunity to defend myself from the newer criticisms, and without giving any of the other 12 editors a vote. A few months later my main critic rewarded him with a barnstar for ignoring all the rules. See here, and one of my reports here. According to Wikipedia policies all decisions are supposed to be based on consensus. See my report here (My two critics were arguing that I was pushing my POV, which means pushing my “point of view”, but they were not telling the arbitrators that their arguments contained many statements which were a contradiction to scientifcically proven facts. I think that all sensible people will agree, that if there is a dispute between my two critics (on one side), and me (on the other) that they should not be deciding what is “neutral” and what is not, but that the decision should be made by “independent” and “neutral” editors. I also think that sensible people will agree that any decision about “neutrality” should be made by a vote amongst 12 “independent” arbitrators, (after hearing both sides of the story), and not by one “dictator” who barges in on the discussion and tells everyone else what to do, and then gets rewarded by my main critic. In my opinion, he was just being paid a bribe that he had been promised before he banned me. i.e. he was told that if he banned me he would get a barnstar. See my report about the attempt to hide the reasons for that barnstar here)

The Sly and Toxic writer of policies

At 2:38 on 28 March 2010 my main critic wrote an instant and massive change to a minor page called “Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays”. Since then that person has linked back to it and created the false impression that it has been gradually developed and accepted by a consensus of hundreds of editors over many years. If you look carefully you can see how that extremely sly individual was writing an instruction sheet, outside of the official policy pages, about how the rules should be interpreted, and essentially overlaid them with loopholes that will enable any editor to do anything they want under any circumstances.

Some exact quotes from the new version

WP:Ignore all rules is a major policy”. “The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia is obscure.” There are a remarkable number of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia’s policies” “violating . . . of policies, such as WP:Verifiability, is done constantly, by thousands of editors each year, without anyone getting blocked.” See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_ guidelines_and_essays&diff=352454420&oldid=150159849

How they used those policies

During the twelve months that I was in Wikipedia, I described many of the instances in which my two critics were violating policies, but each and every time they found an exception in the rules, and when they ran out of ideas they arranged for another editor to ignore all the rules and ban me. They could do that to any new contributor, for any reason that suited any hidden agenda.

See examples of their spin here

(These were the previous words . . . “The difference between policies, guidelines and essays are: You must follow policies (except for the common exception); You should follow guidelines: It’s a good idea to follow essays; Don’t ignore guidelines and essays just because they aren’t policy.”) here and here

See how one of them blocked a new policy aimed at prohibiting “paid” editing here

The outlaw halo award

A few months after I was banned my main critic gave the person responsible an Outlaw Halo award for being the only admin who was prepared to ignore all the rules to ban me. It is a badge of shame.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661

Anyone, or any group inside or outside of Wikipedia, who assists me in any way to get that editor permanently banned from Wikipedia and the internet can give themselves a badge of honor called . . .

The law enforcer award

and my sincere gratitude.

Some clues about how to achieve that objective are described here

“Normal society” versus the infiltrators of Wikipedia

Normal society has principles and rules that need to be complied with, and one of the major principles is freedom of speech. By stark contrast some of the worst elements of society have infiltrated Wikipedia to undermine those principles. They have written policies to restrict which information the public gets to see, and an ignore all rules policy that allows them to do it with consumate ease. The respectable editors of Wikipedia need to solve that problem.

See also here

The Five Evils of Wikipedia

If you join Wikipedia you may soon be directed to a page called the “Five pillars” which explains the fundamental principles required. In particular, that you don’t need to be deterred by a lot of rules, because the main requirements are that you contribute to discussions politely and provide factual information that is independently verifiable. However I spent 12 months contributing so I am in a position to define the ‘Five evils” of Wikipedia. 1. There is a page in Wikipedia which advises that the truth does not matter, with these words . . . “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.” See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=388243179 2. There is an “Ignore all rules” policy which is a magnet for all types of individuals who would like to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and propaganda. They can be anonymous, covert, volunteer or highly paid professionals who seed the encyclopedia with bias while pretending that it is “neutral” and “objective” information. 3. I had two critics who were prolific liars, and who cheated, violated the rules, and “falsified history”. When I reported their behaviour to experienced editors none of them did anything about it. 4. Those same two individuals, but one in particular, would participate in policy discussions to influence, or actually rewrite them, and there are now hundreds, if not thousands of pages of policies, guidelines, and essays that are riddled with exceptions or loopholes that enable the experienced editors to ignore the spirit of those policies. The absence of a policy on double standards is related to that problem 5. When I wrote an essay that described the tactics used by my two critics, and provided links to evidence and proof of their behaviour, they called it an “attack essay” and arranged for it to be deleted. However, Wikipedia already had an attack essay which has been kept on the devious grounds that it is obvious satire and humor, but it essentially defines, or brands “newbies” as “bastards”, “jerks”, “little shits”, and “easy prey”. When the experienced editor favors a person they call them a “new contributor” or politely use their ID, but when they oppose them they refer to them as a “newbie”. There are now thousands of insults that have been embedded in the brand name of “newbie”. For example, “newbies” are portrayed as being “inexperienced” and “immature”, and so contemptibly “stupid” that they don’t understand simple concepts such as the ‘placebo’ effect, and so ignoratnt that they don’t know that stress makes the heart rate increase, and so incompetent in their ability to assess evidence that they don’t take into account the difference between one off pesonal experiences and reproducible experimental facts, and that they are so emotional that they incapable of objectivity. That label is obvious ad hominem and can be, and is applied to anyone new regardless of their age, qualifications or experience. For more information about bad manners see here For more deltails see here https://theposturetheory.twebexponent.co.uk/da-costa_ssynd-wikiwebpa2/#FinalSay There is an existing page in Wikipedia called “Wikipedia:Five pillars of evil” which has a slightly different critical view. For example, the actual policies advise that everyone is considered equal, and that all contributors should assume good faith in everyone else and be polite. However that Wikipedia page advises that it applies to new contributors only, but administrators can assume bad faith and be as ill-mannered as they want.” It has these words at the top to justify the fact that it hasn’t been deleted . . . “This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.” See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w”/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars_of_evil&diff=335596936&oldid= 296375797

