Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 8 August 2008

Sock

Arbiteroftruth, can you provide any evidence of Posturewriter engaging in sockpuppetry? As far as I am aware, he has not. He has merely accused other editors of anonymous vandalism, e.g., replacing the entire page with "I love cheeseburgers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I haven't noticed any evidence of this. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Is This Sock Puppetry? Just asking

No. Posturewriter may not be aware that the RFC Statement of the dispute section, like other Misplaced Pages text, can be collaboratively edited by anyone certifying its basis. Whatamidoing might want to sign. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: My evidence of trying to resolve the disputes

A couple of particular points here:

3. ... but that was later called ‘self identification’, promotion of my website, my own research, and COI.

You're mistaking the meaning: "self-identification" is entirely neutral, meaning that you identified yourself here on Wikpedia (i.e. I mentioned it to show that there's been no breach of WP:PRIVACY). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

4. I was required to add only information which could be independently verified in peer reviewed medical journals and responded by providing reviews of studies by J.M. Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie, Paul Wood O.B.E. and Harvard professors etc. and it was deleted on the grounds of ‘SYNTHESIS '

See below (point 23). As has been explained repeatedly to you, it's not sufficient that the information come from peer-reviewed sources. We have to be sure that those sources aren't cherry-picked to paint a particular picture (per WP:SYNTH). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is an ongoing issue with this editor. He works almost entirely from primary sources, and cherry-picks those sources which support, or can be twisted to support, his personal opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; My book was written in plain English because my audience was high school students, teachers, and parents, and it was aimed at providing them with information about some of the causes of health problems so that they could be prevented. I sold it mainly to school and public libraries.

When I started on the Misplaced Pages Da Costa page I reviewed research papers from my filing cabinet and several editors were happily co-operating until I added my conclusions, and information about my own formal research study, which was rapidly deleted as non-notable. I scanned an item in a major national newspaper and put it on line to establish notability. I think my material was deleted promptly without noticing my explanation on the talk page, and I haven’t added it in the past 6 months.

When all of the other reviews of scientific articles were deleted by editors I established a brand new section on my website, to put it there, so that my own efforts were not completely wasted. I didn't need it for my website, but I did need it for wikipedia. I then added more reviews randomly as I found the material, and abbreviated some of them and added them to wiki in chronological order to fill in the gaps in research history.

Hence, the information did not initially come from my website to wikipedia, as you are saying, but the exact opposite, from wiki to my website. Also your use of the word SYNTHESIS could apply to anything from any contributor about anything on every page in wikipediaPosturewriter (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

WhatamIdoing; You say that you think my edits have been cherry-picked to support my theory, but I note that yours look as if they have been cherry-picked to suit a page called Anxiety State, not Da Costa syndrome.

Also your edit of my review of Oglesby Paul’s research paper looks as though it has been massively abbreviated with surgical precision for that sole purpose in the first paragraph of the diff. here .

I therefore later suggested that you set up a separate page called ‘Anxiety State’ but you declined the offer and continue to slant the Da Costa page that way.

There are other examples if you want me to provide themPosturewriter (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter.

Far from demonstrating innocence, I think that your response pretty much proves to every other Misplaced Pages editor that you were directly violating WP:SYNTH. Editors are not allowed to 'review research papers from their filing cabinets' and 'add their own conclusions'. Your view may be True™, but your actions constitute original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing;

1. I co-ordinated a research programme in 1982, and achieved results that were original - which had no precedent. A summary was last presented in wikipedia more than 6 months ago and hasn’t been there since.

2. When you deleted my original research, you advised me not to include anything else unless it was sourced from independent peer reviewed scientific journals. I followed your advice. Why do you now say that such contributions are “Original Research”

3. The journal articles in my final cabinet presented summaries of the original research of other authors. I just reviewed them. Newer items have related to the history of Da Costa’s syndrome.

