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: Mon 10th March 2008, 11:54am

[Kato]

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

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

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Welcome Angela, and God bless.

[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

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

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 As to my views on ME- why argue about them, we're here to discuss wikipedia.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Mon 10th March 2008, 8:00pm

[gomi]

The best words I was ever given as regards health issues is "This, too, shall pass." ... and eventually even JzG will pass

I dunno. I hear things like that get impacted sometimes and need surgery, or at least a "high colonic".

[wikiwhistle]

It's JzG's brain that needs an enema

[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.

[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?