Your assistance would be appreciated

My two critics (WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon) teamed up and wrote massive amounts of criticism of my contributions so that other readers would get the false impression that the entire Wikipedia community of thousands of editors were arguing against me. See how they argued incessantly against Guido den Broeder and EdJonston here, and how they teamed up on their secret Civil POV pushing accusations here, See also how my main critic argued relentlessly against a neutral editor named Avnjay here, and in that process used her sandbox here. They also teamed up on the RFC discussions here, and the arbitration discussion here. They kept arguing for 12 months until I was banned, and it has taken me several years to gather the evidence and proof that much of what they wrote was lies and bullshit. (See also my report on how the tag-teamed to write a loophole into the rule against tag-teaming here, and how they faked consensus here, and ignored all the rules anyway here). Your assistance in banning those two cheats, or driving them out of Wikipedia would be appreciated.

Threats and intimidation in Wikipedia

Most of the editors and administrators are afraid to start an arbitration page to ban my main critic, because they know that she typically launches into a relentless response of revenge that involves putting them on a watchlist, launching a covert edit war, telling them that they are incompetent in front of others, accusing them of breaking the rules, criticising everything they write, and never shutting up until they either concede to her wishes or are banned. For example, EdJonston read the massive amount of criticism which she and her team mate wrote, and gained the false impression that everyone in Wikipedia was arguing against me, and then knew that the only way to shut her up was to agree with her here. Guido den Broeder agreed with me and was banned, and she left a comment with the clear message that if I didn’t toe the line that I would be next. SmokeyJoe told her that my contributions appeared to him to be that of a top quality academic, and she defamed my character until he deferred to her judgment, without any regard for the merit of the additions. A neutral editor named Avnjay told her to try and reach a consensus by going ‘gently, gently’ (instead of responding in her typical hostile manner), and when he told her that my version of the article was a lot better than hers she told him that he was incompetent and launched into a relentless onslaught of nitpicking which didn’t stop until he realised that the only way to end the dispute was to concede to her wishes e.g. here. She had to get me banned because I wasn’t prepared to tolerate her lies and bullshit about other editors, the content, and the rules. Somebody has to look at her behaviour and ask themselves how Wikipedia is ever supposed to get a reputation for being respectable with people like her in it.

The Two Snottiest Grubs in Wikipedia History

which haven’t metamorphosed into mature creatures

My main critic has the immature mentality of a teenager who has suddenly learnt that they can use ‘double meanings’ to their advantage. For example, there are two pages related to Wikipedia called “Troll“. The first describes a ‘troll’ as a ‘disruptive editor’, and the second as a ‘large, ugly, slow and dim-witted, disgusting and hairy monster who lives in a cave and comes out at night to make a pest of itself’. By using that double meaning she can then encourage or provoke her friends into describing me, or anyone who has different opinions to hers, as a troll, and then claim that she is not insulting me, or defaming my character, or ignoring the rules of courtesy, because a troll is just a disruptive person, not an ugly pest. I would therefore like to add two new pages to Wikipedia to define the words ‘Snotty grub“. The first defines it as an arrogant editor‘, and the second as a filthy foul-mouthed form of low-life that slides and slithers about in the slime and muck, and cow shit of a garden variety compost heap. She and her team mate are the “Snottiest grubs in Wikipedia history”. See the definitions of trolls here and here and her use of ‘attitude readjustment tools‘ here and here, and see here. If they want me to be courteous to them they should have been polite to me while I was there. In the meantime I will say anything I want about them until such time as the administrators force them to apologise for their offensive behaviour towards me, and in particular that they permanently ban them for breaking the rules of Wikipedia by using “attitude readjustment tools”. See also the worst type of trolls of them all called the Troll makers here and here, and their juvenile methods of internet harassment here

The two fools were all talk and no action and completely and utterly unreliable sources of information

My main critic is a snotty grub who is trying to convince the younger editors of the importance of providing verifiable information from reliable top quality sources, but she doesn’t take her own advice. For example, she and her stupid team mate didn’t bother to read past the cover of a book called Soldier’s heart, or the first paragraph of Rosen’s research paper, and she didn’t even bother to read Oglesby Pauls history of the topic which she provided as a reference herself. See more about her unreliability here. The two of them just invented things and told lies about them because they arrogantly thought that I was a fool who didn’t bother to check the facts either. e.g. See here and here and my reports here and here and here. If you study the way they do things you can see that they impulsively ‘leap to ignorant conclusions’ and if you study my methods you will see that I check facts over and over again, and refine my conclusions, to make sure that they are accurate. Given that my main critic has 2000 pages on her watchlist, which she controls, it means that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source of information, particularly about public health. It will continue to be unreliable about such things until the administrators permanently ban her, and if she has medical qualifications her state and international authorities should make sure that she is never allowed to earn a living in any sector of the health care industry.

The deletion of my comments

I have been interested in health topics and medical history for more than 30 years, and have written some theories, and have had more than 100 letters or articles published in newspapers and magazines, and published a 1000 page book. I have therefore had enough knowledge and experience to be able to recognise which information is missing from Wikipedia, and at one stage had added comments to five different topics. However, I found out later that each of those contributions had been deleted by five different editors, and when I checked, I found that some of the reasons for those deletions were petty and pedantic. For example, if I use a 1951 book called “The Specialties in General Practice” published by W.B. Saunders as a reference, and it is deleted on the grounds that it is ‘unreliable’ or ‘old’, then the editor is being disruptive, because it is ridiculous to call such a book unreliable, and that editor is breaking the rules because they are supposed to be co-operative and helpful by finding modern references themselves, rather than deleting obvious and useful facts. See here and here. An example of offensive double standards can be seen from my main critic who used several ‘old’ articles and books as references in her version of Da Costa’s syndrome here However, my main critic tried to give another group the impression that I was a young, ignorant, and inexperienced person who was making a pest of himself by adding worthless information which had to be removed, and that I had to be blocked or banned. You can consider my report and judge the matter for yourself here. You can then read her extremely childish ranting and raving about it here. She lost the other arguments on the page where she made that statement, because the consensus went against her here, but she just kept on ranting and raving, and ignoring consensus and all of the rules, and telling lies until she managed to get me banned. You may believe what they want you to believe that I was being disruptive to the Wikipedia community, but I can assure you that I was contributing constructively, and was mainly arguing with two prolific liars, which is what I was supposed to do . . . to help “improve” Wikipedia.