4. I also read the references which had been put on the Da Costa page by other people, including yourself. For example, the reference to Oglesby Paul’s research paper, and the hatnote linking to Paulsen’s novel “Soldier’s Heart”. If using or criticising them is a violation of Original Research policy, then why did you put them there in the first place, and why didn’t an editor delete them.

5. Oglesby Paul was a Harvard researcher whose history of all of the important research controversies of Da Costa’s syndrome was presented in The British Heart Journal here , and another editor had placed it as reference number 1 at the end of the page here before I reviewed it and summarised his ten page article and reduced it to a one page account for wikipedia here , and then you deleted it and replaced it with two lines about anxiety state, which misrepresents his conclusion here .

6. The idea that DaCosta’s syndrome is an anxiety disorder is your ‘favorite opinion’, not original research (so you don’t have expertise in the subject), and it is not a balanced account of the subject

7. Your attempts at selectively loading the Da Costa page with references about anxiety, and deleting evidence of physical cause, are disruptive to NPOV. Posturewriter (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

1) You personally cannot present your own clinical research. It is a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules.

2) You did not follow my advice. You repeatedly selected primary sources that "just happened" to support your POV. Misplaced Pages is built from reliable secondary sources. You have relied heavily on primary sources and neglected secondary sources. Furthermore, you sometimes presented only certain aspects of your sources, and left out not just nearly all modern sources, since nothing from the last two decades supports your POV, but you also left out anything that did not agree with your POV about the sources that you chose. I suggest that you read WP:MEDRS again. It has been recently updated to provide more information about this issue.

3) The journal articles in your file cabinet represent primary sources. Misplaced Pages is built from secondary sources. Putting together a bunch of primary sources to support your view is a kind of original research called synthesis.

4a) Oglesby Paul's paper is a review. It is therefore a secondary source. Although it's old enough that being out of date is a concern, it is still an acceptable source from other perspectives. BTW, I added it.

4b) Hatnotes are not references. You have been told this repeatedly, by several editors. A statement at the top of a page that says "This article is about the medical condition also known as "soldier's heart". For other uses of the term, see Soldier's heart." cannot possibly be construed by anyone as a "reference" or as a claim that a disambiguation page will tell you anything at all about the first page.

5a) Of course I reduced your one-page essay to a couple of sentences. Misplaced Pages is not the place for a 5,896-character-long treatise on a single paper.

5b) If you think that a source is being materially misrepresented in any article, then you're welcome to take up your concerns (again) on the article's talk page. Note that we already went through this particular issue with User:Guido den Broeder (now perma-banned).

6) The idea that Da Costa's syndrome is an anxiety disorder is supported by many, many reliable sources, from medical dictionaries to the World Health Organization. Furthermore, there are reliable sources that indicate that DCS represents more than one disease. For example, a minority of Da Costa's own patients actually had mitral valve prolapse: he describes the distinct 'click' of MVP precisely, and there are several papers and books that confirm that some MVP patients were misdiagnosed as having DCS. You are, I know, aware of this fact.

7) I'm not attempting to selectively load the article with anything other than what the various reliable sources say. Reporting what the reliable sources say is the definition of NPOV at Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing; On 14-1-08, after deleting my own studies your wrote on the Da Costa talk page “I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article” here . I have also been advised that only independent peer reviewed sources from scientific journals are acceptable. My other efforts included reviews of research papers of Da Costa, Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Wood, Edwin Wheeler, and V.S.Volkov, so I followed your advice and added the research of Sir James MacKenzie, Caugney, S.Wolf, and Paul Dudley White etc. which were all primary sources, and covered all aspects of the subject. Also Oglesby Paul’s paper was already accepted as a source by another editor, and I only reviewed it because it was already there

Why are you now saying that you only want secondary sources from dictionaries and text books??? .

