Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC).

---

• Posturewriter (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

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. Initial problems about conflict of interest led to long-running tendentious and disruptive editing patterns, and lately a focus on personal attacks on editors opposing these.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

A topic ban on Da Costa's syndrome and any medical topics where Posturewriter is seen inserting information into article space that supports his Posture Theory, and for Posturewriter to understand the WP:NOR policy and cease the disruptive patterns of editing and discourse on Talk pages - with a community ban per WP:DE if the latter doesn't happen or starts up in other topics.

Description

Posturewriter (talk · contribs) began contributing in 2007, creating an article on his own theory, The posture theory, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The posture theory in December 2007. He immediately began a pattern of single purpose account edits at Da Costa's syndrome. Self-promotional edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Da Costa's syndrome led to warnings from JFW [2], Gordonofcartoon [3] and Whatamidoing [4].

He nevertheless continued to add to the DCS article verbose unenyclopedic material from his own website, leading to further warnings on content and style [5] and failure to clarify the copyright situation [6]. The issue was raised at WP:COIN (here and here) where discussion led to a further warning from EdJohnston for disruptive editing [7] and a recommendation "that you stop editing the article, and confine your remarks to the Talk page".

Posturewriter did this, but the tendentious and disruptive pattern continued on the Talk page. He persists in his argument - despite a clear SPA edit history - that it's other editors (ones with a wide variety of topic interests) who have an agenda. This has worsened recently with an open statement of bad faith - The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics asserting that multiple policies have been invoked against him as various "tactics" rather than for the simple reason of his breach of multiple policies.

He appears particularly not to understand why edits based on his own intepretation/selection of primary sources are unacceptable per WP:NOR.

It's a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing, and I think the current editing pattern particularly fits WP:DE's description of conduct based on long-running low-grade WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches that operates "toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles".

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Bad faith statement of user motives "In my assessment the main objective of my critics is to prevent, erase, or delete any of the significant scientific evidence of the physical or physiological basis for the symptoms of Da Costa’s Syndrome, to support their own views of the condition." [8]
2. Ditto. "Gordonofcartoon has had a significant role to play in getting User:Guido Den Broeder banned from wikipedia. Is it because he was an editor who supported my interpretations when you were trying to get me suspended before here" [9]
3. False accusations of sockpuppetry [10]
4. Original research - personal analysis of a novel's content [11]
5. Unspecified threat - "By way of gratitude would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won’t forget in a hurry" [12]
6. Personal attacks and bad faith "Why did you follow ... with deliberate, carefully contrived ridicule that includes double talk, snide remarks, derision and contempt ... which appears to have been chosen from much practice and experience for the precise purpose of intimidating me or provoking a hostile response in the hope that I would stop contributing, or react with hostility so that you could accuse me of violating civility policy" [13]
7. Incivility in edit summary "Response to pathetic SPA argument" [14]
8. Personal attack framed as opinion - "Have you also considered how he (Gordonofcartoon) is trying to make your group look. He comes asking for help, and when you start to mediate he sidles next to you and acts as if he thinks that you are his toadies, who should routinely move to the back seat while he takes control of the referee process as a recalcitrant dictator." [15]
9. [16] Breach of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:UP#NOT with creation of attack essay The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics - particularly including false accusations of anonymous vandalism, and bad-faith assumptions about other editors' reasons for invoking policy.
10. Obstructing COI discussions by denying the existence of identifying information [17] that he had self-revealed during an AFD [18]; then, this being pointed out, arguing that the information should be put back in the box because it had arisen in a different context. [19]
11. Further procedural obfuscation over copyright/COI issues: obstructing Jfdewolff by withholding this already-revealed identity [20] "As I explained, my motive for not revealing my true identity is to avoid other editors from adding it to their list of examples of self-identification for their conflict of interest arguments" [21]
12. Breach of WP:AGF - "It looks as though your are finding policy reasons for deleting things to suit your purposes". [22]
13. 31 July 2008. Even after continued discussion and neutral comments from User:Avnjay, continued failure to accept the nature of WP:NOR and arguing that a historical statement has been debunked by his own work, and claiming bad faith in others invoking WP:NOR. Some years ago I read that DaCosta patients ‘could not, or would not train’ in relation to ‘fear of exertion’. Supposing six volunteers completed two hours of exercise, twice per week, for twelve months. A reasonable person would say they were not afraid of exercise, an academic might comment Q.E.D., given that proof had been demonstrated. However a person who didn’t want to accept that evidence would change the subject and ask, ‘what about this or that?’, and a critic who preferred their views to be accepted would delete the evidence on the grounds of Original Research, and replace it with their own. [23] Note that the "six volunteers" story comes South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training work coordinated by Banfield/Posturewriter [24]
14. 3 August 2008. Continued assertion of rightness of stance contrary to WP:MEDRS, which emphasises use of modern secondary sources. Yet here he continues to argue "I would like you to remove all emphasis on “modern” “opinion” here [25] and replace it with the “unaltered and uninterpreted scientific evidence from history”".

