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]

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?

[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/document...n%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.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 16th April 2008, 2:44am