Evidence that my critics tell lies and break the rules

of Wikipedia and were 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 editors, so I took notes and have spent some time since 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, as if all of them 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 that organisation 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. However, please note that when I first joined Wikipedia I saw general common sense advice to be courteous, and to support comments with reliable references, and to avoid criticising other editors unless you could provide strong evidence, because every word you write will be on the permanent record, so don’t say anything that you might regret later. Hence, you will notice other editors describing me as polite and my two critics complaining about that support. Nevertheless, they were being arrogant, condescending, and generally offensive in their manner, and were frequently violating the policies, but surprisingly, since I have been banned, my own Usertalk page where they went to annoy me has been deleted, my subpage where I provided an essay that another editor described as better than the one provided by my critics has been removed, and the talk page where I was co-operating with a neutral editor has been deleted. If you are curious about why they would violate all of Wikipedia policies the answer is simple. They had their own ideas about Da Costa’s syndrome and it’s history, and were going to impose their own personal opinion on that page no matter what. They therefore told me that I must obey every policy in Wikipedia as if they were as rigidly enforced as rules carved in rock, but they had four years of previous experience to learn all the details of policies, and dozens of ways of interpreting, twisting, or evading them to argue that everything they did was correct, and when they couldn’t get their way they flagrantly and boastfully ignored them as if the ability to ignore the rules was a badge of honor and a confirmation of their power. When applied to themselves they would treat the rules as if they were as flexible as a rubber band, and they would argue such things as ‘we were not violating policy A because an overlap with policies B,C, and D, and a section of policy G makes their actions an exception’ etc’, or they would use their their prettiest ‘hatnote’ policy which allowed them to link medical articles to children’s stories or ‘flowering plants’ if they wanted to, and, of course, they NEVER told me about their most favorite ‘ignore all rules’ policy WP:IAR. In order to view the evidence start here: That my two critics use foul language see here That they were working as a tag team here, 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. That they were arrogantly and deliberately breaking the rules of Wikipedia and rewarding other editors for breaking them see here That they were rewriting, or altering history to suit themselves see here and here and here That they were deleting information to make their own opinions seem credible see here That they were telling lies about the relationship between Da Costa’s Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome see here That they were telling lies about the subpage process for resolving neural point of view issues see here That they were lying when they say I am not co-operative see here That they 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 They 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 in dealing with ‘the two fastest mudslingers in the west’. Banning my two critics: Here is a quote from my main critic. . . “Whether the community calls a page a “policy” or a “guideline” does not determine whether violations of that page produce blocks. What makes a difference is the nature of the activity: violating “behavioral” pages will get you blocked; violating stylistic pages will not get you blocked.” WhatamIdoing 06:32, 4 April 2010 If that is true, my two critics should be permanently banned. My assessment of their tactics before I was banned, and some information that I found twenty months later can be seen here When I joined Wikipedia there was a standard instruction that if you aren’t prepared to deal with merciless editing then don’t bother. See how to copy their ‘merciless editing’ and edit warring methods here

The resentful and spiteful behaviour of my two critics

(and – were there 140 years of harmonious and co-operative tranquility, or heated arguments in the history of research into Da Costa’s syndrome?)

I became aware that there were a lot of hostile, bitter, resentful, and spiteful arguments about Da Costa’s syndrome many years before I saw research papers or books which actually mentioned that there had been “many heated arguments” throughout the history of research into the topic.

The main arguments were whether the symptoms were real or imaginary, and physical or mental.

There were more than 100 different ideas and labels about the cause with many research papers including five or more in their title or first paragraph, and it has been said that typically the neurologist will see it as a disorder of the nervous system, the immunologist will see it as a disorder of the immune system, and the gynaecologist would see it as a disorder of the womb, and a psychologist will see mental factors as the cause, and in fact there have been more than 100 different suggestions about psychological causes alone, such as anxiety, depression, and the “mysteries” of the mind.

When I started adding information to that topic in Wikipedia I was made aware that I was not allowed to mention my own ideas, but had to produce an article which represented “neutral point of view” so I said that there had been many heated arguments and gave an account of what ideas had been presented throughout history and why they changed.

However, I had two critics who were constantly amusing me with their claims to being respectable editors who wanted to provide the readers with a neutral point of view, and that I was “cherry picking” information from “selective” research papers to focus on my own “bias”.

They deleted all scientific evidence of physical cause and argued that the only thing that was allowed in Wikipedia was the opinions from history which were consistent with “official” “modern” “mainstream” research journals and books.

In essence they were saying that it was now considered to be an “anxiety disorder” in dictionaries, and that it had previously been put in the category of “somatoform (or imaginary) disorders” by the “World Health Organisation” etc, and they would argue that I was only allowed to use references which said that it was considered to be an anxiety disorder in 1970, and an anxiety disorder in 1950, and an anxiety disorder in 1920 etc.

They wanted the readers to believe that the history of reasearch proceeded with all of the experts always agreeing with each other.

They also wanted the other editors to believe that they themselves were calm, sensible, experts and authorities on the topic, and deleted all of the scientific evidence of physical cause. By contrasts they described me as a stupid, worthless, non-notable, fringy kook who was filling the article with nonsense and crap because I was an ignorant, uneducated, biased, disruptive, and uncooperative person, and they provoked other editors into calling me a troll, which in their double talk is an insult which refers to me as a big ugly hairy monster who lives in caves and comes out an night to make a pest of itself.