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:DE
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:COI
4. WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY sections
5. WP:MEDRS
6. WP:NPA
7. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
8. WP:UP#NOT
9. WP:CIVIL
10. WP:GAME
11. WP:OWN
12. WP:SOAP
13. WP:TALK - particularly over failure to "Be concise".
14. ...
15. WP:SOUP
16. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering These two are obviously not policies or guidelines, but characterise a major problem of the situation; Posturewriter's continuing and disruptive use of obfuscation and long, unstructured comments.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Advice on general editing etiquette and standards. [26]
2. Request via Wikiquette alerts to abide by WP:UP#NOT [27]
3. Requests to remove - after demonstration of IP locations - claims about sockpuppetry [28][29]
4. Advice, again to assume good faith, to stop treating Wikipedia as an adversarial situation, and to take a broader topic interest [30]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

1. Refusal to remove unproven accusations of sockpuppetry [31] despite requests (and demonstration of unlikeliness) from accused editors. Also general sophistry in claiming they were not accusations because of being framed with "perhaps".
2. Obfuscation and delay after request to either remove attack section or use it legitimately: "I will give your question some thought and respond within the next day or so" [32], "Please advise me if I have 8 hours, or 2 weeks to respond here, so that I can time things better in this new policy matter ... In the meantime I will add some more later to day" [33], "If you wish, could you please take out any of the comments in that section which may have been interpreted as personal attacks on specific identified other editors, and take it to another page, and inform me of it’s location. I will then consider my response in due course (in the next 2 to 4 weeks preferably)" [34]
3. Continued expansion of attack section [35] after warning of its possible breach of Talk page guidelines [36]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
2. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
2. (caveat: I was briefly involved in a previous discussion with the user.) SDY (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

My Response

Avnjay; Thankyou for your comments, and your neutral point of view. I really do appreciate the many hours you have put into assessing this situation. I wish it was easy to comply with your request for giving other individuals time for a break for things to settle down, but that was tried by Edjonston before here [37]. His suggestion seemed good to me (re;wiki discussion policy suggests a break) but it was completely and immediately ignored by WhatamIdoing who continued a long commentary of criticism. Edjonston finally conceded that he had an argument, and then Guido Den Broeder noted that he didn’t. Guido has since been banned.

Now again, on this page, you have recommended a break at 18:32 on 21-7-08, but as you can see both of my critics have completely ignored your polite and reasonable NPOV request on the history of edits page at 20:27 on 22-7-08 here [38]. WhatamIdoing has suggested a link to a Skeptics magazine article that presented a lengthy critical review of my theory, and two hours later, at 22:39, Gordonofcartoon added the link under his name on the Article page here [39]. Note also, that although that link only takes up the space of a small word, that clicking it makes it the equivalent of nearly three large pages of continuous criticism on the first line. Please note also how many words I have to use to respond to it, which looks excessively more, but is actually a lot less.

