Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 28 July 2008 (→Re: My evidence of trying to resolve the disputes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 .

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

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)