Two Wikipedia editors criticised and deleted almost  every word I wrote, and arranged for the ‘ignore all rules” policy to be used to in an ambush style, to ban me  before I had the right of reply. During that time, and since then, other editors have added exactly the same information as if it came from other sources.

They also encouraged or deceived other editors into deliberately breaking any or all of the rules to sabotage my contributions, and see also an independent report about how employees of powerful bosses are sometimes asked to break the rules, and how it creates a conflict in employees who may have high personal or ethical values and think that they may be sacked if they don’t follow the instructions, or may get a promotion if they dohere.

See my report on the deliberate adhominem editing of those two editors  here, and here, and here, See an example of their actual comments here and the ridiculous blitz krieg of 80 items of criticism here, and my report on the strategic rudeness and “attitude readjustment tools” used in their deliberate attempt to provoke me, and  the lies told to get me banned here.

They were also repeatedly saying “we think this” or “we think that” and referring to themselves as representatives of “rule abiding” Wikipedia community to create the false impression that I was being opposed by thousands of individual editors, and to whip up a frenzy of criticism against me. See here and here and here

They were not arguing, but were just contradicting every thing I wrote in their attempt to insult, defame, and discredit me. According to the skit below . . . “An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition . . . and . . .   Argument is is an intellectual process   . . .  contradiction is jut the automatic gainsaying of everything the other person says“.

Those two editors think that their style of argument, and spin,  is intelligent, but John Cleese makes fun of it in the YouTube video below.

Anonymous Wikipedia editors have sabotaged the Google search engine rankings of my theory by copying elements of it into a new page called “Poor posture“, which became number 1, and by twisting aspects of it upside down to give the opposite meaning of psychological rather than physical cause and effect on their new page called “Posture (psychology) ” which became number 2. Their page called “Corset controversy” and several others contain copies or take-offs from my 38 years of research. The public needs to be fully aware of their unethical internet behaviour, and will hopefully do something about it.


I have been researching the cause and effects of poor posture for 38 years, and been producing essays, books, and a website to educate the public about the importance of prevention, and how to treat the resulting ailments. Max Banfield

I manage to solve many problems which have previously been a mystery, primarily by studying them in detail, and giving attention to facts, evidence, and proof, and I joined Wikipedia with the objective of adding such information.

However, I was eventually confronted by two editors who had obviously learnt all the rules for the opposite purpose, and by watching their various tactics I was directed to policies, or rules, which imply that the truth doesn’t matter, only verifiability does, and most remarkably the “ignore all rules” policy. However, I also noted that it has a rule which says that all editors are equal, but saw arguments that  it is not a democracy, and  does not have a rule about “Double standards”, and it was evident that those two editors were free to be as disrespectful and ill-mannered to me as they wished, while demanding that I treat them with utmost respect. In that regard, whenever I made a minor mistake of any sort it was exaggerated out of proportion to give the impression that I had deliberately broken a major rule, and whenever I proved that they were both telling massive strings of lies, other editors would argue that the evidence wasn’t good enough.

Some of the other disgusting forms of behaviour which I encountered, and which are definitely serious violations of Wikipedias major rules, and yet which appear to be acceptable and widespread, were the  “attitude re-adjustent tools” which are used by organised gangs to start edit wars, where they  deliberately target individuals and then insult, annoy, and provoke them so that they become frustrated and leave Wikipedia (see here). My main critic also tried to justify the use of  strategic rudeness by  transmographically glorifiying it as a sign of intelligence, where normal courtesy was belittled as if  it is just the behaviour of servants and slaves, and I was directed to a page called Trout here which refers to treating opponents in disputes as if slapping them in the face with a wet trout, and a page called The Last Word  (see here and here), which is essentially just an instruction sheet on how my two critics actually behaved in disputes, where they referred to opponents as bastards, jerks, little shits, and prey, and which compares discussions with boxing matches, and  glorifies various types of lying and cheating, as if winning in that manner is clever and praiseworthy.

I was always very confident in my arguments against those two editors because, obviously facts and proof have far more power than liars and cheats, but they ultimately arranged for me to be banned by getting an administrator to ignore “all” the rules. I was not surprised, when some months later, my main critic tried to give him a barnstar called the Outlaw Halo Award slyly, without me noticing.

After being banned I began criticising those two editors without any intention of involving Wikipedia itself, and I did it for the purpose of producing a more reliable Wikipedia for the benefit of it’s readers.

Wikipedia’s Outlaw Halo Award – The devil wearing a halo – Evil disguised as good. – Pretending to have good intentions to justify bad behaviour.


Wikipedia’s “ignore all rules” policy, and their Outlaw Halo Award

When Wikipedia started the organisation needed new contributors who would add articles, more than they needed rules, and they didn’t want them to be discouraged by a lot of relatively new and unimportant issues so they had an ignore all rules policy to make things easier, as long as it was being used for the good of Wikipedia. However, it was meant to be a temporary policy which would be rejected later as the encyclopedia grew.
Since then millions of articles, and hundreds, if not thousands of pages of rules have been added, so the original purpose purpose of that policy no longer exists.
Nevertheless, smooth talking conmen, corrupt editors, and propagandists have resisted attempts to get rid of it, so that they can use it for the purpose of winning disputes by cheating, and my main critic was using it to break any rule at any time.
The catch cry of those con artists goes something like this “We are lovely people who only use the “ignore all rules” policy, for good reasons, honest we do. You can trust us”;.

An administrator used it to ban me, and sometime later, my main critic, who wanted to get me banned, gave him a barnstar called The Outlaw Halo Award here, It has the symbol of the globe of Wikipedia representing the head, the horns of the devil, and the halo of a saint. It is an artistic representation of evil wearing the mask of good, or cheating pretending to be winning properly. It is the equivalent of a thief wearing a police uniform while committing his crime. Their plan is to make the readers believe that the lies they read are are the honest truth. i.e. the symbol represents public mind control masquerading as public education.

It is impossible to enforce Wikipedia’s rules properly

Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia) tells #c4news don’t need new laws to combat bad behaviour on web; need enforcement of laws that already exist”.

That quote comes from “Weekdays at 7 on Channel 4 – on 11-8-13.

My comment: It is impossible to enforce any rules in an organisation where one of it’s 5 major principles is their “ignore ALL rules” policy.

The obvious result of that policy is that corrupt individuals or gangs of outlaws will use it to control the rule-abiding edtiors. See more here.


The Posture Theory

According to The Posture Theory, poor posture places the head and shoulders in the forward position to strain the spine and in the long term cause neck and back aches, injuries and arthritis etc. It also compresses the chest and lungs to cause breathlessness, and affect circulation and cause fatigue, and it compresses the stomach to cause pain and impair digestion.

An important addition was made to that idea when I discovered that nineteenth century women had exactly the same type of symptoms which were due to the mechanical pressure on the spine, chest, and abdomen, which were caused by their tight waisted corsets.

In order to prevent future generations of children from developing poor posture and the resulting symptoms and illnesses in adulthood I published my findings in books and sold them to school and public libraries to educate parents and teachers how to prevent those problems from affecting their children.

A sample of the diagrams which I found from my study of the history of medicine, and which I used as clues, evidence, and proof of my conclusions can be seen below

Spinal curvature caused by wearing a corset. Diag. ref. Matura Natura  versus the Moloch of  fashion (1874)
Spinal curvature caused by wearing a corset. Diag. ref. Matura Natura
versus the Moloch of
fashion (1874)


The Posture Theory compilation of diagrams of cause and effect
A collection of diagrams used to show the mechanical causes of poor posture
The S-bend corset
The S-bend corset
The internal anatomy was crushed and displaced  by nineteenth century whalebone corsets
The internal anatomy was crushed and displaced by nineteenth century whalebone corsets
Countess of Leicester and her children 1596
Countess of Leicester and her children 1596




Nineteenth century corsets were available in a variety of designs to change the shape of the womans spine and posture in particular ways. There was the slouched posture, the angled back, and sway back appearance, and some women bound their shoulders to create the round shouldered appearance because they thought it was attractive.Many people who do not do their research properly, or who do not study history thoroughly enough make the mistake of leaping to the conclusion that a persons posture is determined by emotional or personality factors such as  whether or not they are happy or sad.

See my ebook which contains these diagrams and more here, and my website which has a similar range of illustrations here.

The response of other people

When I discussed the idea with other people who included friends, academics, professors, and researchers, they agreed with me.

However, in saying that poor posture was the major cause of undetectable symptoms and illness, I was aware that  for almost 100 years there had been the idea was that the main cause was psychological.

Consequently it didn’t surprise me that some individuals would have a strong conflict of interest in arguing about it, and there were occasions when some of them reacted with resentment, and even hostility toward me.

Wikipedia’s anonymous editors

It was probably in about 2005 that a friend of mine told me about a new internet publication called Wikipedia which had the aim of including the sum of all knowledge from all sections of society to make it better than previous printed encyclopaedias which had been compiled by a small number of editors.

Another friend told me about it again in 2007, so eventually, with the help of an email correspondent, a page called The Posture Theory was established to summarise the idea.

However, when I suggested adding the word hypochondria to the text six anonymous editors recommended that the entire page be deleted and it was removed within a week.

