Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ JzG _ JzG, Simon Wessely, and claims of 'harassment'
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
Hello everyone,
With regard to JzG:
I advocate for my daughter, first diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, later Lyme disease, who is severely disabled by her illness. I also undertake academic criticism, of the claims made by some psychiatrists about these illnesses being ’psychosomatic’ and advocate for the ME/CFS community itself. Therefore, I do have a real world reputation that might be brought into disrepute by libellous, defamatory comments.
JZG made a number of defamatory (and libellous) claims about me (and implied others) on the admin notice board in September 2007 and elsewhere in time and place on Wikipedia, the circumstances of which are outlined here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APK-PAPERS/message/19
Large sections of the Simon Wessely talk page had already been removed by Jim Wales himself in 2006, after I and my erstwhile colleague formally wrote to him demanding he remove comments, made by JzG and another admin, JFW, which were highly inflammatory towards us. He removed some of them (though I kept copies of what was said), but the two admins continued making similar comments over the course of about a year and a half on the talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Wessely/Archive_1&oldid=165865721
As is probably evident from these links, my problems with the conduct of JzG, and indeed Jimbo Wales, are these:
1. JzG's misrepresentation of me and my work in the open discussions to other admins, in particular defamatory and libellous claims he has made about me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=165588742#Outside_eyes:_abuse_of_userspace.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=166193778#Can_we_de-escalate_this.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=160944150#Simon_Wessely
Of particular worry are the claims that I ‘have a visceral hatred for Simon Wessely’, the misrepresentation of the work I am doing in the real world, the claim that “You need to draw a distinction between what Angela Kennedy says, and what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both feet on the groundâ€, and, most libellous of all, his claim that ‘these individuals’ [meaning me and unnamed others] have harassed Wessely in real life: all of which have potentially highly damaging effects on my real world reputation.
2. JzG's (uninformed) conclusions on his website, and on the talk pages, that CFS is psychosomatic, Wessely’s work is correct, and that objections to Wessely’s claims are extreme, ideological etc. therefore making him a biased party in a dispute which he escalated (see the end paragraph of this link for his position):
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Wesselygate
3. The placement of a "banned user" tag on my user page, which contravenes decency and privacy . The arbitrary wikipedia ‘justice’ is being used to tar people at the top of a google search. I was permanently banned by Wales himself.
4. Possible off-wiki engagement between JzG and the subject of the page, Simon Wessely, in such a way as to suggest a possible collusion, particularly around false claims that I have ‘personally harassed’ Simon Wessely (as per his comments here):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=160944150#Simon_Wessely
(But also see here):
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=14
I have written to Simon Wessely’s line managers about this issue. So far they have been most uncooperative. The correspondence can be seen here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APK-PAPERS/message/17
But the whole issue needs further investigation.
5. Off-wiki engagement with Jim Wales with prejudicial effects on me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=166193778#Can_we_de-escalate_this.3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=165588742#Outside_eyes:_abuse_of_userspace.3F
I appreciate this is a complex issue. I am willing to provide further evidence and answer questions on this issue where possible and appropriate.
Angela
Posted by: Kato
Welcome to WR, Angela.
I touched upon this in a previous thread
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15491&view=findpost&p=75425
The incidents occurred during Jimbo's "shoot to kill" policy of October last year, around the time of the Cla68 ban over the Gary Weiss article. JzG stumbled into this healthcare controversy a long time ago, and in his usual fashion tried to bully parties to a resolution with no success whatsover. Eventually, in a parallel to the Gary Weiss story, he sided with one Doctor's view in the real life dispute, concluded that the others were "kooks and lunatics", and started a war against them. Presumably updating Jimbo with his progress off-site. So by the time significant figures like Angela Kennedy appeared onsite, JzG was identifying them as "harassers pushing a quack meme". Which is completely untrue.
So JzG collaborated with Jimbo to ban them all from the site, JzG throwing in the usual epithets while he was doing it. Jimbo personally blocked User:Ombudsman, a physician of some sort with a good WP record for dubious reasons over this. Wales appears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ombudsman&diff=166333314&oldid=166129213 just before he banned Cla68.
The worst thing is that JzG presents his dispute on his own website, drawing his conclusions writing :
http://www.outrider.org.uk/wiki/Wesselygate
The edit war rumbled on for some time, and probably continues still, since these people think Wessely is the Antichrist. I have by now exchanged a few emails with him, I have seen nothing to persuade me that he is anything other than sincere in wanting to help sufferers, I suspect that the root of the problem is that any suggestion that the cause is anything other than physical raises the bogeyman of "mental illness". As anyone who has suffered depression, alcoholism or any other essentially mental illness will tell you, the disease is absolutely real and creates genuine measurable chemical effects, the distinction between mental and physical illness is largely spurious. Wessely's point was that certain therapies appeared to help, and that was about it, really. The One-Clickers reject these therapies on ideological grounds, and hate Wessely with a passion because not only has he shown them to work, but he's been widely published in the process.
Therefore not a disinterested or neutral party by any stretch. Yet he decided to orchestrate a ban of people who disagreed with his point of view, with the assistance of Jimbo.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Angela,
Thank you for a very interesting and detailed report. I'm sure you recognize that The Wikipedia Review is a not a place where legal, medical, and scientific claims are adjudicated, and wouldn't it be nice if more Wikipedians recognized the same thing about Wikipedia? Unfortunately, all too many of them have the fantasy roles to which they e-lect themselves within their own little e-game confused with real world authority and credibility, and anyone who fails to show what they consider due deference to their Φearless Leader's Luftballon is bound eventually to meet with the same sort of sordid treatment that you e-countered there.
Welcome to the Φray,
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Kato
It is the very public arbitrary JzG justice that first makes one wince.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Angela_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=165939491
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
Welcome Angela, and God bless. 
Posted by: Moulton
Hi Angela,
Fifteen years ago, I met another Angela, then a thirteen year old girl who had also been diagnosed with CFS. Her experience with social networking was more heartwarming than the case you bring to us.