They were the most bitter, resentful, spiteful, offensive, and hostile people I have ever encountered in any argument in my entire life.

Wikipedia’s rules about good manners

(Note that I was in my mid 50’s and had been studying the subject for thirty years. They were in their late thirties or early forties and had not read anything about it before)

Wikipedia has a set of rules which requires all editors to be constructive and polite in the way they add information to it’s topic pages, so if you added a factual statement you might expect someone to thank you. However, if you made a mistake, or added a statement that was wrong, you would expect someone to delete it and explain why, with some sort of reference which gave proof that it was wrong.

However, while I was editing the page called Da Costa’s syndrome I was being criticised by two editors who would remove the information and insult me like this . . . “We have deleted that rubbish because you are just an ignorant, worthless, non-notable fringy kook, and we are important editors who have been in Wikipedia for four long years, and we don’t like nonsense and crap.

Essentially they couldn’t prove that anything I said was wrong, so they were trying to convince other editors that I was being disruptive and needed to be blocked.

In the essay below I will just report the type of words which two editors used to insult and discredit me and my contributions, but you will need to see them in the context of the massive number of lies they told about me which I have identified in an index to many of them here.

Also, although they spent more than twelve months insulting me on a regular basis, I didn’t do anything about it, partly because I am thick skinned and thought that they were both being foolish, and partly because I didn’t know the full details of the rules, or what procedure to use to stop them, and I wasn’t particularly interested in responding to their snide remarks because I had also been told that there were administrators who checked the discussions on a regular basis and would deal with anyone who was not obeying the rules. Nevertheless, nobody ever came to stop them so eventually I dealt with them myself by returning their insults, but they soon started accusing me of being ill-mannered and had me banned.

In the meantime they made the following insults about me . . .

Count the number of rude, judgemental, derogatory, taunting personal attacks and insults below

Two editors started the Da Costa’s syndrome discussion page on 21st December 2007, by adding my real name as the first section heading in bold print (which is cosidered to be a personal attack, and is against the rules – they are supposed to discuss the topic and not the person).

In their very first sentence they said that I was just writing about “garden variety” orthostatic intolerance, and that I was trying to “reinvent the wheel” and that there was “nothing in the “real” medical literature”, and that comments about my own research took up too much space and then argued that my pet theory was not notable enough to justify any space at all in this article.

They removed everything about my research and I didn’t put it back after January 2009, but started providing information about the history of the topic from independent sources.

They then set up a new discussion to get me blocked on the grounds of having a “Conflict of Interest”.

They accused me of being “self-identified” and of “focusing on the main symptom of breathlessness because it agreed with my theory”.

Within a short time they set up a second page to get me blocked for the same purpose where they accused me of editing the page because I was a “single purpose account“, and that it was my only reason for joining Wikipedia.

They talked about my “pet theory” where I was using the Da Costa’s syndrome page to “hanging my peg on“, and that it was my “hobby” which I “believed” was accurate and that my objective were “noble” but Wikipedia was not the place for my contributions which were a violation of their policy which prohibits “Original Research”. They then added that my theory had been deleted some months earlier by other editors who had been deleted as being “non-notable”, and “one man’s theory” and “not recognised by health scientists in general” and that the discussion about it was “stuck“. They continued to argue that I was using the page as a “dumping ground” for my own ideas, as if I was still mentioning my own theories when I hadn’t been for several months.

They also described me as a “stubborn” editor who kept on “sticking it back there” and that I had deliberately deleted the comments about “anxiety disorders” from the first sentence, when in fact I had just written the article differently to their version, and I had mentioned anxiety disorders further down the page, and they said I added my “blow-by-blow” description of “practically every paper” that mentions the general subject which does not contradict my view and that every word from other editors being a request to “stop drowning this article” in references that tend to promote my ideas, and that they don’t know how long they will have to keep on “de-crufting to the last” (which means how long they will have to keep removing rubbish). The administrator finally decided to block me.

Mean while back at the Da Costa’s syndrome discussion page they implied that I I was focusing on the three main symptoms of chest compression, breathing, breathlessness, and the diaphragm because it “smells” of “synthesis” by “slanting the whole picture” toward my theory and that Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia not an “exhaustive academic literature treatise“, and added that it was “Liposuction time” to imply that I was adding useless fat to the article instead of meat. They then said that they should only include three small paragraphs for the major “players” and their “own made-up names” in the history section.

After losing an argument about a research paper they changed the subject and said that everything I added “spins” toward the main symptoms of breathlessness and the diaphragm “funnily enough” coinciding with the “Banfield theory”, and that the article needs “pruning“. They then accused me of trying to “own” the article, and of breaking the rules about “SOAP” or soap boxing, and that they thought I would be “happy” about their suggestion of setting up a new page with a jargonistic title that none of the general readers would understand or read.

They then said that one of my suggestions was “stupid” and said the right name was “Da Costa’s syndrome” according to me, and not other authors, when in fact that was the name the page was called before I started editing it. They then said that the article was becoming more “bloated” with “unreadable dumps“.

I then decided to find evidence and proof of their ill-mannered and rule breaking behaviour and wrote an essay of a couple of thousands of words, which was less than the total number they had used against me, and one of them completely ignored the evidence and didn’t admit that it was all true or deny it, or try to prove any of it was wrong but just snidely said “Please cut this readable length“. Another editor told them to read it and respond but they said that it was not their job to make an effort to defend themselves, and described my criticism of them “looked like classic WP:SOUP“

They later continued their insulting remarks on another page called CIVIL/POVpushing which proceeded without me being told about it or given the opportunity to defend myself here,

WhatamIdoing used the following words (in red) to describe me within her text . . .The issue was “a minor case, but it may illustrate some of the damage: “We have identified a single-purpose account run by an identifiable individual who “just happens” to have a non-mainstream take on a particular set of symptoms. He is non-notable and decided to hang his idea on the peg of “Da Costa’s syndrome” (a vague 19th century syndrome, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder).