Also the section that I was contributing to was entitled "History' by another editor, not me. I just started adding the details chronologically, and it is not appropriate to refer to 'history' reviews as 'obsolete' or 'out of date', especially when Oglesby Paul advised on the first page of his research paper . . . "What has been forgotten, should not necessarily remain forgotten"Posturewriter (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Why are you now saying that you only want secondary sources from dictionaries and text books??? .

Because WP:MEDRS Indicates a very strong preference for secondary sources in medicine-related articles. A dictionary, BTW, is usually considered a tertiary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that part of WP:MEDRS is just a copy of WP:NOR, which we've been citing all along - so no new tactics involved, yes? See the WP:PRIMARY section - the bit from Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources to the end of the section). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Evidence of Disruption to my Contributions

1. Anonymous repetitive whole page vandalism under suspicious circumstances here

The reasons for the edits were clearly explained: WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and the text dumps from your own collations of papers were completely inappropriate style. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; I have just fixed the link so that it goes to the correct page which relates to repetitive vandalism, instead of the Synthesis section. You may wish to comment on the amended linkPosturewriter (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

2. Slab vandalism? here

3. Anonymous contributions to a parallel page under suspicious circumstances on 30 occasions from 1sr january to 9th April here

4. Use of my personal name to intimidate when alternatives were available including at the top of this page.

This is not to intimidate. The known conflict of interest is central to the situation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Arrogance, bad manners, and disrespect to my suggestions throughout

6. Deletion of an article page despite me complying with every editors requirement here

Multiple unconnected editors looked at the page and it was deleted by a strong consensus. The adding of a few sources appears not to have affected the overall picture. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Interference with my criticism of others, and my attempts to defend my point of view from attacks (and misrepresenting my defences as attacks) on the page above in his ‘Evidence of disputed behavior’ number 9. “The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics”which I added here

It has been clearly explained to you that this is in breach of Misplaced Pages:UP#NOT. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; An administrator has decided that the Motivations and Tactics section of my Usertalk page was not a violation of any wiki policy here Posturewriter (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

It's not "decided" until the discussion, which is still ongoing, is over. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Failure to apologise when proven wrong here

9. Failure to co-operate with a reasonable request when appropriate here

Assertion of article ownership ...

"In the meantime can you stop editing this page and leave it to me to present a coherent account of the history of research into this subject, in clear chronological order, written in plain English. Any editors who are willing to assist me constructively in that regard will be appreciated. I assume that is consistent with wikipedia's fundamental policy of democratic compilation and distribution of knowledge to the whole of society"

... is not a reasonable request. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

10. Failure to consider both parties in a dispute before making a decision at 2:26 on 19-5-08 here As well as previous failure to comply with ‘break’ request.

11.Refusal to answer questions appropriately here

12. Constant changing of policy requirements after previous requirements have been met here , and as explained in paragraph 5 here

13. Repeated false allegations about copyright violations here

Assume good faith - the editor concerned didn't know if this was your site, therefore requiring copyright clarification was the right thing to do. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

14. Repeated false allegations using misrepresentation of the meaning of the words ‘self-identification here .

"Self-identification" is not pejorative - it merely means that you identified yourself in an edit (i.e there has been no breach of WP:PRIVACY]]). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

15. Unspecified threat: Deliberately provocative ‘do we want to up the ante’ threats here . . . and then referring to my response as initiated attacks on the page above as his complaint number 5..

16. Deliberately provocative comments to get an aggressive response with his offending remarks a 18:44 on 15-7-08 here which is indirectly evident on the following day with his comment “Would one or two of you mind watchlisting this in case the discussion gets out of hand?” here

17. Criticising my contributions when the critic has only read the first paragraph of a research paper, with my comments and his response here or only the title of a book etc.

