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

[Kato]

Welcome to WR, Angela.

I touched upon this in a previous thread

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&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 with JzG on Ombudsman's talk page 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.

[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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Kato]

It is the very public arbitrary JzG justice that first makes one wince.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165939491

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/blocked.jpg)

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Welcome Angela, and God bless. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[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.

For Some, Virtual Community is Better Than None At All

Today, Angela is a grad student at Stanford University, doing research in biomedicine.

[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.

For Some, Virtual Community is Better Than None At All

Today, Angela is a grad student at Stanford University, doing research in biomedicine.

Wonderful story...thanks Moulton! Thanks Angela(s)!

[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=...scalate_this.3F

Nope. I have an email from Jimbo, Angela Kennedy and MEagenda and anybody else associated with them are permanently and irrevocably banned. I can't pretend I'm not relieved, even while slightly disappointed that I couldn't fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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?

[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.

[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 (here) 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 here) 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.

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Welcome to the board.

[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.

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Wikiwhistle - you're absolutely correct.

I'm sorry? Do you know anything about the condition at all?

[wikiwhistle]

I assumed Neil was saying I was correct about the JzG issue (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) As to my views on ME- why argue about them, we're here to discuss wikipedia.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[gomi]

The best words I was ever given as regards health issues is "This, too, shall pass." ... and eventually even JzG will pass (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I dunno. I hear things like that get impacted sometimes and need surgery, or at least a "high colonic". (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[wikiwhistle]

It's JzG's brain that needs an enema (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Neil]

I assumed Neil was saying I was correct about the JzG issue (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) 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.

[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=...oldid=159139250
He is involved in the dispute. Yet sees fit to administrate the page and the participants.

[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).

[Kato]

This pretty much sums up the attitude of the links

Yuppie flu campaigners fight 'mental illness' label

...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?

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) 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.

[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=...0#Simon_Wessely

Heads-up: User:Angela Kennedy has arrived and set up her stall over at the talk page for Simon Wessely. Kennedy has a visceral hatred for Wessely, and is one half of the noxious One Click Group website, see Wesselygate. This individual should under no circumstances be allowed to edit the article if it is unprotected, and should probably be topic-banned from the talk page and all ME / CFS articles as well. User:Jfdwolff will probably need a lot of help over there, vicious ad-hominem is the stock in trade of this particular bunch. Check the history of the Wessely article before Jimbo's deletion last year to see the One-Click mob's style, and their version of "neutral" point of view. One-Click's first neutral comment on the subject of Simon Wessely will probably be delivered by flying pig sometime in the third millennium of the Hades ice age, shortly after the heat death of the universe. OTRS volunteers should be on the lookout, as Wessely has had to complain several times over biased editing by members of minority patient activist groups bitterly opposed on principle to Wessely's ideas on palliative treatment for ME/CFS, a subject on which he is one of the most published experts in Europe. Kennedy proposes citations form the Countess of Mar and from Malcolm Hooper. Hooper, especially, is speaking well out of his field, he has no qualifications or accepted expertise in the subject, and his comments have been excluded by consensus from the article on that basis. (Guy) 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[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.

[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...d=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

[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?

[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…”

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).”

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.

[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 armory of sorts.

[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 armory of sorts.

Yes - oh dear... I shouldn't laugh...


Thanks everyone for putting it all in context. That's been actually pretty helpful.

[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.

[dtobias]

Now he called 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.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Now he called 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 RFC wasn't futile at all, and made a world of difference to his behaviour.

When's the next one?

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy:

[tarantino]

Now he called 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 Messedrocker would have at one time, but he's pretty much given up.

[Moulton]

More evidence of the absence of a functional conflict resolution protocol.

[dtobias]

Well, at least I got a good user page header out of it.

[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=...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=...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=...oldid=205664462
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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."

[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?

[Proabivouac]

Now he called 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.

[Moulton]

See Stage 4 (Alienation and Scapegoating) in this WR Op-Ed.

[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'