Perhaps you might find her story of interest.
Today, Angela is a grad student at Stanford University, doing research in biomedicine.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
Hi Angela,
Fifteen years ago, I met another Angela, then a thirteen year old girl who had also been diagnosed with CFS. Her experience with social networking was more heartwarming than the case you bring to us.
Perhaps you might find her story of interest.
Today, Angela is a grad student at Stanford University, doing research in biomedicine.
Wonderful story...thanks Moulton! Thanks Angela(s)!
Posted by: Kato
Here's the statement from JzG that led to Angela's blocking, JzG actually sounds quite reasonable here, but remember that he'd already set his mind on the subject matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=166193778#Can_we_de-escalate_this.3F
The question is, which admin is going to eventually stand up to Jimbo's arbitrary justice and the bullying JzG, and remove that banned tag from Angela Kennedy's user page?
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
I know it's trendy to pile on JzG here - god knows I have no real love for him at this point either - but are we really sure he's in the wrong here? Woman gets banned for putting up a bunch of crap about a sketchball character and then trying to keep her crappy article up in the face of every reasonable alternative. This at least, on its face, seems like a reasonable response to this situation.
If it's the fact that "Angela Kennedy" is now sullied with a banned tag, then petition for a username change. It's not like her name's attached to an ArbCom case or something.
Posted by: Neil
As I recall, this was one of the cases where Guy probably did the right thing (although then creating a gloating page on his attack site about it was unnecessary).
This link (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APK-PAPERS/message/17) seems to show Ms Kennedy demanding an official retraction/apology from KCL and to get Simon Wessely censured/fired based on something Guy Chapman said on Wikipedia. This despite the university responding three times to say they are "not able to comment on anything that may or may not be said in an online encyclopaedia", and despite Guy's statement being nothing to do with Wessely. You can draw your own conclusions about who harassed who.
As for Angela Kennedy's block from Wikipedia, users who make legal threats (such as http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APK-PAPERS/message/19) are blocked until they either retract them or pursue them - this is standard protocol.
I believe that rule is in place ostensibly "to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels", but really to prevent a bunch of 15 year old morons who think they know it all trying to acting as Lawyer-Defenders of the Wiki, making an even bigger mess.
Just as nobody is right all the time, JzG isn't wrong all the time. Just a lot of the time.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
We will have to agree to disagree about M.E.
JzG is often 'right'.
That doesn't mean he's not extremely rude and nasty, though. There is a Requests for Comment about him at the moment which looks like he might get 'reminded' to behave (i.e. just a few words, not even a slap on the wrist), but at least it's a start which might lead to more if he acts up in future.
The best words I was ever given as regards health issues is "This, too, shall pass."
Remember, Angela, periods of fatigue will pass, the condition itself will pass, and eventually even JzG will pass 
Welcome to the board.
Posted by: Neil
Wikiwhistle - you're absolutely correct. I helped build the Requests for Comment about JzG. The result will probably be no censure at the moment, but the first sign of his behaviour continuing to be abhorrent as it has been and he will lose his administrator rights, at the very least.
Posted by: Kato
Woman gets banned for putting up a bunch of crap about a sketchball character and then trying to keep her crappy article up in the face of every reasonable alternative. This at least, on its face, seems like a reasonable response to this situation.
What? That's not what happened at all. What are you talking about?
The best words I was ever given as regards health issues is "This, too, shall pass."
Remember, Angela, periods of fatigue will pass, the condition itself will pass, and eventually even JzG will pass
Wikiwhistle - you're absolutely correct.
I'm sorry? Do you know anything about the condition at all?
Posted by: wikiwhistle
I assumed Neil was saying I was correct about the JzG issue As to my views on ME- why argue about them, we're here to discuss wikipedia.
Posted by: gomi
I dunno. I hear things like that get impacted sometimes and need surgery, or at least a "high colonic".
Posted by: wikiwhistle
It's JzG's brain that needs an enema
Posted by: Neil
I assumed Neil was saying I was correct about the JzG issue
As to my views on ME- why argue about them, we're here to discuss wikipedia.That's right - I neither know nor profess to know anything whatsoever about ME/chronic fatigue syndrome. Sorry if that was unclear.
Posted by: Kato
As I recall, this was one of the cases where Guy probably did the right thing
What, misrepresenting someone publicly and then banning them, having described their perfectly respectable position on content as "spurious" based on no evidence whatsover.
JzG, having announced his own POV, is here removing sources and disparaging people in edit summaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Wessely&diff=prev&oldid=159139250
He is involved in the dispute. Yet sees fit to administrate the page and the participants.
Posted by: Neil
As I recall, this was one of the cases where Guy probably did the right thing
What, misrepresenting someone publicly and then banning them, having described their perfectly respectable position on content as "spurious" based on no evidence whatsover.
JzG, having announced his own POV, is here removing sources and disparaging people in edit summaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Wessely&diff=prev&oldid=159139250
He is involved in the dispute. Yet sees fit to administrate the page and the participants.
I can't and won't defend JzG's actions, as he did overstep the bounds - this is par for the course for JzG, who has a lengthy history of being a bad administrator, and I do not want it to seem like I am defending him. A block for User:Angela Kennedy was correct, based on the legal threats, however.
There is a huge and wide-ranging dispute here that Guy blundered into - Ms Kennedy and the One Click Group dislike Simon Wessely because he has produced research that suggests there is a significant psychological element to CFS/ME, a conclusion they disagree with.
The whole thing is a very touchy subject, particularly when you take into account Angela Kennedy and Jane Bryant (who effectively comprise One Click) are both mothers of children who suffer from ME/CFS, which understandably endows them with a heavy emotional investment in the topic. I will point people towards the following links, in no particular order, and suggest they draw their own conclusions (http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Dr_Shepherd_Statement.htm, http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-CFS_char/MEA/THE%20SHEPHERD%20ABUSE.doc, http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/, http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/One_Click_Too_Far.htm, http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/ME_campaigners_or_serial_intimidators_and_abusers_of_ME_patients.htm, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494200&in_page_id=1770, andhttp://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-CFS_docs/THE%20PSYCHIATRIC%20PARADIGM.pdf).
Posted by: Kato
This pretty much sums up the attitude of the links
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494200&in_page_id=1770
...and even that tactless headline (Yuppie flu for chrissake) was for an article that stated:
The medical profession is fiercely divided over the exact cause. Some experts are sceptical that ME is a specific illness and say the symptoms are caused by mental health problems.
Others say that it is caused by a virus and that the type of exercise recommended by Nice can even make the illness worse. It is understood to be the first time that Nice has faced court action over its own health guidance.
JzG defined half of the argument as kookish and spurious, and then banned those who presented it on Wikipedia.
A block for User:Angela Kennedy was correct, based on the legal threats, however.
How about blocking JzG for making the defamatory comments that warranted the "legal threats", eh?
Posted by: wikiwhistle
His and many people's position on ME, rightly or wrongly, is that of a large sector of the medical establishment.
It is not defamatory to say something that already is some proffessional's, and some of the public's impression of a syndrome and those who believe in it.
I know those who believe in ME are not witches but bear with me for the analogy- a wiccan was called 'satan's gran' in a British paper and tried to claim this was defamation as wiccans do not worship satan. She failed to succeed as she was told that this is already the view of wiccans held by a lot of the public, hence her/their reputation is not being lessened. This was a few years ago now though, wiccans may be more accepted nowadays so maybe she would have succeeded, were it more recent.
Posted by: Kato
Again, I haven't a clue what you're talking about here, wikiwhistle. This is what I'm talking about. Here are JzG's comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=160944150#Simon_Wessely
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
I enclose below the emails from Jim Wales to me about my ban (with slight editing to protect persons who have not given me permission to make their names public). I have no compunction about making these emails public (as I feel I have nothing to lose). They put my 'permanent ban' into context apart from any so-called 'legal threats'.
One problem I want to address in particular is the claim JzG made that I have 'personally harassed Wessely in real life', as this is libellous. I have done no such thing, and this is the most defamatory claim he has made. To use Wikiwhistle's analogy, if the Wiccan had been libelled as having ritually sacrificed children when she didn't, her case for libel would be pretty strong, even if the 'the public' think she 'worships Satan'...!
While I was with One Click (I left in April 2006 because of family reasons, and the group's trajectory of campaigning is no longer my own) we did have some bumpy rides, and our style of campaigning was highly adversarial - and this was our intention, for good reasons as we saw them - but there are always at least two sides to every story. The links Neil has put up, for example, are out of context, inevitably. I could put other links ad nauseum that present that context etc. But I'm not here to promote One Click, of course, or revisit old disagreements.
Re Neil's comments, there are a couple of points I’d like to add: Firstly, I have no emotional feelings of ‘dislike’ for Simon Wessely (what OTHER people may feel about him is not my business). It is possible to take an adversarial position (politically, academically, legally) to someone, without having any emotional feelings towards them. And even if I do have an emotional investment in advocating for my daughter, for example, this does not preclude rational debate per se, which is all I and others wish to do, without ad hominem attack. This does not just apply to a forum such as Wikipedia, but to all public forums.
Best Wishes
Angela
----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>
To: "Angela Kennedy" <angela.kennedy@virgin.net>
Cc: <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: False allegations of 'harassment' on Wikipedia itself by Guy Chapman
Angela Kennedy wrote:
> In fact, I have not been advised of any ALLEGED reasons for 'banning',
> although I was advised that my 'legal threats' (even though I dispute
> that I even made legal threats) were the reason I was blocked from
> editing. The reason for the 'ban' have not been made apparent to me.
Under the traditions of Wikipedia which extend back to the beginning, I
am entrusted to ban any users who I think are not helpful to the
project, for any reason that I deem sufficient. Editing Wikipedia is
not a right, it is a privilege, and it is one that, in your case, has
been permanently revoked.
I wish you no ill will, but I am unable to countenance any further
disruption of our project.
> While, as the head of your organisation, you are perfectly at liberty to
> ban me, my right not be libelled and defamed is equal. The reason that
> this matters is because of potential damage to my good name and
> reputation in the real world, caused by false allegations or
> insinuations on Wikipedia, a public domain.
As I have already done, I will endeavor to remove information which is
in fact libelous of you, though I have seen nothing of the sort yet.
Additionally, I am often willing, strictly as a courtesy, to go further
and remove information which may be making you unhappy in some way.
The particular statement you have been concernd with today has been blanked.
Please go in peace.
--Jimbo
--------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>
To: "Angela Kennedy" <angela.kennedy@virgin.net>
Cc: <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Further defamatory comments by Guy Chapman made today
Angela Kennedy wrote:
> Regarding the permanent ban: does this extend to my children and my
> children's children?
It extends to anyone acting on your behalf or on behalf of your
organization.
--Jimbo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>
To: "Angela Kennedy" <angela.kennedy@virgin.net>; "Mike Godwin" <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>; "JzG" <guy.chapman@chapmancentral.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Further defamatory comments by Guy Chapman made today
Angela,
Strictly as a courtesy to you in the interests of resolving this
amicably, I have deleted the page in question.
Please know that you, "********" and everyone associated with you and
your organization are permanently banned from editing Wikipedia under
any circumstances.
--Jimbo
Angela Kennedy wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Wales,
>
> Further to my email to you this afternoon, Guy Chapman has been making
> further defamatory comments about me, and in the context of a hidden
> process in which I am apparently being discussed in possibly defamatory
> and/or libellous terms.
