I've started a new thread on this- so that it's clear to all that this is about Guy Chapman's latest escapade against me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Simon_We...entence_removed







It needs to be remembered I was banned by Jimbo Wales himself after I raised objections to Guy's earlier acts of defamation and libel against me (This is NOT his first time. The wholly libellous 'visceral hatred' description he has used before).

This is an attack on the reputation of a real-world person (and an academic). Guy Chapman has consistently attempted to trash my reputation, using Wikipedia to do so. I am actually a political and academic critic of Simon Wessely's work (though not his work exclusively), and quite well known for my position now, and I am working on research in this area. Chapman's latest claims here against me, out of the blue, are therefore significant.

While this may not have much entertainment or drama value, it is nevertheless exemplary of how Wikipedia can be used to trash real world reputations, not just that of BLP subjects. It is therefore of significance to WR.

Previous thread on Chapman's earlier actions against me:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16482

I am going to write to Jimbo Wales and copy in Chapman and report back.

What should be of interest to people is why Chapman has carried on this POV warring and attempts to discredit me, to the extent that, months going into years after I was banned by Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia, Chapman goes onto a closed membership Yahoo group where the listowner is known to dislike One Click (and has recently attacked me, and my daughter, personally even though I'm no longer associated with One Click) in order to support some of his fatuous claims about me (that I'm not respected for being allegedly too confrontational etc. the truth being, to paraphrase Ben Goldacre ironically invoked by Chapman: "rather more complicated than that") .

Chapman also has this thing about the term 'psychiatric paradigm' which is NOT orginally my term, and IS used by others, but which he is attempting to discredit. Why?

Because on Wikipedia, dead horses rarely if ever escape frequent beatings. It is just one of those rituals that the cabalistas perform to convince themselves that they are "defending the wiki".

You will not achieve satisfaction by appealing to the Wales-Chapman axis. After all, it was Chapman who helped tidy up Rachel Marsden's biography just prior to Wales visiting Marsden at a Washington DC Doubletree hotel for an overnight romp.

Bodily fluids are thicker than water, you know.

Perhaps though, he is worried that his past will come to haunt him with the current headlines on ME which suggest (although they agree it needs peer review and reproducing elsewhere) that they may have identified an infection that explains ME.

Guy isn't ever one to admit he may have been wrong - he still can't cope with the Gary Weiss saga.

Based on my own experience, I can predict what response you'll get from Mr. Jimbo. He'll ask you some vague questions in a series of emails and then slowly taper-off his responses without ever doing or saying anything definite or making an actual decision.

I didn't know (or remember) you were banned from Wikipedia. If you want to be able to defend yourself on-wiki, and I think Wikipedia is more open to that now than it was a couple of years ago, you might should just ask the ArbCom to reinstate you. Most of the current arbitrators do not appear to be Jimbo functionaries. It worked for Rootology.

The problem is that Angela was never really there to write an encyclopedia, if I recall correctly, she was just trying to correct some information - as many people do.

There is something of a conflict here - she was banned for objecting to a biased article, and the only point in returning is to address that conflict again - which is really asking the arbs to restore the balance of power in a battle. It can only end in tears, especially Guy seems to have formed a theory of mind (he's been quiet hasn't he!!) and isn't much interested in the real issues.

What would be more appropriate as a proper solution, would be for Wikipedia to have some sort of complaints system that was readily accessible to those who didn't want to participate, had sane people addressing complaints, and the complaints process could slap down the Wikipediots who bring Wikipedia into disrepute. OTRS seems to be inhabited by those that need slapping down (am I right in thinking Guy does OTRS still?).

Any proposed solution that requires the existence and participation of "sane people" (not to even mention giving them authority over the people currently in power) is doomed to failure.

Yes, thanks for this, Dog. I actually forget sometimes what happened- which is that I only 'joined' Wikipedia, against my better judgement, because I was told that this was the only way to be listened to. That of course was a crock, and as soon as I joined I felt I'd done the wrong thing, confirmed by the amount of time I found myself stuck trying to defend the issue I was concerned about, as well as the personal attacks.

I only came onto Wikipedia because of gross attacks being made by Chapman and JFW on my erstwhile colleague and her group the first time, and the second time because they wanted to put unsubstantiated claims about a whole community (Basically Simon Wessely, like a few others of his ilk in the issue of ME/CFS, claims he's been 'harassed' by the ME community- something he (they) have never substantiated, but has become somewhat of an urban myth that has had enormously adverse effects on the way patients and their advocates are treated). I wanted to prevent that happening again.




Yes- that would be an excellent idea- but in the world of Wiki- complainers are treated like POV warriors immediately. It's part of the culture? Who knows?

Note that not just Angela, but a whole horde of users that wanted to correct the many misleading texts on en:WP about CFS, have been banned.

And to date there is still no article on ME in en:Wikipedia, because this is continuously prevented by a certain admin.

We're talking about JFW, right?

What if you went to Jimbo and asked him if this quote would be a personal attack...

Hardly.

My take on the psychiatric paradigm (although not using these exact words either) got published this month in the 'Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie' (Journal of Psychiatry, Dutch).

No mention of Wessely by name so no doubt it would be rejected by JFW & friends as a source...





Aren't we always?

Yeah. I know. I guess I'm just following a paper/email trail just to show I've followed some sort of process. Obviously I'm a veteran of the Wikiway, being banned for ever by Jimbo for daring to object to Guy's earlier wave of libel, so I know deep in my heart "I won't get no satisfaction".

The issue is, I am working on a project at the moment, an important one I think, and my criticism of Wessely's and others work may become more public, and obviously this level of character bashing from Chapman at this time particularly feels significant, especially the week of the publication of the possible CFS-XMRV link and the attempt to downplay it in some quarters.

So I need to have the fact Chapman is actively defaming me more formally documented if I can.

FWIW, my recent email to Jimbo Wales:

The rationale there is that in the world's largest medical database, MEDLARS, ME redirects to CFS.

Being an inclusionist, I'd have no trouble with a separate historical article on ME, which even includes the present controversies on whether or not to resurrect it at as pathological diagnosis. And yes, the Wikipedia editors are being bastards. It's certainly hard to justify having an article on homeopathy and feng shui when there's none on ME. Hell, we have an article on phlogiston theory.

Any attempt to rectify any of this will simply be met with WP's standard defence against fair play or even a semblance of fixed policy, which is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Which should have a redirect from WP:ONERULEFORMEANOTHERFORYOU, See WP:HYPOC.

JzG defrucked himself in November. What were the circumstances for this borish, inane, off-target goofball to be allowed to slink out the back door quietly instead of being held accountable for his years of loose canonry? Some pitiful personal drama that everyone is supposed to tolerate?

JzG is no longer an admin. Ding dong the wikidick is semi-dead. Zombie action no doubt to be expected. No quarter for that "c*nt".

Hah. More like "defucked himself".

Still plenty of fucked souls on the Demon Ship Wiki.

Serving up links since 1942
Voluntarily gave up his bit.

One of the strange defamations served up by Wikipedia is the self-inflicted character assassination that getting involved produces.

With JzG I see a character who is quick to make his mind up and is then impervious to criticism and correction, not the sort of person I would want as technical lead. I have visions of him ranting and fuming in specification meetings muttering "I decided the right answer 3 months ago, why are we still discussing this? What do you mean it doesn't work - are you stupid?"

Sorry Rhindle, just saw this. That is very good! I think I might use it if that's ok in the future...