Please note also, that I was a member of the Skeptics, and had conversations with Laurie Eddie, who, from memory, was Vice President of the state branch, and a psychologist, so I asked him to do an independent review of the 8th edition of my book for his magazine. He did so about a year later, and the fact that he was critical did not surprise me - given that the word ‘Skeptic’ refers to ‘a doctrine that “knowledge in a particular area is uncertain”. . . and . . . “an attitude or disposition toward doubt” (Webster’s Dictionary). re; I didn’t expect him to believe or agree with everything I wrote. Gordonofcartoon however, did not provide a link to my skeptical reply to that review in the Skeptics Volume 21. no.4 p.63 to 64 here [40]. Note also that Gordonofcartoons link was to a smaller magazine called the Investigator, which also published the same review, and I was on amicable terms with the editor, who was also a member of the Skeptics. I continued to be a member of the Skeptics for several years after, and occasionally attended their dinner lectures which were related to my interests - generally topics of controversyPosturewriter (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

My evidence of trying to resolve the disputes

1. As requested by editors I supplied (a) evidence that I existed (b) that I was the author of a book (c) that the book existed (d) that it had been independently reviewed (e) that I had been involved in a formal research programme (d) that it had been reported in major newspapers and (e) I provided the publishing details and dates of those articles. All of that information was ignored resulting deletion of the former page here [41], and all information has been used against me in subsequent false allegations of wiki copyright violation, and COI case number 1, and “is it near enough to violation” of COI case number 2 etc. here [42]

2. I have offered to abbreviate my personal research entries, but my offer was ignored and the information was deleted in a slab regardless.

3. I have provided notability evidence as required by (a) proving that I co-ordinated a scientific medical research programme with (a) the location of the relevant state library archives (b) the names of newspapers, and the phone number of one (c) After being required to place proof on-line, I scanned one of the newspaper items and placed it on my own website, and later added scanned copies of my original unpublished research paper, but that was later called ‘self identification’, promotion of my website, my own research, and COI.

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 here [43]. All of the information was used to repeatedly accuse me of ‘self-identification’ in COI cases, and on this page again. I will provide the links if required, but they have all been used by my critics as a case against me on this page. Could NPOV editors please consider that while assessing this timePosturewriter (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Evidence of Disruption to my Contributions

1. Anonymous repetitive whole page vandalism under suspicious circumstances starting here [44]

2. Slab vandalism? here [45]

3. Anonymous contributions to a parallel page under suspicious circumstances on 30 occasions from 1sr january to 9th April here [46]

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

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

6. Deletion of an article page despite me complying with every editors requirement here [47]

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 [48]

8. Failure to apologise when proven wrong here [49]

9. Failure to co-operate with a reasonable request when appropriate here [50]

10. Failure to consider both parties in a dispute before making a decision at 2:26 on 19-5-08 here [51] As well as previous failure to comply with ‘break’ request.

11.Refusal to answer questions appropriately here [52]

12. Constant changing of policy requirements after previous requirements have been met here [53].

13. Repeated false allegations about copyright violations here [54]

14. Repeated false allegations using misrepresentation of the meaning of the words ‘self-identification here [55].

15. Unspecified threat: Deliberately provocative ‘do we want to up the ante’ threats here [56] . . . 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 [57] 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 [58]

17. Criticising my contributions when the critic has only read the first paragraph of a research paper, with my comments and his response here [59] 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 [60]

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 [61]

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[62]

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 [63]

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 [64] 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 [65]

My Solution

Avnjay; as you may recall from your reading, some months ago, Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing presented 5000 words of criticism on a COI case which was decided before I provided a reply. Therefore, of late, I have been asking people like you to give me a time frame, but in the absence of one, I have prepared my own defences at the top of my talk page as a permanent deterrent, and have responded promptly to criticism. This was met here with two and a half pages of criticism on this newly started page, and your request for delaying my response below. I have not, until my recent introduction, presented a defence on this page.

Do you understand my problem with policy compliance re; I am under attack from Gordonofcartoon by fourteen virtually consecutive edits on 20-7-08 here [66] with my personal name being mentioned on the top line here [67], where I have no words to counteract the criticism, and you politely requested me to delay my response. You are also asking me to take my defences down on my Usertalk page.

I appreciate your reasons, but I do not wish to remove my comments which are primarily defences against attackers, not intitiating attacks (their words). I have also offered my critics the opportunity to go to other Article pages but they declined, and just recently they have suggested that I contribute to other pages?