>
> In posts he has made on MEAgenda's talk page, Guy Chapman has said the
> following:
>
> Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. I have barely touched the
> Wessely article in months, and had never heard of him prior to ****
> posting of their blatantly defamatory article way back. *You
> need to draw a distinction between what Angela Kennedy says, and
> what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both feet on the
> ground.* *You know abut two thirds of the story, but the other third
> is not going to be discussed openly because it is the subject of
> private communications between certain individuals and the Wikimedia
> Foundation and its representatives.* For the record, I dod not
> contact Prof. Wessely about this, he contacted me, and he did so I
> think because he did not want to bother Jimmy. He was very polite
> and stated his case calmly. Up to now, you have also stated your
> case calmly. I hope you'll go back to that. *Guy
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG>* (Help!
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help>) 14:14, 20 October 2007
> (UTC)
>
>
> * Don't get too stressed, please, I'm looking to sort this out. I
> don't think you are the problem. *Since I am one of Angela
> Kennedy's past targets they seem to think I might have some
> influence.* We'll see what can be done; in the mean time do please
> stay calm. Thanks. *Guy
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG>* (Help!
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help>) 14:10, 20 October
> 2007 (UTC)
>
> Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MEagenda
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MEagenda> "
>
>
> Again, Guy Chapman is making defamatory comments that might potentially
> also be considered libellous.
>
> Questions that immediately spring to mind are:
>
> 1. In what context has he ever been a 'target' of 'mine'? I have never
> harassed Guy Chapman in any way. I have had a very few encounters with
> him and others publicly on the Simon Wessely talk page in 2006. That is
> the sum of my direct engagement with him. Indeed, I remind you of your
> undertaking to remove comments made by him and others, against myself
> and **** in 2006, from the Simon Wessely talkpage, because of
> their defamatory nature. I do have copies of our correspondence.
>
> 2. His claim that *"You need to draw a distinction between what Angela
> Kennedy says, and what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both
> feet on the ground. "* is an insult implying that I am untruthful as
> well as unreasonable.
>
> 3. I am most worried that there is an apparent secret process by which
> Guy Chapman and others, both within Wikipedia and possibly outside of
> Wikipedia, are potentially discussing me in terms in which Guy Chapman
> can use to bring my name further into disrepute in the way he has done
> above (by casting aspersions on my truthfulness and reasonableness) by
> innuendo: *You need to draw a distinction between what Angela Kennedy
> says, and what might be regarded as truth by anybody with both feet on
> the ground.* *You know abut two thirds of the story, but the other third
> is not going to be discussed openly because it is the subject of private
> communications between certain individuals and the Wikimedia Foundation
> and its representatives.*
> * *
> In the circumstances, I must now ask you to provide me an answer to this
> question: what claims are being made about me within correspondence
> between Wikipedia editors, Admins, other "certain individuals" and the
> Wikimedia Foundation and its representatives".
> * *
> While demonstrably libellous and defamatory comments against me are in
> situ in Wikipedia, I reserve the right to pursue action, to ensure my
> good name and reputation is not continued to be brought into disrepute,
> by those publishing on Wikipedia, or elsewhere.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Angela Kennedy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Neil
The links Neil has put up, for example, are out of context, inevitably. I could put other links ad nauseum that present that context etc. But I'm not here to promote One Click, of course, or revisit old disagreements.
Angela, I deliberately avoiding giving the links any context, at all.
Re your other comment, your dislike of Wessely may well be academic or political, not emotional, yes.
How is the legal challenge against the NICE guidelines going? I tried to find an update on its progress but had no luck.
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
How is the legal challenge against the NICE guidelines going? I tried to find an update on its progress but had no luck.
Neil,
The latest update is here:
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=1880&end=1900&view=yes&id=2228#newspost
Reproduced here:
http://meagenda.wordpress.com/category/nice-cfsme-guideline/
I have no privy to developments as I am no longer with the group and their trajectory of campaigning is different to mine now.
My daughter did attempt to bring her own JR action against NICE, but was not granted Legal Aid because of the One Click action. But, even though I was previously involved, through One Click, in informing NICE about the problems of the proposed guideline during the consultation process, my daughter’s attempted JR action was taken in her own right, completely independent to the One Click JR action.
Hope this gives you the info you are seeking
Best wishes
Angela
Posted by: Kato
I don't understand how it is acceptable on the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" that someone can be blocked without breaking any "rules", for merely having a point of view that though mainstream and well documented, differed from JzG's.
And for the editor to then be mischaracterized as a "crank" and have their real name smeared by the sins of other people, after back room dealings between JzG, Jimbo Wales and a controversial government appointed figure.
And Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with that?
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
An Update:
From JzG’s response to his RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/RfC
“I have had a fair bit of personal and on-wiki stress. This has included the group who consider Simon Wessely (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to be the Antichrist and are still attacking me on and off wiki more than two years after I refactored their attack article…â€
And from his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/RfC
“This is for the very sound reason that I have not only discussed such harassment in great detail with some of them, but I have also been harassed on and off Wikipedia for actions taken here which were unequivocally in support of policy (see Wesselygate for example; I am still being harassed over two years after I tried to tone down a blatant hatchet job which Jimbo himself finally deleted).â€
I think it’s probably very important, in light of his comments and in the circumstances, for me to clarify that I have NOT, in any way, been ‘harassing’ JzG- particularly the British legal of definition of the term. Obviously in the way he libelled me about ‘personally harassing’ Simon Wessely, I do wonder whether when he uses the term ‘harassment’ he actually means “someone objected on a public forum to my behaviour“ (such as here on WR).
Obviously I would argue his ’spin’ on the whole debacle on the Simon Wessely page and talk page is a misrepresentation. It is of concern that he has used this issue as a straw man in what I see as an attempt to excuse his conduct in his response to the RfC. Terms like ‘attack article’ are emotive and inaccurate, for example. Crucially, Jimbo Wales did not delete a ‘blatant hatchet job’ article - but JzG and JFW’s own comments, and this was in response to my objections.
I could go on at length to correct the discrepancies- though this may be too tedious for other readers. I am, however, concerned about the way JzG keeps using Wikipedia to build up critics, of his behaviour on the Simon Wessely article and talk pages, as straw men, because of the continuing potentially damaging effects on my good name following his various instances of defamation of me since September.