It’s overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia . . . and . . . we can’t justify investing several editors’ time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article or spend time discrediting his personal views . . . the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles The SPA editor is no more frustrated with the NPOV-oriented editors than we are with him. He’s (finally) mostly given up on getting his name and his website (with his expensive self-published book for sale) in the article.

He comes by every week or two and adds bona fide medical publications on the subject — but always and only those articles which support his particular views.

Of course, the condition is entirely superseded so most of the refs are from before most editors were born. No editor has ever supported his view . . . and . . . Five editors have directly told him that using Wikipedia to promote his personal ideas is not accepted.

We’ve been at this for more than six months . . . but . . . he’s undeterred in his overall goal. “You could just keep removing the stuff he adds . . . it’s not like your time and energy is worth anything.

His adding of original research (*gasp*) violates Wikipedia’s policy.” Yes, of course all of this violates a variety of policies, guidelines, and cultural conventions — notably WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and WP:COPYVIO, in this case . . . But my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don’t reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed It’s back at WP:COI/N for a second go-round . . . I expect no practical improvement: he’s not particularly rude . . . so why bother blocking him? . . . I’ll probably still be removing the same cruft and leaving the same explanations and warnings on talk pages at the end of the year. When I am no longer willing to put up with this self-promoting nonsense . . . I can team up with other disgusted editors.

It’s not just the good editors who can be driven away by bad behavior . . . We need another solution.” signed by WhatamIdoing 02:25, 18 May 2008

Gordonofcartoon added these comments to the CIVIL/POV pushing page . . . “Seconded . . . The issue has been finally settled (I hope) by an indefinite block . . . It went to an RFC (which had a strong consensus, to no effect, that the editor concerned should edit articles away from pet topic).

The problem trundled on with continual griping (invariably lengthy) . . . while the editor wrote a personal new draft of the article (critics unwelcome) . . . Then he chose to put it back against consensus into mainspace. At one level, I don’t blame anyone . . . it could argued that any particular report (e.g. at WP:ANI) only sees a snapshot of the situation and it doesn’t look to bad . . . But on the other hand the user hasn’t been remotely civil.

For six months, he has openly flouted WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL . . . with an extended userspace attack on two editors called The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critic . . . And that’s not even factoring in the exhausting effect of long-term contact with procedural nitpicking, obfuscation, lying by misquotation etc . . . other editors saying it was crap . . . so you say so, and get back 1500 words of WPSOUP . . . because Bilbo von Booger who you got banned because he supported my case said at diff D that

and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on. As WhatamIdoing says, we need another solution. signed by Gordonofcartoon 16:57, 3 February 2009 See both of their typical rants of insulting remarks here.

Some time later they were losing an argument back on the Da Costa’s syndrome talk page about the relevance of their link to a childrens fiction”novel” called “Soldier’s heart” and tried to give the impression that I needed an apology because they wanted other editors to believe that I was the sort of person who became emotionally distressed when reading a story about the war which was upsetting to school children. They then archived the page so that it was the last comment which was intended to leave a lasting impression, and started a new page. See here.

Their arguing continued until two neutral editors suggested that we each write a version of the article for them to merge, but Gordonofcartoon said that he “wasn’t aware of the invitation”, and when I accused him of telling lies he said that I was breaking the rules which require me to “Assume Good Faith” in his honesty. The remainder of that page is full of their lies, and they eventually lost when two neutral editors deleted every link to that fiction “novel”.

They then set up a page called Wikiquettes Alert where they described my “obfuscating verbage thrown at the topic“, and when I asked the other editors how many days or weeks I had to defend myself against their accusations Gordonofcartoon said he was “of the strong opinion” that they were being “jerked around” and “wikilawyering“. He also said that the entire edit history was devoted to “arguing the toss about a single article“. See here

They then set up another discussion called “Miscellany for Deletion” and lost.

They continued by setting up another discussion to get me blocked called “Request for Comment/Posturewriter”, and accused me of “a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing” as if to imply that I had been arguing against dozens of other editors and had been losing by saying that I was “toward the end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles“. They also said that they had tried to settle the dispute by “giving me advice on etiquette”.

They continued their arguments on the talk page associated with that accusation and told other editors that that they were “fed up” with the dispute.

My main critic also set up a discussion on her own Usertalk page in a section which she also called “Request for Comment/Posturewriter”.

In the third comment a neutral editor told her that my version was a lot better than hers, and that mine had more detail and that he could not see anything which was not properly supported with references, and that there was no evidence of conflict of interest.

However my main critic had not co-operated with the previous suggestion by two neutral editors, and didn’t want any neutral editor making decisions, so she told him that he was not competent in the topic, and began arguing that my article was a disaster, and that there was “ too much detail“, and that the style was “horrible“, and that I had made a “blow-by-blow summary of selected papers“, that I was “obsessively naming the year” of each discovery, and that we are not supposed to “blather on” about researchers by describing why they are important. Further down the page she argued that being civil according to to rules about good manners didn’t mean “agreeing with nonsense” and then said that she had never taunted me of impugned my character. She also argued that I didn’t seem to understand Wikipedia’s conventions, and that my sources of information were “unbelievably weak”. See here,

Gordonofcartoon then set up an Arbitration page to get me banned where he told other editors that he had given me advice on etiquette and told me to “assume good faith” in his opinion. and he accused me of disruption and harassment and of “exhausting the patience” of other editors by pushing my own point of view.

After making a brief defence against those accusations my other critic joined in with a lengthy and insulting argument where she claimed that most if not all of my references were unreliable and that “we don’t need to spell out every single possible characteristic of a good source over one mistake”, and that “Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints” and that I “failed to grasp Wikipedia’s conventions”, and that my comments about the qualifications of researchers were “peacock’d out of recognition” and that “An enormous amount of cruft crawls into (my) writing“, and that she was “running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues“. See here.