My solution is to request you to go to the Da Costa article page as NPOV, and get other NPOV’s to make suggestions for me to consider, and for my critics, who are generalists, to find some other pages to edit. Your group can then discuss how to put my existing, but deleted edits back on the Da Costa article page in a way that I and you find agreeable. I will add a new NPOV introduction, and leave the page of history stopping at 1997. Others can do the linking on other pages between 1997 and 2008. I think I know what Gordonofcartoon was getting edgy about, but he was wrong. Also, there has been no mention of my name or theory for at least the past 6 months.

In the meantime, could NPOV editors please consider my previous response to COI accusations, and read the links here [68], and then read Gordonofcartoon’s criticisms here on this new ‘Requests for comment’ page above, and read the links, and my comments which precede and come after his. Note that I would like you to look for the context, rather than his words. It appears to me you have already noticed that, but other editors might not have.

Also note, that I have been looking for an NPOV editor, or editorial group, as distinct from opposing editors - no offence is intended toward the other editors. I just don’t think it is reasonable for them to be opposing me. They should have been editing me re; tidying it up and abbreviating information instead of deleting it in whole slabs without discussionPosturewriter (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)posturwriter

Is This Sock Puppetry? Just asking

NPOV editors; as you can see on the History of edits of the ‘Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter’ page at 20:27 on 22-7-08 here [69]. WhatamIdoing has suggested a link to a Skeptics magazine article that presented a lengthy critical review of my theory, and two hours later, at 22:39, Gordonofcartoon added the link under his name on the Article page here [70]. Note also, that although that link only takes up the space of a small word, if a reader clicks on it they will be taken to nearly three large pages of continuous criticism on the first line. Please note also that WhatamIdoings ID did not appear anywhere on the article page prior to that link being added - and that it was made after Avnjay suggested having a breakPosturewriter (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

user:Arbiteroftruth; Avnjay politely and constructively recommended a break; not an escalation; Please be reasonable. I have prepared this respons because I have seen this before. I am given no defence, and suddenly suspendedPosturewriter (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

User:Arbiteroftruth; Regarding your comments here [71]: Please understand that I have not been accused of using a sockpuppet, and I haven't accused anyone else of such. I have, however mentioned some circumstances of vandalism, and some anonymous edits which seem to be another persons alternate use of my contributions on another page, which may or may not involve sockpuppet activities, and I was trying to stop that. I made a brief attempt at determining source but am not familiar with wikipedia, and did not go to other users pages to accuse them of anything. I was being criticised (attacked - their words, not mine) by other editors who were coming to my talk page and accusing me of various policy violations. I merely presented my assessment of their actions for deterent, prevention (defencive) purposes. Please also note that other editors are making it difficult for me to contribute, with policy objections, not questions about the merit of my contributions, and are coming to my talk page for reasons that I am entitled to question, in my view. Two administrators now agree with me: DGG, and SmokeyJoe say that my actions do not violate any policies here [72]. Posturewriter (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

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

I have read WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon’s contribution lists and am honestly impressed. Their problem is that they don’t seem to appreciate my democratic right to contribute in a fair and reasonable way. I would like to say that I am not in the slightest bit personally affected by this, and I simply write objectively, about the issues, without fear or favor, and will continue to do so, and they need to understand that. I suggest that they show good faith by resolving the sockpuppet issue themselves, in the following manner.

1. At some time in the near future spend a week editing the ‘Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome’ page here [73], where it is relevant to Da Costa syndrome, insofar as there are similarities and overlapping symptoms

2. Consider the very small amount of information on that page on 23 -8-08 here [74], and notice how 26 anonymous edits followed with the address 68.55.208.16, as can be seen on the history of edits page here [75], and notice that they start adding large volumes of information at 23:33 on 29-3-08 here [76], and continue following the history of edits to 15:18 on 8-4-08 here [77], and notice only two intervening identified contributions, with the article increasing in size from one to five pages. Also note that WhatamIdoing has previously edited this page several times as seen in the history of edits here [78]

Therefore, please ask the anonymous contributor to identify themselves and write a page about their reasons for not registering with wikipedia and revealing their real identity, and ask them to produce a page relating to any issues of COI, C/VIO, and explain their understanding of WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY etc.