Posted by: thekohser
...I do wonder whether when he <JzG> uses the term ‘harassment’ he actually means “someone objected on a public forum to my behaviour“ (such as here on WR).
...I am, however, concerned about the way JzG keeps using Wikipedia to build up critics, of his behaviour on the Simon Wessely article and talk pages, as straw men, because of the continuing potentially damaging effects on my good name following his various instances of defamation of me since September.
When Guy Chapman says "harassment", that is exactly what he actually means -- "someone objected on a public forum to my behavior". Nothing more.
Word of advice -- don't concern yourself about how Guy Chapman is defaming you. If anybody actually notices his statements somewhere and confronts you about them, it will be a perfect opportunity for you to showcase how deranged JzG is as a Wikipedia administrator, and therefore you'll come out looking spotless.
If you need ammunition to cast JzG in the appropriate light, we have an http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=12274&view=findpost&p=45855 of sorts.
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
Hi thekohser,
When Guy Chapman says "harassment", that is exactly what he actually means -- "someone objected on a public forum to my behavior". Nothing more.
Word of advice -- don't concern yourself about how Guy Chapman is defaming you. If anybody actually notices his statements somewhere and confronts you about them, it will be a perfect opportunity for you to showcase how deranged JzG is as a Wikipedia administrator, and therefore you'll come out looking spotless.
Yes- actually that's a good point. My problem has been the potential 'real -world' effect on my credibility as one of Simon Wessely's (legitimate) critics (not just him though) and an advocate for my daughter. There is a whole history of some serious ad hominem/straw man attacks on the ME/CFS community, of which this is just one of the latest examples.
But looking at JzG's history (which has taken me a while) - I do now see what you mean. I'm certainly in a position to defend myself in real world terms now by showcasing the problems you've all highlighted, if necessary (i.e. someone tries to use his comments in a real-world context.).
If you need ammunition to cast JzG in the appropriate light, we have an http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=12274&view=findpost&p=45855 of sorts.
Yes - oh dear... I shouldn't laugh...
Thanks everyone for putting it all in context. That's been actually pretty helpful.
Posted by: Kato
I don't think there is any denying that JzG took a lot of hassle from CFS advocates after he started trying to referee Wessely's biography.
However, JzG being JzG just decided this was all too much for him, and started banning anyone who showed up and was critical of Wessely. Given that Wessely is a controversial figure, critics are hardly difficult to find.
It was the manner of it, and the outrageous slurs that he threw in, that look really ugly.
This situation needs to be revisted away from Jzg's appalling misrepresentations. There is plenty of evidence of him lying about people and doing this kind of thing elsewhere. And it looks like a repeat performance here.
Posted by: dtobias
Now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
Now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
Glad to see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG2 wasn't futile at all, and made a world of difference to his behaviour.
When's the next one?
Posted by: tarantino
Now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
... and no admin has the cajones to even issue a warning. Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Messedrocker&page=User%3AJzG&year=&month=-1 would have at one time, but he's pretty much given up.
Posted by: Moulton
More evidence of the absence of a functional conflict resolution protocol.
Posted by: dtobias
Well, at least I got a good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias out of it.
Posted by: Proabivouac
Good heavens, this deserves quoting in full:
Now go away and never post here ever again under any circumstances, because while Dan and often behaves like an obsessive trolling idiot, I consider you an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel based on your steadfast refusal to assume anything other than outright malice form all involved in that list, your refusal to accept any interpreation other than your own ludicrous conspirtacy theory, and your going to the press with something you had been told many times was wrong, by people who had absolutely no reason to lie, and presenting your sick, twisted little fantasy as truth, thus prolonging the drama. An d worst of all, you have the effrontery to come here and accuse me of COI while demanding that I put back in the utter bullshit that you fed Metz, so that your lies are preserved forever in Wikipedia as a pretence of truth. No. No chance whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=205888178
A very mild warning from Lar:
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 this], calling people "spiteful shit-stirring weasels" may not be the most effective approach, regardless of what you may think of them. It just plays into their hands, doesn't it? Hope that's helpful advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205908503
Guy may not need to be blocked - he didn't call anyone a "gnome-like stalker", after all…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=205664524&oldid=205664462
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=205667131&oldid=205667029
…but he sure needs to be desysoped. Amazing that this is who Wikipedia puts forth to represent the project. If he thinks the Register is bad, wait until they're dealing with the New York Times quoting this "senior Wikipedia administrator."
Posted by: Moulton
TweedleDan and TweedleDum
He left off a second name in "Dan and often behaves like..."
Any clue who he meant to name as Dan's brother in idiotic trolling?
Posted by: Proabivouac
Now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
Moderators, might we consider branching off this post and the reactions to it to a separate JzG thread? JzG is practically demanding to be desysoped at this point. We shouldn't want his evident contempt for his colleagues and the complaints put forth in his RfC to be overlooked.
Posted by: Moulton
See Stage 4 (Alienation and Scapegoating) in this http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
TweedleDan and TweedleDum
He left off a second name in "Dan and often behaves like..."
Any clue who he meant to name as Dan's brother in idiotic trolling?
Or it could be
"While Dan (eats babies) and often behaves like..."
i.e he deleted another insult he added first, but forgot to take out the 'and'
Posted by: thekohser
Let's all not forget that JzG, after a 15-month lull in the battle, snuck back to the [[Arch Coal]] article, deleted the first two edits to the article, then on the WikBack.com claimed that he did so because "his" version (the third edit) had been written from the ground up, "ab initio".
It was quickly proven on WikBack.com that Guy Chapman had completely lied about his version of the article being from scratch, after which he never returned to that forum.
Then Uninvited Company deleted the thread that so embarrassed Guy Chapman.
And JzG calls upstanding editors "evil" "weasels"? It's really too rich.
Posted by: Milton Roe
I don't understand how it is acceptable on the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" that someone can be blocked without breaking any "rules", for merely having a point of view that though mainstream and well documented, differed from JzG's.
