Ah  Personally yes I feel that Guidos experiment is damaging to wikipedia  If its real hes not here to build an encylopedia hes here to experiment with the patience of its community in a way that essentially ignores its rules while purporting to test them  If its not its a posthoc 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 coexperimentors etc further renders it an invalid effort to criticize wikipedia making it rather useless to talk about if it cant be used to improve the project  But thats 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 dont see the advantage to posting multiple diffs when a whole section does the same thing in one fell swoop  Contentwise 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 theres minimal support for separating the two  TalkChronic fatigue syndromeME or CFS contains references that explicitly state the two are the same  TalkChronic fatigue syndromeME 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 dont think its 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 evidencesources came to light to revisit the issue  In addition the journal used was reviewed on RSN here and found wanting  The keeporsplit 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 its been done with a fairly continuous level of dismissiveness of others opinions with countless insinuations that other contributors are either stupid or havent done their research hasnt 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  Noone likes playing these kinds of games     Wikipedias rulessimplecomplex