3. Add a formal numbered and linked Reference Window to the end of the page

4. Delete the four of the existing five references which are Primary Sources; re - WP:NOR

5. Add the instruction ‘Citation Needed’ to every statement on every line on the page, as per the recent example relating to ‘pacing’ on the Da Costa article page here [79], and here [80]

and then . . .

(a) If the information is not properly cited from SECONDARY SOURCES within a week - delete the page.

(b) If the anonymous contributor hasn’t identified themselves - block the ID address

Such actions will . . .

(i) Remove any suspicion of sockpuppetry (SPI) and . . .

ii) Remove any issue of Double Standards Editing (DSE)

I would like my suggestions about SPI and DSE to become standard practice for resolving those issues in Wikipedia 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.

I hope these comments are seen as reasonable and fair solutions to the problems that I, or any other new contributors have to deal withPosturewriter (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Avnjay; Thankyou for your suggestions. I will be happy to prepare a subpage, and am confident that you will be able to make it a suitable NPOV contributionPosturewriter (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)posturwriter

SmokeyJoe; I agree with your suggestion about taking a two week break. Please ensure that my critics do the same to keep the balance of view; re; no more ‘last words’. Posturewriter (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Comment on outside view by user:Arbiteroftruth

Arbiteroftruth; As there has been a considerable volume of criticism about me by two critics I can understand why you may have assumed that I was accused of everything here [81]. However, as you now know from several sources including Avnjay here [82] I have not been accused of sockpuppetry, but have commented on sockpuppet vandalism of the Da Costa page which may involve other editors. I have not accused anyone of anything.

However, my current problem is that you have left some comments at the end of this discussion page which leaves a very bad impression that I have committed such a violation of policy, and made the most severe recommendations that I be banned. Could you please therefore acknowledge your misunderstanding, and apologise in good faith, and withdraw the severe and unwarranted recommendation to ban me, and leave the page with you and me in a favorable lightPosturewriter (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Posturewriter (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
2. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by User:Avnjay

Wow, what a headache. As a completely outside party I have just read through all the relevant pages I can find, (Users' talk pages, article talk page, COI discussions, etc) which has taken several hours! Here are my humble thoughts:
Posturewriter is generally polite in his responses and has mostly remained calm throughout this protracted affair. However, comments (by Posturewriter and others, most notably Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing), rarely seem to diffuse the situation and unfortunately can often aggravate it, for example in the User_talk:Posturewriter#Persistent copyright issues section, User_talk:Posturewriter#False accusations section and in the wp:Wikiquette_alerts/archive48#User:Posturewriter section. I'll quote a few here as those sections are rather long and restrict myself to Posturewriter's comments as this is his RFC/U, although some of the others' comments are their equal:

"I also don’t want my User Talk page turned into scrambled discussions just because some editors want to do that with their many schools of red herring arguments, so I prefer to respond to one issue at a time."

"I was also definitely not being evasive, or sending you on a “treasure hunt” (your words), but was assuming that an experienced editor would have the responsibility and ability to check on accusations against me, rather than assuming that my critics had a valid argument, just because it was their opinion."

"Jaysweet; Have you noticed how Gordonofcartoon creates the image that I am causing trouble for a lot of editors, when 99% of criticism is coming from, or incited by him and WhatamIdoing, as here [[83]], and here [[84]]."