I then found another page called Da Costa’s syndrome where I added as small amount of information about my theory and research, but two editors deleted it and began criticising almost every word I wrote.

However I noticed that after deleting the information which I provided, that they, or other anonymous editors were stealing the ideas by rewriting them in different words and adding them to other related topic pages.

They stole my ideas about the physical cause of poor posture, and rewrote them in different words, and put them into  a new page called “Poor Posture”

One example is where, a few months later, in April 2008, they set up a new page called “Poor Posture” where the main elements of my theory about the long term affects of poor posture were duplicated. For example, they said that sitting in a truck or at a desk all day caused gradual changes in the shape of the spine and ultimately resulted in neck and backaches, and compressed the lungs to cause breathing problems etc.

They tried to offset my theory by twisting my evidence about on a new page called Posture (psychology)

A portrait of Paul Cezanne exhibiting an example of closed posture. (He was a nineteenth century artist).
A portrait of Paul Cezanne exhibiting an example of closed posture. (He was a nineteenth century artist).

There is also an example of them or their anonymous associates trying to discredit me, by setting up a new page in another country and another language, and then, after completing it, they translated it, and then transferred it to new page in the English version of Wikipedia called Posture (psychology).

They were trying to create the impression that pyschological factors were the major influence on a persons posture, and that a persons posture affected their emotions, so they put that page in number 1 position at the top of their list of pages about posture. See here.

For example, they used a portrait of the nineteenth century artist Paul Cezzanne, who is looking slouched and sad.


Young Girl Holding a Letter, Circa 1665
Young Girl Holding a Letter, Circa 1665
Wikipedia describes this as an example of a nonchalant posture
Wikipedia describes this as an example of a nonchalant posture


Their page also contains a portrait from 1665 of a young girl who is obviously wearing a corset as an undergarment for her clothes, and she is looking slouched and sad after reading a letter.

They also include diagram of two women where one is upright and  described as having an energized attitude, and the other is slouched and described as having a depressed attitude, and they support that theme by including an illustration of a nineteenth century woman in a corset who is looking upright and they refer to it as the non-challant posture of someone who is free of  anxiety and stress and doesn’t have a care in the world.

The illustration which I drew to show that the young spinal bones are easily bent by long term physical factors but harden in adulthood to become a virtually permanent curvature which is the major cause of poor posture..

There are also several sections which are blatant attempts to offset my theories on the physical causes. For example the section called  . . . “Stable factors and posture ” which has these words . . . “The term posture is also used to refer to the appearance of the body. In psychology, there are several concepts involving the appearance of the permanent characteristics of individuals. Some habitual positions may also reflect stable characteristics of an individual.” (end of quote).

They are offensively blatant attempts at offsetting my theory of the real physical cause which can be clearly seen in their counter matching choice of diagrams.

The Response to my evidence that they have stolen my ideas and twisted some of them about

When I provided evidence that some of the anonymous editors were defaming my character, and then deleting my ideas, and then breeching my copyright by using  the same information on other pages, and sometimes twisting the evidence about to suit their own bias,  there were several responses.

One response was to ignore the evidence, and play dumb as if they didn’t see it, and another was to argue that the evidence isn’t good enough.

However, the glaring fact remains, that the information which was described as nonsense and rubbish when I added it, and was then deleted, can now be found in many other topic pages which are related to it, where other editors are pretending to have found it from other sources, and nobody has criticised it, or deleted it.

My response

The only  sensible, ethical, and proper thing to do would be to put the page about The Posture Theory back into Wikipedia, and link it to all of the other pages about posture, together with the dates on which they were provided, and let the readers see the full facts, instead of just the copies provided by an assortment of Johnny come latelies.

Given that I am only one person being robbed by many unscrupulous liars and cheats, I would like intelligent journalists to investigate these matters, and the public to support me.

See the Wikipedia page with their blatantly obvious attempt to use similar diagrams to manipulate and twist the evidence here

There are two Wikipedia pages about undetectable illness which a ridiculous violation of their own “neutral point of view” rules.

There are several pages in Wikipedia which discuss undetectable illness. The first is hypochondriasis, and a second  is Medically Unexplainable Physical Illnesses which states . . .

Medically unexplained syndromes (MUS) present the most common problems in medicine.”

Given the prevalence of such problems you would think that the opinions of patients would be considered but they are completely ignored and discredited, and dominated by the opinion of a few extremely biased editors. They have chosen to delete the page about my book called “The Posture Theory” which had the subtitle of “The Physical Basis for Hypochondria“, and is now available as an ebook with the sub-title of “The Physical Basis for Undetectable Illness“, and then they deliberately ignore, and FAIL to mention the 1000 pages of evidence which it provides .