They portrayed me as having disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia to fit in with their biased version of the Da Costa’s syndrome patient as someone with psychological and behavioural problems

You may be deceived by all the lies thet tell, but it is obvious that they were breaking Wikipedia’s rules which require courtesy and respect to all editors at all times, and that their comments were not strictly about the topic, but were more about me, and that they were being deliberately offensive.

They know that I have this disorder and they want the readers to believe that it is caused by anxiety, depression and all sorts of other mental illnesses, so in an attempt to make all that sound believable, they were trying their hardest to portray me as a stupid, ignorant, unco-opartavite person with all sorts of behavioural problems.

However, I am not an anxious person, I don’t get depressed, and don’t have any mentall illnesses.

Their big act of “losing their patience with me”

If you have a look at the very first comments that Gordonofcartoon made on the discussion about Da Costa’s syndrome, you can see that he said that my description of my own research took up too much space. You can also see that I then co-operated with him by agreeing. and deciding to abbreviate that aspect, and put it back in a reduced form. I also explained what I had done in the two weeks between December 29th and 14th January 2008.

However, my other critic, whose ID was WhatamIdoing, then put on a big show by “acting” as if I had been deliberately unco-operative, and that she was losing her patience with me, as if she was in charge of Wikipedia, and as if I had put it back repeatedly against her orders??? She exaggerated her “act” of frustration by telling me that she had taken the extreme action of putting me on a watchlist, to create the impression that I was the type of person who needed to be sternly forced to stop. See here.

I had no intention of putting it back if they objected to the abbreviation, and my perfectly reasonable explanation, and in fact I didn’t, but a few months later, in May 2008, she again “acted” as if I had been continuing to put it back every week for several months until I had finally given up. See here.

Several more months passed when two neutral editors suggested that we each prepare our own version of the article outside of Wikipedia, making a total of three, and put them back for them to independently merge into one neutral version. WhatamIdoing ignored the idea, and played dumb, by acting as if she didn’t know about the offer, and Gordonofcartoon refused to co-operate.

When I put my version back into Wikipedia, based on independent references, they again protested by putting on a big act to convince other editors that after some sort of enormous struggle for 12 long months they were finally “running short of patience” explaining the rules to me, and that my version did not represent neutral point of view. See here.

If you read the discussions closely enough you could see that while WhatamIdoing was trying to give some editors the impression that she was on the verge of running out of patience, she would be routinely cherry picking facts, and inventing excuses for deleting them one day, or a week, or several weeks apart.

How long do you turn the other cheek

I joined Wikipedia for the purpose of adding about one paragraph of useful information per week.

However, I soon found that there were quite a large number of guidelines and rules which including one called WP:Civil, which contained the following statement . . .

“In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.” here.

I thought that it was a perfectly standard, common sense, and reasonable requirement, but on December 21st two editors set up a discussion page about the topic of Da Costa’s syndrome, and they wrote as if they were arrogant first year university students trying to impress their professors with jargon by saying . . . This is just “garden variety” orthostatic intolerance . . . and said that . . . there was “nothing” in the “real” medical literature about my research.

As you can appreciate the rules required me to ignore their foolish arrogance so I did, and retained a polite approach to the discussions.

They argued about some rules which meant that I wasn’t allowed to add my own research, and I couldn’t be bothered arguing with them so they deleted all of it within a couple of weeks and I didn’t bother to put it back.

When I added information from different sources they argued that every one of my references had something wrong with it, so I looked through the list of their references and found one by Oglesby Paul. I thought that they couldn’t argue that their own contributions were stupid so I decided to use it.

I was familiar with that article which was a ten page history of the topic by a Harvard Professor and was published in a top quality research journal, so I abbreviated it down to one page to briefly mention the same things that he had, such as ten of the different theories on the cause of the illness.

I thought that it would be an excellent way of presenting the history quickly, and that I could use smaller, more specific references to improve that section later.

However, they kept on setting up new discussions relentlessly, one after another, to criticise me, and one thing that Gordonofcartoon said to other editors to get me banned from the page was “look at the way he is dumping great wads of information onto the page.

Remember, they provided that reference, and I reviewed it because they didn’t, and the author was a Harvard professor, and it was a top quality and accurate article, and I abbreviated it to improve the standard of information in Wikipedia.

I continued to be polite, but they kept on insulting me, and telling other editors lies about me, and the quality of my references, so I wrote an essay about all the rules which they had broken, and Gordonofcartoon rudely snubbed it by saying “Cut this readable length”, and didn’t even attempt to prove that any of my accusations were wrong, but just changed the subject.

I continued to be polite, but they continued in their arrogant manner, and set up more pages to get me blocked, and came to my own Userpage to criticise me, so I decided to write an essay about their tactics, where I provided proof that they were breaking the principles of Wikipedia, but they called it an “attack essay”, and accused me of being disrespectful and uncivil.

I continued to be polite, in the hope that an administrator would come along and tell them, at the very least, to improve their manners, but they always had an excuse for their disrespectful behaviour, and would argue that “beng civil didn’t mean that they had to agree with nonsense“.

As time went by it was becoming evident that the other editors were treating them as if they were mighty powerful editors and that I was just a polite pushover, so they started treating me in a patronising and belittling manner. It was actually obvious to me that those two editors were hoping that would happen.

At that stage Gordonofcartoon left a sly message on the top of an edit page with the words “Do we want to up the ante“, and I decided that they had gone too far, and if I backed down they would portray me as a weak person who could easily bossed around. They were doing too much damage to my reputation so I replied with the words “Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won’t forget in a hurry“.

Gordonofcartoon then set up a discussion on an Administrators Noticeboard and reported me for bad manners, and then another one called and RFC, where he described my reply as “an unspecified threat“, to give the impression that I had made that statement without good reason.