18. Moving a topic article to my Usertalk page, to intimidate me and waste my time as evident on line 233 onwards here

19. Using policy tactics to divert attention away from the objective of removing references from the Da Costa article page that are contrary to my critics non-neutral POV here

These are not tactics; you were in breach of the WP:NOR policy by adding huge tranches of material collated from your own synthesis of the source material. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

20. Misrepresenting my responses to requests and criticism as the scene of a BATTLEGROUND, thereby denying me the opportunity to contribute or dispute false allegations

21. Establishing COI no.2 after losing COI 1 here

Nobody "lost" or won the discussion; it stalled, as is often the case here, and I relisted it because you were still not complying with the general advice of WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

22. Subjecting me to 5000 words of criticism in one week, and referring to my 2500 word reply as WP:TALK violation for not being precise, also seen on this current page. What am I supposed to do. Let them keep slapping me on one side of the face until my head rotates 360 degrees and falls off??? here

There's a difference between 5000 words accumulated in focused discussion, and 2500 words, unstructured and unparagraphed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

23. Calling everything I do, including reviews of 100 year old research studies as violating NOR (no original research allowed - I wasn’t alive then - somebody else must have done the research, unless I’m mistaken). Also; They read the title on the page of Paulsen’s book ‘Soldier’s Heart’ and think it must be relevant. I read all of the pages in that children's fiction novel, and they call it original research. That is not my idea of independently peer reviewed scientific research material at 0:708 on 26-6-08 here etc. etc. etc. Posturewrter

24. INCONSISTENT EDITING and applying double standards, re; applying excessively high standards of referencing as compared to other wikipedia pages as explained here

The issue here is that you were posting material from your website, which is a non-neutral collation of those sources - an original synthesis of material that by definition comes under WP:NOR. Likewise, your personal gloss of the content of a book - analysing the lead character's symptoms in the light of your own views about Da Costa's syndrome - was also original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; I have responded to your comments about synthesis etc many time, including here . Also the lead character in Paulsen's book didn't have any of the symptoms as described in Da Costa's original research paper, and his post-war ailments were most likely due to the complications of bullet wounds which included infections etc which have nothing to do with my views about Da Costa's syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posturewriter (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It simply doesn't matter. The point behind a disambiguation link is that you might have a reader looking at Soldier's heart (medicine) when they actually want Soldier's heart (novel). The fact that a dab link is needed is proof that two similarly titled pages are not related. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD

As a relevant aside, I have opened an MfD discussion about the "Critics" section on Posturewriter's talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this appears to have foundered on procedural grounds. One editor is arguing that WP:MFD is the wrong forum to discuss removal of part of an article; others appear not have grasped, despite repeated explanation, that removal of the whole article wasn't what was requested. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I contend that the MfD preempts the conclusion (if any) of this RfC. Separately, I contend that the forceful deletion of this user's opinions (even if misguided, inaccurate or unhelpful) from his user space is not a positive way to settle this difficulty. Posturewrite should modify, blank or otherwise archive the apparently offensive content himself. There is no need to require that Posturewrite not be allowed to retain records of his past opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I contend that the MfD preempts the conclusion (if any) of this RfC.

Not sure what you mean there.

Separately...

Agreed. It would considerably defuse the situation if it were voluntarily removed. Of course anyone can keep such records; the issue is whether it helps the atmosphere to keep them publicly on Misplaced Pages. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Error (appeal to adminship)

PW, SmokeyJoe is not an administrator, unlike you claim here. Even if he were, admins get no special consideration in these processes. A "vote" by an admin is exactly as important as any other editor's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment re Outside view by User:Avnjay

Theoretically I agree; but how is just stopping arguing with this editor going to change his continued refusal to accept basic guidelines and policies? For instance, he's been advised of current agreed best practice for medical articles - WP:MEDRS - and its strong emphasis on modern secondary sources. Yet here he continues to argue "I would like you to remove all emphasis on “modern” “opinion” here and replace it with the “unaltered and uninterpreted scientific evidence from history”". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just posted the following on Posturewriter's talk page but applies here, especially as requires more than just his response. Avnjay 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Posturewriter, I hope you're well. I've been away for a few days and now find that things are as busy as ever on your talk page! I appreciate that it can seem that people are moving the goal posts for you and that one could drown in Misplaced Pages policy! As is pointed out below Wiki policy applies to all editors and articles and continues to govern even if it is being ignored in other articles. One upshot of all this attention to the one page is that it will be a model article in the end! I would like to mention the sockpuppet sentences again and suggest that you remove them from the RfC page. I really think this will show how willing you are to resolve this dispute and I also feel they actually harm your defence rather than help it.