Those editors want their readers to believe that the most common problems in medicine are all trivial, imaginary, or psychological. They are besting utterly, shamelessly, and ridiculously stupid and offensive to the hundreds of millions of normal people who have real physical ailments for which there is no clear way of detecting, and very poor undersanding and inadequate treatment.

It should be very clear to all intelligent and unbiased people that individuals who have undetectable, and poorly treated illnesses have good reasons for studying medicine and trying to solve the problems themselves, and a right to freedom of speech, and a right to tell other patients what they learn, and that arguments about the symptoms being trivial, or that the patients have “unnecessary” concerns about their health, or a fear of disease, are just defamation of character, and victim blaming, and not sensible of legitimate diagnosis.

Another Wikipedia page which discusses the cause of poor posture being “Stage Fright”

I have recently found a Wikipedia page about Stage fright which appears to have been written by naive simpletons, and is utterly ridiculous and completely useless.

I actually had minor problems with stage fright about thirty years ago, but I was able to cure it within 12 months by using my own methods. I am not going to discuss them here because Wikipedia editors will find it and copy the methods.

However, they appear to have attempted to discredit my observations and factual evidence for the real physical and biomechanical causes of poor posture, by arguing that anxiety and fear is the cause.

My readers will know that my postural changes occurred between the age of about 4 and 7, during which period I had hepatitis for several months where I would have experienced nausea, vomiting, and poor appetite, and lost a lot of weight. Those factors would have caused my skeletal structure to collapse into a slouch or stoop under it’s own weight. That change was not corrected early, so it became a permanent feature of my physique. I had happy childhood, and my posture had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of anxiety or fear.

I can also tell you that I have been involved in positions of leadership etc where I have stood in front of many audiences without concern, but did have minor problems with stage fright for a short time about 30 years ago. However, not since then, and as some of many examples, during the last 6 months I have given public talks to various groups such as a Rotary meeting, a Lion’s club, and Probus clubs, where the audience numbers ranged from about 20 to 50. I am a confident speaker with absolutely no fear of audiences, and the idea of me having stage fright is absurd.

Nevertheless this is a quote from Wikipedia’s ridiculous page about that topic . . .

“When someone starts to feel the sensation of being scared or nervous they start to experience anxiety . . .  This bodily response is known as the “fight or flight” syndrome, a naturally occurring process in the body done to protect itself from harm. “ . . . The neck muscles contract, bringing the head down and shoulders up, while the back muscles draw the spine into a concave curve. This, in turn, pushes the pelvis forward and pulls the genitals up, slumping the body into a classic fetal position” [2]. (end of quotes here).

Regardless of that rather obscure concept of poor posture, and any merit it may have, it is definitely not the cause of my spinal curvature, or that of 99.9% of other peoples posture which are discussed here, and attempts to give it importance or relevance are just plain absurd.

Deja Vu and Agent Orange

On ABC TV 4 Corners show tonight 22-7-13 they reported the diseases, cancer, and deaths caused by chemicals related to Agent Orange. They admitted that the chemical industry and the government  lied to the victims, and that they were told that it was safe enough to drink.

When I heard a Queensland professor saying that Agent Orange was safe enough to drink on radio talk back shows in the 1980’s, I told them that he was a liar, and was treated as if I was an ignorant and stupid troublemaker, and my comments were cut short and negated. If it was safe enough to drink they should have proven it by forcing their own grand children to drink it as cordial, but of course they wouldn’t.

My criticism of Agent Orange can be seen in a few pages of my book, in a section at the back on the politics and economics of medicine here.

If Wikipedia was in existence in those days my two critics would have arranged for me to be banned for disruptive editing because leopards don’t change their spots.

Things change but nothing changes

Two Wikipedia editors acted like heroes while hiding behind the skirts of anonymity and trying their hardest to convince the public that my ailment is an anxiety disorder. They are both ridiculous and contemptible liars. Their ID’s were WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, who I had to be polite to while I was a member complying with their rules, but in private conversations with friends I called them WaWa’s and Goofy.

I have absolutely no fear of disease, which is why I am able to study it objectively, and I have absolutely no fear of worthless nitwits.

They  used simple watch list methods to hunt around and make sure to delete every mention of my name and theory from Wikipedia, but they cannot delete the hundreds or probably thousands of individuals items of fact or idea which have previously been published in my essays, books, and website, because if they did that, Wikipedia would be widely recognised as a grossly inferior source of such information, and nobody would have any use for it.

Their lack of respect and gratitude toward people who have already done what they are attempting to do is offensive. See my 1000 page book, now published as an ebook here.*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


× 9 = twenty seven