And for the editor to then be mischaracterized as a "crank" and have their real name smeared by the sins of other people, after back room dealings between JzG, Jimbo Wales and a controversial government appointed figure.
And Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with that?
More than that-- as you see, Jimbo banned Angela Kennedy and One Click and people belonging to One Click, forever-and-ever from posting anything at all to Wikipedia. Refusing to give a reason, except that he had the power to do it, and had decided to do it. And forget the topic of CFIDS or whatever it is, that started this POV war. That's sort of irrelevant. What's relevant is the problem of epistemology which Kennedy had the temerity to lecture Jimbo on, and (even worse) to be right about. There's some really good stuff at:
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-CFS_docs/More%20Wikipedia%20On%20Wessely.doc
Here's a quote from this link, in a letter Kennedy wrote to Jimbo 17 Nov 2005, before she was given the boot. See if you notice any themes here, which keep cropping up at WR in other contexts:
Dear Mr Wales,
Your email of 16th November 2005, in response to our valid concerns about your and others' conduct in recent days, exhibits breathtaking arrogance. The examples below, or your quotes within this latest email, betray the frankly woeful lack of knowledge you have about issues of neutrality and objectivity. You clearly use these terms as buzz words and appear to have no idea about how pure `neutrality' and `objectivity' are nearly almost impossible to achieve. With this in mind, most people dealing with this issue, for example, social science researchers, attempt to mitigate the problem by understanding that all knowledge is `situated' knowledge, and that all judgements come from a particular standpoint. This means that it is understood that no one can claim to be 100% "neutral" or "objective", and that there are always power struggles involved when someone claims to be `objective` (especially whilst engaging in partisan behaviour).
While One Click contributors DO understand the issue of situated knowledge and the problems around claims to objectivity and neutrality, and freely acknowledge an inevitable and legitimate `partisanship' on the political issues the group tackles, you have found yourself in a quandary, precisely because you appear to still be attempting to cling on to an untenable claim of objectivity, despite intervening on Simon Wessely's behalf, at his behest, approving of Wessely's `incensed' stance, and doing your best to attack the motives, integrity and knowledge of contributors to One Click. This is clearly partisan behaviour and cannot be defended as otherwise. You really cannot claim `neutrality' when you attack one side in a debate, as you clearly have.
However, you do not seem to let these things bother you. You have the audacity to accuse One Click contributors of having "behavioural problems" and of "libel" and of `lying`, neither of which you are correct about (and which themselves are defamatory comments, as have other comments you have made about One Click contributors in the past few days). You also are clearly, from your own comments in recent days and in your latest email, endeavouring to denigrate One Click and our part in ME/CFS politics and knowledge production.
Whatever your protest, you do appear to be exercising censorship in this issue, and it does appear invidious and insidious.
The letter goes on to give specifics about Jimbo's lack of NPOV. Which are precious. Because Jimbo genuinely seems to think that whatever POV he has at the moment, is an NPOV.
We've all been laughing about that for a long time at WR. 
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
What do you expect from a bunch of Frozen In Da Fifties Randroids, anyway?
The Sanger-Wales philosophy that built Wikipedia and Citizendium is totally clueless about the Dialogue On Knowledge (DOK) that has been going on all around them for the last 50 years or so, if not the last 350, depending on how you count.
The first duty of critical thinking is to realize that you do have a point of view and that you can begin to move toward a more inclusive point of view only by reflecting on the contingency and the facticity of that fact.
Jon 
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
Hi Kato
I don't think there is any denying that JzG took a lot of hassle from CFS advocates after he started trying to referee Wessely's biography.
However, JzG being JzG just decided this was all too much for him, and started banning anyone who showed up and was critical of Wessely. Given that Wessely is a controversial figure, critics are hardly difficult to find.
It was the manner of it, and the outrageous slurs that he threw in, that look really ugly.
This situation needs to be revisted away from Jzg's appalling misrepresentations. There is plenty of evidence of him lying about people and doing this kind of thing elsewhere. And it looks like a repeat performance here.
Yes, the problem wasn't, at the beginning, JzG's refereeing of the biography. If he'd written in a 'civil' tone and not launched into an attack on people immediately, things could have settled down- maybe even become collarborative. What was wierd was JzG's (and JFW's) immediate attack mode behaviour on One Click. That added to Jimbo Wales intervening quickly and indications that Simon Wessely had contacted Wales in an 'incensed' state, it became somewhat fishy.
I DO understand the right of BLP subjects NOT to be libelled. But what had been written in criticism of the subject wasn't Libel- it was criticism, of his work. Now the text that had been put up was POV (I wasn't involved in that)- and I understand that NPOV is what should be aimed for (with all the caveats about how impossible that can be). But JzG and JFW's modus operandi was to put out some real nasty slurs about One Click (a political group), i.e. engage in partisan behjaviour while claiming themselves as NPOV.
As a result of those slurs- we basically said to Jimbo Wales we wanted them removed (because they were defamatory). He decided to remove the whole talk page up to that point, which was not what we wanted. On reflection- if he'd kept them there the unreasonableness of both JzG (and let us not forget JFW) would have been available for all at WR to see, for example, which probably would have done me a favour following JzG's latter-day behaviour towards me. There were some absolutely classic comments! One Click produce faecal matter, we're a bunch of paranoid zealots etc., we keep patients ill (that one, from JFW, as you can imagine, to mothers of critically ill children was- well- distressing).
After Wales's intervention, JzG and JFW still made some nasty comments about OC, and once or twice I entered into the fray, when JzG tried to get taken off my 'summary of the psychiatric paradigm'' from the 'opposition and criticism' section (the only edit I had made to the page).
The latest debacle started when JFW intended to put up unsubstantiated claims that Wessely had been 'harassed' by the ME/CFS community. This is a very sore subject, because there has been what I would call a smear campaign, or spin if you like, against individual advocates and the community at large (I have this big file on some of the ludicrous claims made about ME sufferers). I then got involved in my own name, undertook not to edit the page, expressed openly my COI both with the SW page and with Wikipedia in general, and attempted to follow Wikipedia rules.