From reading through all the comments I really think this could be cleared up if everyone was willing to be humble and step away from battle lines. There is a particular line in a song which says, "We all talk a different language talking in defence" and this seems rather appropriate here. This is why SmokeyJoe and I have suggested a break. This would inevitably involve humbly accepting points from the other side's arguments and, most importantly, stopping the constant argument and counter-argument, point and defence, attack and parry.

So, Posturewriter are you willing to take the first step by:

• removing the sock puppet comments (which can be read as an accusation regardless of whether you meant it as one)
• accepting the policy on modern secondary sources outlined in WP:MEDRS and any possible WP:COI problems
• agreeing to not edit Da Costa's syndrome and similar articles for while?

Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing, if Posturewriter agrees to the above would you be willing to:

• recognise Posturewriter's contributions as made in good faith and that he is a good contributor who has run afoul of policy by mistake
• accept that Posturewriter is willing to resolve the dispute and so withdraw the complaints against him
• also agree not to edit Da Costa's syndrome and similar articles for while?

I am fully aware that you all could write streams neatly showing why this is a silly idea, which would never work and shoot me down in flames. I am also sure I am glossing over hundreds of nuances and points and insulting you all but the question that all this hangs on is - are you all willing to forget that and settle this? WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, I guess you might see no reason why you should not edit the pages but I suggest this purely as a way of showing good will and so as not to stir up anything controversial while Posturewriter is not editing the article.

As far as the article is concerned here is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly they can put their idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki policy but not the article's subject (I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then read the articles and check the references and combine the articles. After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!

So please, don't answer this with more defence! Of course, this might not be the best solution (my wisdom is not that great after all) and I am also willing to accept critique and suggestions but please don't use that as an excuse to ignore the request or change the bits one does not like - I have tried to put a lot of thought into this.

Sending you all buckets of Wiki love :), Avnjay 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no.

I'll happily try to keep the verbiage down, but I'm not doing deals that assume this is a dispute where both sides are equally at fault. Remember we're dealing with an SPA who is continuing actively to argue the toss about fundamental guidelines and policies here, and who has made major assumptions of bad faith that he won't retract. Does this recent edit look like someone prepared to buckle to and adapt to how things are done here, or someone still thumping the same polemical tub while professing neutrality?

Regarding all other matters please understand that I am confident in my ideas and methods, and don’t take anything personally, and regardless of anything extraneous, I do not need to respond with UPNOT, (one-upmanship) or ESCALATION, or in a manner that could be falsely interpreted as UNCIVIL, but in a matter of fact manner that is accurately described as EQUAL FOR EQUAL, and I WRITE WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, and will continue to do so. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, Gordon! I think the longer this goes on the more out of control it will get. I know Posturewriter has made many mistakes and you haven't. I know you have shown great patience in your dealings with him and that you are a experienced and valuable editor. I made the suggestion of you not editing Da Costa's more as a way to resolve the article dispute than the user problem - give a chance for another editor to combine your ideas with Posturewriter's according to quality of sources. However, I also think it will be hard to get Posturewriter to agree to stick to a break if he sees those he feels are his "critics" making changes he disagrees with. I would also say this is not about who's to blame or at fault, but about helping a less experienced editor who has got himself into a hole. I'm definitely not questioning your integrity or quality as an editor. How about:

• Posturewriter agrees not to edit related articles for a while (which he has already agreed to)
• Posturewriter writes a version of Da Costa's on a sub-page demonstrating his understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:COI
• I'll combine Posturewriter's article with the current one according to WP:MEDRS
• Any substantive changes to the combined article (by any editor) are discussed first although hopefully there won't need to be any!