However, although not really constructive, it is generally a case of meeting a claim against him with a counter-claim against the editor and the comments really only brush WP:CIVIL. As far as incivility goes there are only a couple of blatant breaches of WP:CIVIL, most notably with the sockpuppet issue and with the "teach you a lesson" line quoted above. I feel more that it is the response of an editor who feels embattled on all sides and does not merit sanctions such as a block (unless things go downhill fast), which I am certain would not remedy the situation. It was perhaps summed up most succinctly here: "I think he's objecting that his opinion is being shut out and that other editors are being too factual, people are objecting with opinions that contain too much information. There may be a valid concern here, but it just isn't very persuasive since it rambles so much. "Also, I am not an editor, I am a contributor, and the editors are being disruptive to my contributions." seems to be the argument.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"
Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic but instead of starting another long, protracted debate here as has happened at COIN and talk pages could I humbly suggest that the involved editors take a break from each other for a while. If all could agree to stay away from and remove any controversial material from the relevant article and talk pages, etc, then perhaps we could draw a line under it all. I do not say this as a condemnation on any editor I have mentioned nor do I assign blame to anyone editor. Neither am I suggesting that any editor is in anyway childish and just needs to be told to "play nicely" but rather I say this out of respect for you all as Wikipedians. Let's not dismiss this as "been there tired that", either. As an outside and completely neutral editor (who holds you all in high esteem) I plead with you all for peace! (Also it might also be good to let someone who knows very little about the article in question to have a go at cleaning it up if it still needs it as from reading the discussions it seems as if personal knowledge is a big problem here.) Here's hoping for a unilateral acceptance of disarmament! :)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Avnjay^Talk 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Avnjay; I endorse your solution with the regard to your comments as quoted here ““As far as the article is concerned here is what I suggest. While everyone is not editing it directly they can put their idea of the perfect article on a user sub-page. Someone with knowledge of Wiki policy but not the article's subject (I am happy to take the time to do this if you want) can then read the articles and check the references and combine the articles. After a bit of discussion on the talk page we would have a perfect article! Yes I'm optimistic but why not!!.” in your 3rd last paragraph here [85]. I am willing to prepare a sub-page on the range of research related to a balanced view of Da Costa’s syndrome and have you ensure that it is presented as an article page which is consistent with all relevant wiki policies, as fairly and equitably determined by you --Posturewriter (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside View by user:Arbiteroftruth

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I endorse your solution with the following comments considered [86] Posturewriter (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

After serious consideration, I believe I have misread certain parts of this RfC, and as a result, I cannot wholeheartedly say that I stand by the comments that I made earlier. Therefore, I have decided to retract the comments above (which has now been struck).

Outside View by User:SmokeyJoe

Posturewriter has attempted to contribute in good faith. His contributions have unfortunately been focused on subjects that he is passionate about. Posturewriter does not seem to have understood or accepted the advice of WP:COI. This has led to conflicts with other editors and frustration to Posturewriter, frustration that has escalated on both sides. The allegation of “a focus on personal attacks” is overstated.

Outcome: Posturewriter should take a break from editing on subjects he is passionate. He should develop a record of contributions on other subjects, contributions that are accepted by the community. Before returning to subjects on which he is passionate, Posturewriter should write a userspace essay, User:Posturewrite/COI declarations on how WP:COI applies to himself.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC) - broadly endorsed, with the reservation that I think his understanding of WP:NOR, WP:MEDRS and WP:AGF needs also to be demonstrated, in both article space and discourse. Endorsed regarding the suggested outcome. PS I think we can drop the userspace essay bit; a good record of accepted contributions elsewhere would be fine.
3. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Avnjay^Talk 13:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) - suggest instead of an essay on COI (which sounds a little patronising to me) he writes a version of Da Costa's demonstrating his understanding of WP:COI, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR
5. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC). Endorsed regarding the suggested outcome.
6. Computerjoe's talk 10:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by ScienceApologist

This is the crux of the matter:

User:Posturewriter wrote:

they don’t seem to appreciate my democratic right to contribute in a fair and reasonable way...

Apparently this user doesn't realize that editing on Wikipedia is no more a "right" than contributing to any other collaborative work. If you run afoul of the collaboration, which is what this user is doing, then the collaboration will ask you to find some other activity with which to occupy yourself.

I believe this user has exhausted the patience of the community. I encourage him to apply himself in endeavors outside of Wikipedia, or simply stay away from articles having to deal with the areas in dispute. I hope to never see him editing in these areas again. Indeed the sheer tendentious disruption evinced in this very RfC is enough for me to suggest a complete topic ban from both article editing and talkpages.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.