He also managed to convince entirely new groups of editors that I had been rude to the entire Wikipedia community of rule-abidng editors for 12 months, and other editors were treating me as if they had the right to treat me like a piece of human trash who they called a troll.

Most of them didn’t know anything about the topic, and much less about the history, and didn’t read any more than half hour of the previous discussions, but simply believed what those two editors told them.

Fortunately I am able to observe, evaluate, and document their tactics objectively.

Strategic rudeness is inferior tactics and defamation of character

My main critic wants the other editors to think that she is intelligent, polite, and respectable, so when I provided evidence and proof of her ill-mannered behaviour on my website, she added some comments to Wikipedia’s page about rudeness, to argue that intelligent people use strategic, instrumental, or indirect rudeness to achieve power over others. See my report here

However she is wrong.

Intelligent people achieve status and power in the community by having, or achieving superior abilities which set a high standard for others to respect and aspire to.

Stupid people who are incapable of achieving high standards compared to their peers will tend to use snide, sarcastic, and indirect rudeness to put other people down below their own level. Hence their comments are called ‘put downs‘.

99.99% of people know that, so her comments are the opinion of an extreme minority group, and are a violation of the ‘neutral point of view’ policy, and WP:UndueWeight, which prohibits the inclusion of information which is out of proportion to actual world opinion.

Another reason that people like her don’t use direct rudeness is because they are afraid of the consequences.

A man would risk being punched in the face, and a woman like her would be banned from Wikipedia.

You are probably aware that the best way to deal with ‘put downs’ is to ignore it, but I tried that for 12 months, by remaining polite despite her arrogant attitude. However, at one stage she responded by accusing me of ‘politely’ pushing my own opinion?, and argued that I was breaking the rules of “WP:CivilPOVpushing“.

You probably also know that if you react with counter offense, it makes you look as bad as the other person, and it tends to give that fool a sense of power. If you don’t respond in an assertive manner other people start treating you the same way, and that is what happened.

However, I joined Wikipedia to add useful information, and not to deal with that sort of grubby nonsense. I expected the administrators to enforce their rules about civility against her, but none of them did.

She lost almost every argument against me for a year, and thinks that she is superior because she managed to get me banned by encouraging another editor to use the ‘ignore all rules‘ policy, but all she did was convince me that she is an ill-mannered idiot, and a cheat.

My Snivelling Critic thinks that her opinions are important, sensible, and neutral

Da Costa’s syndrome has been consistently, conservatively, and reliably estimated as affecting at least 2-4% of the population, or more than 200 million people. You can read an excellent, sensible, balanced, and neutral article about it by Oglesby Paul here (See also my report here).

The closest modern label for it is the “chronic fatigue syndrome”.

When I started improving Wikipedia’s article about Da Costa’s Syndrome on 9-12-2007, there were only four lines of text and no references. Nine days later an anonymous person who would continue to hound and harass me for 12 months, until I was banned, put the following words at the top of the discussion page for that topic . . .

“This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine . . . and . . . has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale” See here.

She argued that the symptoms were due to anxiety, and somatoform, trivial or imaginary concerns, which is the opposite of most of the top quality research papers that regard it as a major problem which has prompted governments to recruit and fund some of the top medical researchers in the world to study it. (See my report here)

She also made some ridiculous and deliberately offensive remarks in her opening paragraph here, where she described the ailment as . . . “a vague 19th century syndrome“.

She has recently edited the discussion page about the topic called Sniffle, and added these words . . .

“This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine . . . and . . . has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale”. here

This is a quote from the topic page . . . “Sniffling is not necessarily related to illness. In addition to allergies and colds, it can be a result of being in cold temperatures, and a way to hold back tears.” See here.

She obviously wants the readers to believe that the sniffles (mid importance) is more important than Da Costa’s syndrome (low importance).

She is also the type of person who prefers to hide behind her anonymous skirt, rather than tell everyone her real name.

How they tried to defame and trivialise my character

I had cancer for 8 years which included an operation to remove a 5cm diameter tumor from my neck, which was followed by six months of CHOP chemotherapy, and the side effects of nausea, and vomiting. The cancer returned 18 months later when I had an operation to remove a 10cm diameter tumor which was blocking my left kidney and causing it to engorge and enlarge, and which was followed by three months of DHAP chemotherapy to eliminate the residue of that tumor, and the cancers which were damming up fluid below my right lung and making it painful for me to breath. The side effect of DHAP was dry reaching, and that was followed by a recovery period of about two months and then six weeks in hospital for a stem cell transplant, followed by six months of vomiting and four years of other side effects, after which I made a complete recovery.

I therefore know a lot more about disease than my two critics. Only a pampered idiot would classify the sniffles as ‘mid’ importance. In the overall scheme of life it is ‘nothing’. It is not even an illness, but just an occasional and trivial feature of normal health.

Within a day or two of me adding the section above to my website, my main critic added these words to the Wikipedia page about “Chemotherapy” . . . “Finally, chemotherapy is unnecessary for some forms of cancer, notably the non-invasive, non-melanoma skin cancers, which is the most common form of cancer.”

She obviously reads my website closely for any changes, and tries her hardest to trivialise everything I said and did.

However, the type of cancer which affected me was called Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. At the outset I had a blood test, followed by a CAT scan, and then a bone marrow biopsy, and then a small gland was surgically removed and inspected. A cancer specialist then advised me that every test confirmed that my body was riddled with cancer, and that I had a life-expectancy of two months with no hope of a cure. The cancer remained stable for about six years, and then became aggressive.

According to the page which my main critic edited, only 13% of patients with cytological chemotherapy for lymphoma’s are still alive after five years. See here

I was diagnosed in 1993, started treatment in 1998, had a relapse 18 months later, and a stem cell transplant in 2000 and am still alive 12 years later in 2012, or a total of 19 years since being told that my condition was hopeless. (I live near one of the world’s top cancer research organisations called the Hanson Institute, which was established two years before I was diagnosed. The treatment which I received was, for the most part, despite the side effects, necessary, objective, scientifically based, accurate, precise, methodical, and successful).