Posturewriter is free to demonstrate his quality in editing some completely different articles. Posturewriter should definitely also retract his sock comments and stop digging that hole bigger! If these forums were closed and no further accusations were made then I don't think we would see any more defence/attacks. His talk page can be archived and a clean sheet started. Posturewriter is fully aware that should he ignore everything and come out all guns blazing after a break that we'll end up just where we are now except there will be no suggestion of a break and a block would be inevitable.

Does that sound more reasonable? Avnjay 13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My Solution to the SockPuppet Issue (SPI) and Double Standard Editing (DSE)

Posturewriter, one brief comment that needs making immediately: the request re the anonymous contributors "(b) If the anonymous contributor hasn’t identified themselves - block the ID address" isn't possible to fulfil. No admin will grant a block on an IP address for virtually one-off abuse that is no longer happening.

Because IP addresses are commonly shared and also dynamically allocated (e.g. a vandal might use it one day, then a legitimate user the next), unless abuse from an IP address is ongoing and/or persistent they will never block it. Others will advise you the same. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that PW accuses the anons of abuse; I think he accuses them merely of being anons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking of the 'i like cheezburgers' one. If we're talking 68.55.208.16 (talk · contribs), there are absolutely no grounds for blocking. Many of the edits are trivial ones of punctuation and phrasing, and many appear to be uncontroversial additions reflecting stuff (such as medications used) already in cited references such as the Satish R Raj paper. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, all those links are to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, which you will recall I'm being blamed for not having turned into a model article. (Obviously, since I've reverted unexplained deletions (vandalism) in that article three times, and dab'd a link to dizziness, then all of its many remaining failings are my fault.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

re; The Sock Puppet question in the last paragraph here I am not accusing anyone of anything but mentioning the coincidence of

1. someone deleting information from the Da Costa pages in late December 07 etc, and

2. paraphrasing it and mixing it with their own knowledge, and

3. transferring it anonymously, or via a sockpuppet to the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome page from January to April 2008, and

4. not providing citations because (a) they don’t have independent sources, or (b) they don’t wish to acknowledge that my contributions were the source (i.e. information that I gave to the Article and discussion pages)

SUMMARY; Two known editors have been deleting information from the Da Costa pages, and there are two anonymous vandals (a) the appearance of a page move vandal 68.55.208.16, adding 30 anonymous contributions starting here , and (b) the chesseburger vandal here I don’t know if they are sockpuppets or not.Posturewriter (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

RE: Responses to comments to User:SmokeyJoe’s suggested outcome

Gordonofcartoon, I do not think it is necessary for Posturewriter to “demonstrate” and understanding of WP:NOR and WP:AGF beyond demonstrating an ability to contribute cooperatively. Failure to abide by WP:NOR or WP:AGF can be dealt with as required. We should not use RFCU to attempt to mould the “perfect wikipedian”. With respect to WP:MEDRS, I believe he should be free to ignore it. Wikiprojects should never be compulsory. Wikiprojects do not own articles. Of course, we can tell Posturewriter that WP:MEDRS is there to be help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Avnjay, “Essay” may sound patronising, but I am assuming that Posturewriter is a well qualified academic individual, and that to him an essay is a trivial thing. An essay can be nearly anything, but should be to the point and largely in prose. Looking at Posturewriter’s contributions, he should have no trouble. The main point, given apparent COI difficulties, is that Posturewriter should declare his real world professional interests if he is going to edit articles related to them. I do not see the writing of a Da Costa fork as a positive move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon ...