But then there was the gerrymandering. I immediately got accused of being a sockpuppet of someone else by Mast Cell. JzG removed the summary of the psychiatric paradigm then locked the page. JFW kept the 'harassment' claim link up etc. I tried conflict resolution by following the usual 'procedures'- only to reach a dead end every time. JzG defamed me on the ANI, more than once. Then, because I said that JzG's comments were defamatory, I got the 'legal threats' rap. But Wales himself banned me.
There is evidence that JzG is in personal contact with Simon Wessely- some cryptic comments were made on his talk page then quickly deleted when I put out my correspondence with KCL.
I guess, in summary, JzG appears to have become an ally or acquaintance of Simon Wessely (as a representative of Wikipedia, or personally I don't know), and undertook an active POV and abused his admin status and tools to do so. It has had real-world consequences, but because JzG's actions appear to be consistent with his behaviour towards others, in recent days I've become more able to build up my own defence against any real-world consequences.
Sorry for the exposition which I hope is not too tedious.
What do you expect from a bunch of Frozen In Da Fifties Randroids, anyway?
The Sanger-Wales philosophy that built Wikipedia and Citizendium is totally clueless about the Dialogue On Knowledge (DOK) that has been going on all around them for the last 50 years or so, if not the last 350, depending on how you count.
The first duty of critical thinking is to realize that you do have a point of view and that you can begin to move toward a more inclusive point of view only by reflecting on the contingency and the facticity of that fact.
Jon
LOL! Yes, that was what struck me about the whole thing- Wikipedia's way of seeing the world has certain qualities alright. The claims to NPOV and the problems around claims to an SPOV have never been reflected upon by them, am I right about that?
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
The letter goes on to give specifics about Jimbo's lack of NPOV. Which are precious. Because Jimbo genuinely seems to think that whatever POV he has at the moment, is an NPOV.
We've all been laughing about that for a long time at WR. Hi Milton,
Oh dear- the schoolmarmish thing- yes i don't know what it is about me, but I do feel this need to lecture Jimbo Wales it seems.
This is my last email to him after he told me to 'go in peace':
"Thank you for your undertaking to remove offending material about me. I am
very much hoping that I will not be needing to contact you again and the
problem will peter out.
The comments you made in your last email to me I think do require some final
clarification from me:
I did not join Wikipedia for the 'privilege' of producing knowledge about
the world by editing under your direction. I made it explicitly clear (on my
user page) that I joined, only to try and ensure that the ME/CFS and Lyme
communities and those people supporting them such as myself, were not
misrepresented on Wikipedia: because this is a common phenomenon in many
domains of discourse/knowledge production, which has had and continues to
have enormously adverse effects on those members of those communities. I
also joined specifically because an intention to publicise material
misrepresenting those communities was expressed by an Admin and others on
the Simon Wessely talk page.
I also undertook not to edit as I have known Conflicts of Interest.
I was never interested in becoming a 'Wikipedian' as such. To me, it is only
yet another public domain of knowledge production, in which the community I
advocate for, along with many others, was being misrepresented, and which
required this problem to be highlighted. You will find as you continue with
this project that there are likely to be many more people like me who engage
with Wikipedia: people for whom actually editing on Wikipedia is not a
raison d'etre, but who are nevertheless concerned about what knowledge
Wikipedia is producing, and its potential or actual adverse impact on real
world inhabitants.
Wikipedia, as a phenomenon or domain of knowledge production, does not take
place in a political or cultural vacuum. Wikipedia, like other phenomena,
will always find itself open to critical analysis and evaluation, from many
quarters. As it grows exponentially, that critical engagement by others will
do so as well. I feel that you need to- quite frankly - get used to this
idea. It is an inevitable part of engaging in public discourses, especially
one that apparently has such totalising ambition (claiming to be aiming to
produce the 'sum of all knowledge', for example).
I feel sure that even your apparent 'objectivist' position will acknowledge
that claims to knowledge inevitably involve claims to power. Even if you do
not- others will. You are likely to have your worldview challenged more and
more as Wikipedia is promoted more and more, by yourself and others. My
unsolicited advice to you- as the head of an organisation that is making
claims to knowledge at such a grand scale- is to ensure that you become more
aware of the issues around knowledge production and power relations, and
that when you encounter people, such as myself, who challenge your worldview
in various ways, it may not always be possible to dismiss them or their
concerns by excommunication- especially those of us who were never
'believers' in the first place.
Yours sincerely"
Mind you- he probably gets this sort of thing quite a lot (lecturing from disgruntled 'editors').
One of my areas of academic interest, before the Wikipedia experience and even before my daughter got ill, has been claims to power in 'knowledge' production and privileging of certain 'knowledge' over others. But, even as a 'social scientist' I'm not a relativist or 'strong programme' type: I do tend to appeal to principles of logic, scientific rigour etc. This had meant that, once I recovered from the aaaaagh! factor of certain MO's on WP (well- not quite recovered
) I have found Wikipedia a fertile ground for sociological analysis. judging from others comments on WR- I'm not alone in that. Posted by: Moulton
Me, too. Welcome to the analytical corner of WR.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
What do you expect from a bunch of Frozen In Da Fifties Randroids, anyway?
The Sanger-Wales philosophy that built Wikipedia and Citizendium is totally clueless about the Dialogue On Knowledge (DOK) that has been going on all around them for the last 50 years or so, if not the last 350, depending on how you count.
The first duty of critical thinking is to realize that you do have a point of view and that you can begin to move toward a more inclusive point of view only by reflecting on the contingency and the facticity of that fact.
Jon
LOL! Yes, that was what struck me about the whole thing — Wikipedia's way of seeing the world has certain qualities alright. The claims to NPOV and the problems around claims to an SPOV have never been reflected upon by them, am I right about that?
If you drove into the WikiPothole the same way I did, you probably assumed that most folks there were literate enough to be following the contemporary conversations on education, information, knowledge, language, and science.