My main critic is still trying to trivialise that experience, whereas pop singers, athletes, or movie stars who live longer than 1 year are called national hero’s.

She knows that I have Da Costa’s syndrome, and she wants readers to believe that it affects mentally ill people who are just whinging about trivial symptoms, so she doesn’t want anyone to know that i responded to cancer and chemotherapy better than most people.

She spent 12 months setting up discussions and trying to get me blocked from the topic on the grounds of “Conflict of interest” (WP:COI), so she repeatedly told other editors my real name, and linked to my website, and made sure that the topic page for Da Costa’s syndrome was linked to hundreds of psychiatric labels about anxiety, fear, and trivial illness etc., and she was always describing me as a worthless and disruptive and unimportant editor.

In that process another editor asked me to tell them more about myself to deal with the ‘conflict of interest’ question.

I had already told them everything relevant, about my books, website, and research experience, with names and dates of newspaper and magazine articles etc.

I didn’t have any idea what else they wanted to know, so I told them that I wrote my thousand page book called “The Posture Theory” (everything about posture and health), at the rate of 100 pages a year while I had cancer, and stopped when it was cured.

He accused me of being a liar, and left the impression that I never had cancer, and was just saying that to get sympathy?.

They banned me before I had the chance to reply.

They want people to believe that I am a mentally weak person who whinges about trivia, and that I would not be able to cope with a ‘real’, and ‘serious’ illness. See also here and here.

My two ‘anonymous’ critics???

Over the past thirty years I have occasionally discussed an idea which I developed called The Posture Theory. I discussed it with people who included university students, graduates, and professors, and they almost always say that it is a good idea, which is logical, and makes sense, and is interesting. However, while I was in Wikipedia, two anonymous individuals spent much of that time telling everyone else that I was a non-notable fringy kook whose ideas were nonsense, and they made those comments regardless of what I wrote about, or where I got the information from. One of them was called “WhatamIdoing”, which sounds ridiculous in a sentence. It can be abbreviated to WAID which sounds like a mans name, but in fact, she is a woman. She always had another editor named Gordonofcartoon assisting her, so I called them “my two critics“, or “my main critic and her team mate”. They obviously like the sense of power that they get in Wikipedia, but they don’t have enough courage to reveal their real names.

The reliability of my ideas

In 1975 I was experiencing many health problems which were not responding to any form of treatment, so i began reading the medical literature. Within a few months I found that my ailment was called Da Costa’s syndrome. I also started exercising at very low levels at a fitness research institute, and soon established that the symptoms became much worse as the level of exercise increased, so I stayed within my limits. It took me four more years of careful and detailed observation to determine that I could prevent prolonged periods of fatigue by reducing my lifestyle to basic levels as well, and ensuring that I had ample opportunity for rest, much more so than usual. In 1982 I discussed my ideas with the head of that research organisation and he invited me to design a programme to make it possible for other people with the same symptoms to exercise, and to gain scientific data about it, and I was able to confirm the exercise principles. See some of the newspaper reports about it here and here. Twenty five years later, in 2007, I joined Wikipedia and started writing about that topic when two anonymous individuals began criticising me almost immediately. They argued that I was a non-notable fringy kook whose ideas were nonsense, and deleted almost everything I wrote, and eventually managed to get me banned on the grounds that I was disrupting their attempts to write a good article. They replaced my version with their own and wrote the following words in the first paragraph to describe the treatment which involves . . .

“modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion.”

(You can see their words by scrolling down past the deletions here).

Their comments about treatment are exactly the same as the methods which I developed and described between 1975 and 1984. My ideas are obviously good, but most people don’t know who I am, or how or why I developed them, and it is my critics who are talking nonsense about me. My main critic always invented ways to discredit me The symptoms of Da Costa’s syndrome include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue. Consequently, many of the patients worry about the possibility of it being due to heart disease, so the general medical opinion is that it is best not to discuss anything about the heart because it might make that anxiety worse, or start anxiety where it didn’t already exist. Naturally, when I was writing the article for Wikipedia, I took into account that it was read by the general public, which would include some of those patients, so I decided to discuss about ten of the main theories of cause, and was reluctant to mention mitral valve prolapse (MVP), but I did discuss it in the appropriate context where some people with Da Costa’s have that problem, and some don’t, and I used a references to Oglesby Paul from 1987, and Charles Wooley from 1976, who discussed it in their articles. However, my main critic was always trying to invent ways of making my motives look bad, and me look ignorant and stupid. She wanted other editors to think that I had focused on research from the 1950’s because the topic of MVP was developed later, and that I didn’t mention it because it proved my theory wrong etc. I hadn’t even mentioned my own theory for 12 months, but this is what she told one of them during one of her ranting and raving tirades of criticism . . . “he’s chosen the 1950s with care, because mitral valve prolapse was finally figured out in the 1960s. You can now check my version of the article at 8:20 on 10-2-2008 where I did mention MVP here At 13:10 on 10-2-2008 her team mate deleted it here Eight months later my main critic told lies and said that I deliberately failed to mention it. See her comments at 17:27 on 6-10-2008 here

Is Wikipedia’s goal to provide the sum of all knowledge?

Wikipedia’s article about Da Costa’s syndrome is substandard, and inferior to mine, because it fails to provide basic information. For example, I would like you to read it here, and then see if you can answer the following questions.

1. Is the symptom of chest pain in the top left, top right, or lower left, or lower right side of the chest?

2. Is the pain located in the surface of the skin, between two of the ribs, or deep within the lungs, or somewhere else?

3. How can the pain be relieved immediately?

The answers to those questions can be found in my version here and here, which has been deleted by two anonymous control freaks because they want you to believe that the symptoms are imaginary, and caused by fear and anxiety, and are part of a mental illness.