Agreed. I didn't mean "demonstrate" in any kind of "abasing himself" way, just demonstrate via future editing and attitude to discourse. Of course, anyone's free to disagree with WP:MEDRS, but as you say below, consensus is how things work here, and going against what's a strong consensus among medical editors is not likely to be productive. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PW is not a well-qualified academic individual. He was a sports instructor who got interested in exercise for people with fatigue and worked essentially as a coach or physical therapy technician on a single exercise-related study. I don't see any sign of him ever having attended university. Based on his prolific output, I think it would be fair to say that writing is not especially difficult for him, but perhaps we should not assume that it is trivial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to questions of my experience, and the COI issue

WhatamIdoing; Regarding your comments here , Wiki editors have previously required me to provide on-line proof of all my claims, so my general experience was posted accordingly here , and the description of my research project was posted here . The cardiologists were busy on other projects so the head of the Institute invited me to design and co-ordinate the fatigue research programme myself - because of my relevant knowledge and experience. A six person research committee was established, and the medical examiners and the field instructor were provided by the InstitutePosturewriter (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)posturwriter

RE: Response to Posturewriter’s recent response

Posturewriter, regarding your recent : I personally do not see a constructive resolution arising from focusing on the SPI or DSE issues. I think they are relatively unimportant. You should note that there are no democratic rights. It is about consensus, which happens to be more like organised mob rule than democracy. Concerning yourself with “democratic rights” will only lead to grief.

I really do think you need to spend some effort contributing to wikipedia away from areas of recent difficulties. Intending to spend a week editing the ‘Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome’ is a bad idea.

You go on to discuss specific content issues. This RFC is not about content. Attempting to resolve content issues is beyond the scope of this RFCU, and if attempted would certainly fail. Editors interested in those pages are not bound by any consensus reached here.

This should not be treated as a situation of adversarial criticism by experts and defense of an individual. We all need to work together.

You response to me appears to involve a mix-up. I have not advocated a two-week break, or indeed any break. I have advocated that you should practice contributing cooperatively on some other subject, and to explicitly declare your personal WP:COI issues. If you think that to be fair that others should accept similar conditions, then I think you need to be specific.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not see a constructive resolution arising from focusing on the SPI or DSE issues

Strongly agreed. Those particular requests ...

I would like my suggestions about SPI (suspicion of sockpuppetry) and DSE (double standards editing) to become standard practice for resolving those issues in Misplaced Pages in the future - and - I would like new contributors to have the opportunity of using their own methods of defence against Wiki policy experts on their User talk page.

... are not going to happen. PW is asking for major changes in areas such as WP:SOCK, dispute resolution procedures and the application of policy that aren't in the power of anyone here to grant. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My Solution to the Consensus Problem of Edit Duopolies (ED’s)

Regarding recent comments requiring me to consider the importance of consensus in compiling wikipedia here , I would like to note the following -

1. Most of the editing, and 99% of the criticism on the Da Costa pages has been done by WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon acting as a virtual Edit Duopoly (ED)

2. When I add evidence of physical cause, they delete it and replace it with emphasis on psychological opinion. e.g. here 2a. They should act their role of editors, and stop acting the role of opposing contributors.

3. Whenever any other individual presents evidence contrary to their views they accuse them of being uncivil (WP:CIVIL), not assuming good faith (AGF), and synthesis (SYNTH) etc. etc. and then try to ban them, as they did with , or threaten to suspend them e.g. me, and delete or archive the process - so that no-one else can assess it’s merit.

4. They also insist on consensus because in 99% of cases the result is always TWO to ONE against any new contributor, and so they have a virtual EDIT DUOPOLY - which is the opposite of consensus, and disruptive to the fundamental principle of democratic compilation of wikipedia. They also don’t make changes when I provide evidence that they are wrong.

5. They claim to be neutral, and that I should assume good faith (AGF), but they edit with excessive zeal (demanding much higher standards for the Da Costa page than any other they edit - DSE), and they act in every way “as if” they have a strong COI, but deny that. re; if it looks like a cow, and moos like a cow, and if it gives milk like a cow, it is not guaranteed to be a cow, but it probably is a cow.