A dozen or so interactions into the fray, you begin to realize that you are talking to some of the most illiterate boobs on the face of the planet. "So that's where they've been hiding!" you say to yourself. A little while longer and you begin to see that most of them are actual adolescents who are simply pretending to be grownups, and so that segment, at least, you can excuse for acting like adolescents. But the rest of the ignorami are something more sinister. They are there for the purpose of exploiting the clueless.
And The Dude Will Not Abide That —
Jon
Posted by: Moulton
See http://www.trainingplace.com/source/research/mmresistant.htm.
Compare the Resistant Learner to http://www.trainingplace.com/source/research/mmtransform.htm.
In my experience, these two types often clash.
Posted by: thekohser
This is my last email to him <Jimbo Wales> after he told me to 'go in peace':
"Thank you for your undertaking to remove offending material about me. I am
very much hoping that I will not be needing to contact you again and the
problem will peter out.
The comments you made in your last email to me I think do require some final
clarification...
<omitting the parts that Jimbo didn't read>
...especially those of us who were never
'believers' in the first place.
Yours sincerely"
Angela, Wikipedia doesn't deserve the services of someone with your intellect and thoughtfulness.
Word of advice (not that you'll ever have the need to use it again) that I actually picked up from Kelly Martin:
Jimbo can't be bothered with reading more than about 4 or 5 sentences of text in any e-mail. Anything in highly descriptive, advanced phrasing will also be mostly lost on him.
The challenge then becomes, how to get your point across in 4 or 5 sentences, using 7th-grade language, without sounding threatening or acting in bad faith. Using one of the 5 sentences to praise Jimbo about something is also helpful to your message getting through.
It sounds like I'm telling a story through parody, but I am actually speaking what I believe to be the absolute truth.
Greg
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
See http://www.trainingplace.com/source/research/mmresistant.htm.
Compare the Resistant Learner to http://www.trainingplace.com/source/research/mmtransform.htm.
In my experience, these two types often clash.
Very similar to themes that developed in my work on http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Projects/Inquiry. Will copy this post to a place where I won't lose track of it so easily.
Jon
Posted by: Messedrocker
Now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
... and no admin has the cajones to even issue a warning. Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Messedrocker&page=User%3AJzG&year=&month=-1 would have at one time, but he's pretty much given up.
I also have better things to do.
Posted by: Proabivouac
Now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=next&oldid=205867347 me somebody who acts like "an obsessive trolling idiot", and Cla68 "an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel", and told both of us to go away from his talk page.
... and no admin has the cajones to even issue a warning. Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Messedrocker&page=User%3AJzG&year=&month=-1 would have at one time, but he's pretty much given up.
I also have better things to do.
The likely result would be that the evermore aggressive and belligerent JzG would hurl more sexualized and/or scatological vulgarities about before blanking the thread.
Honestly, I'd guess alcohol and/or alcoholism the most likely culprit.
Posted by: Moulton
If you ever go into therapy, you learn something about the kind of questions a good shrink will ask of a subject.
To my mind, the best question is this one:
"How did you get to be the way you are?"
And then, over a matter of weeks or months, the subject stammers out his or her backstory.
There is a saying to the effect that an enemy is someone whose backstory you have not yet learned.
It's unlikely anyone here will develop empathy for JzG unless and until they learn his undisclosed backstory.
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
Hi kohs, and everyone
Word of advice (not that you'll ever have the need to use it again) that I actually picked up from Kelly Martin:
Jimbo can't be bothered with reading more than about 4 or 5 sentences of text in any e-mail. Anything in highly descriptive, advanced phrasing will also be mostly lost on him.
The challenge then becomes, how to get your point across in 4 or 5 sentences, using 7th-grade language, without sounding threatening or acting in bad faith. Using one of the 5 sentences to praise Jimbo about something is also helpful to your message getting through.
It sounds like I'm telling a story through parody, but I am actually speaking what I believe to be the absolute truth.
Greg
Aagh. That's demoralising.
But then again I suppose - this problem seems to be endemic in so many other 'domains of knowledge production' also.
For years now I've been trying to explain the problems of the 'psychiatric paradigm' of illnesses such as ME/CFS to various agencies. Even the most simple explanations require somewhat more than the above. But the media per se can't hack a bigger level of analysis either it appears - neither can politicians. Even trying to break things down into smaller topics is often too much for them all.
I have my own theories around why detailed, nuanced debate is so absent from public discourses of course- but always interested in others views on this.
One thing that's been bugging me ever since the WP problems crossed my radar: this quote attributed to Wales about WP becoming 'the sum of all knowledge'. I expressed my problems with this quote on my user page before I was banned, and frankly I'd love to start a new thread on this claim of his (if he did in fact make this claim) because I think it needs scrutiny (only if it hasn't already been done on WR of course!)
But what I can't seem to find is the original cource and context in which he allegedly said this.
Does anyone have any more info on this? Any help deeply appreciated!
Posted by: thekohser
Hi kohs, and everyone
...
But what I can't seem to find is the original cource and context in which he allegedly said this.
Does anyone have any more info on this? Any help deeply appreciated!
I think in late July 2005, Wales was quoted by the media as saying:
"I'm trying to bring the entire sum of human knowledge to within the grasp of the entire population of the world."
But it began earlier than that. See his http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Founder_letter/Founder_letter_Sept_2004 from September 2004.
That's what I can dig up in just 10 minutes. I'm sure more dedicated research could find when and where it was first uttered, but that September 2004 seems like a good candidate for now.
Posted by: Angela Kennedy
I think in late July 2005, Wales was quoted by the media as saying:
"I'm trying to bring the entire sum of human knowledge to within the grasp of the entire population of the world."
But it began earlier than that. See his http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Founder_letter/Founder_letter_Sept_2004 from September 2004.
That's what I can dig up in just 10 minutes. I'm sure more dedicated research could find when and where it was first uttered, but that September 2004 seems like a good candidate for now.
Thanks for this K.
I'm going to start a new thread using this info.