JzG, Simon Wessely, and claims of 'harassment' Options

[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=...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=...of_userspace.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...scalate_this.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0#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 ground”, 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=...0#Simon_Wessely

(But also see here):

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/w/index.ph...changes&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=...scalate_this.3F


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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

[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=...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 (this, this, here, here, here, here, andhere).

[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------