6 My solution is to ban those two editors from the Da Costa pages and it’s related subjects, and make them edit separately in the future, so that they can’t obstruct the democratic process of consensus. They have experience with a wide variety of subjects so that should not be a problem.

7. That the threat to suspend me is lifted, and Avnjay and other NPOV editors assist me in ensuring that the information is added according to a fair and reasonable interpretation of wiki policy guidelines.

8. REQUEST FOR BREAK; That somebody in authority enforces a break instead of allowing WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon to continually, and therefore predictably disrespect the requests for a break by Edjonston (COI number 2), Avnjay and SmokeyJoe, and me now, on these current Request for Comment pages. I would like Avnjay to determine how long the break should be in accordance with wiki discussion guidelines, and to let everyone know.Posturewriter (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Regarding Posturewriter’s comments of 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Posturewriter’s comments of 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) :

Posturewriter,

If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa’s syndrome), get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it.

I don’t think that we’ll be able to agree to any conclusive finding of facts, and I don’t think it is helpful for anyone to demand apologies. The issue is “how do we improve this encyclopedia, one step at a time”.

You have good contributions to make. Criticism you’ve received has overstated, and sometimes rude. Your counter-claims appear to have merit. I have not got to the bottom of it all; in the attempt at doing so I decided that it didn’t matter. There are some serious content-issues raised, but we do not decide content questions here. Unfortunately, the heart of this matter is that you do not seem to work well with others. You are too prone to making demands. For details, you could try asking your critics for details. I would urge them to not volunteer such opinions without being asked.

I think the only solution for this is for you to practice co-operative editing elsewhere for a while. Your critics have already demonstrated this. Looking at the history of Da Costa's syndrome, it is clear that you brought a lot of substance to a start class low importance article. You should take pride in that, leave it to others for a while, practice contributing elsewhere, and come back later to see what time and yet other editors make of the article. This RfC already lists too many reference policies, but they seem to have left out an important one, WP:OWN. You may have written the page, but you can’t own it. Others will edit your contributions mercilessly. This is wiki.

I’ll agree with you that all editors editing in areas related to their professional interests should explicitly declare their interests.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I think this concliiatory approach is getting nowhere. PW's reply can hardly be taken as a good faith attempt to resolve the situation. PW is still right, the rest of us biased, and we're expected to jump through hoops to fufil the terms of some polemical rant.

This RfC already lists too many reference policies

It doesn't; it lists all that are applicable. I agree; I'd like to see PW demonstrate cooperative editing elsewhere. Personally I doubt that it'll happen, given his combatative approach to such a variety of policies and guidelines.

Nobody else is obliged to demonstrate a thing (I certainly can't write anything on my supposed COI because I don't have one - and only self-WP:OUTING would demonstrate that I've nothing to do Da Costa's syndrome and have no medical affiliations).

Either PW buys into the proposed outcome without conditions; or I suggest this be taken to WP:RFAR to ask for a ban on grounds of PW exhausting community patience. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this: Everyone stop demanding. Go back to editing content. Stop talking about users as opposed to the content they are trying to add. If Posturewriter chooses to not follow advice offered here, that's his choice. But if he is disruptive, personal, or violates other policy in future, where his "critics" refrain from doing similar, then I will support a ban on medical topics in mainspace at RFAR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm fed up with this. We deal with it now. He has already shown long-running disruptive, personal and multiple policy-violating edit practices, and judging by the continuing polemic - "Freedom of expression, The Dark Ages, Luddites, Futility, Evidence and opinion, Minority authority groups and the BIG POND, Britannica, and Misplaced Pages" - appears not ready to drop the stance of being unfairly persecuted.

The problem, anyway, is not limited to mainspace. The continual bad-faith bellyaching on Talk pages (if we reply, we're ganging up on him; if we don't reply, we're apparently not taking him seriously so we get more bellyaching) is part of the disruption that makes it difficult to use the Talk pages for terse focused discussion on content. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)