Ah.  Personally, yes, I feel that Guido's experiment is damaging to wikipedia.  If it's real, he's not here to build an encylopedia, he's here to experiment with the patience of its community in a way that essentially ignores its rules while purporting to test them.  If it's not, it's a post-hoc rationalization (or blatant lie) that attempts to justify how his contributions have been disruptive.  Playing coy, refusing to actually share it or disclose the details of the report, the 'experiment', the methodology, the contents of 'phase II', his co-experimentors, etc. further renders it an invalid effort to criticize wikipedia, making it rather useless to talk about if it can't be used to improve the project.  But that's my opinion and a long discussion.  
I must apologize for not providing diffs here after your explicit request, but I really think the best thing to do is to review whole talk page sections - I don't see the advantage to posting multiple diffs when a whole section does the same thing in one fell swoop.  Content-wise, I think these two sections are the best to illustrate a critical feature - ME and CFS are considered the same diagnosis by the majority of the medical community, and there's minimal support for separating the two.  Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#ME or CFS contains references that explicitly state the two are the same.  Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#ME as a separate condition from CFS contains, from what I can gather, the best and most supportive sources to justify the two conditions being separate.  You can see my analysis and conclusions - I don't think it's sufficiently clear that the majority consider them separate.  From this point onwards, I would think a reasonable editor would conclude that the consensus is the conditions are separate, and edit accordingly (unless new evidence/sources came to light to revisit the issue).  In addition, the journal used was reviewed on RSN here and found wanting.  The keep-or-split discussion has been revisited many times - here, here and again here.  The same discussion, several times in one year, without any substantial new, medically reliable sources that clearly demonstrate there is sufficient support in the medical community for a separate diagnosis, has worn down the patience of many contributors; that it's been done with a fairly continuous level of dismissiveness of others' opinions, with countless insinuations that other contributors are either stupid, or haven't done their research, hasn't helped either, and then to find out it may all be part of some experiment that has nothing to do with actually writing an encyclopedia...  No-one likes playing these kinds of games.   (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex