Peter Hitchens: My battle with Wikipedia

[Poetlister]

How can you be attacked by an encyclopaedia? Until last week I would have thought the idea as absurd as being savaged by a tree frog. Now I know better. Wikipedia bites. Fortunately it can only do so in the electronic dreamland of the internet. But as we all increasingly discover, that world is growing fast alongside the real one: millions spend much of their lives within it, and for many people it is almost as solid as reality. ... Almost every significant article is guarded by powerful forces that appear from nowhere if you dare to make changes. Unless you have unlimited time, and a squadron of determined helpers, they will simply remove any alterations you make, and put things back the way they were.

The Spectator

[Randy from Boise]

How can you be attacked by an encyclopaedia? Until last week I would have thought the idea as absurd as being savaged by a tree frog. Now I know better. Wikipedia bites. Fortunately it can only do so in the electronic dreamland of the internet. But as we all increasingly discover, that world is growing fast alongside the real one: millions spend much of their lives within it, and for many people it is almost as solid as reality. ... Almost every significant article is guarded by powerful forces that appear from nowhere if you dare to make changes. Unless you have unlimited time, and a squadron of determined helpers, they will simply remove any alterations you make, and put things back the way they were.

The Spectator

Well, for starters the headline of this piece by this proud Sunday Fail writer is misleading... He hasn't "given up" as a WP editor, he was banned off...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

And here is the section of the lengthy and well-balanced article on George Bell (bishop) (T-H-L)as it currently stands which has our intrepid anti-Wikipedian Mail publicist so aflutter...

Child abuse allegations

In 1995, 37 years after Bell's death, a complaint was made to the then Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp, alleging that Bell had abused a female child during the 1940s and 1950s.[19] The complaint was not passed on to police until a second complaint was made to the office of Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 2013, 18 years after the first complaint had been made and 55 years after Bell's death.[19] This was a time of intense public concern over sexual abuse within the Church of England and especially in Chichester.[20]:21-22

In September 2015 the diocese paid compensation to the woman and Martin Warner, the Bishop of Chichester, issued a formal apology to her the following month.[19] This led to a major controversy, as people who respected Bell's legacy found the claims to be incredible, and found the Church's apparent acceptance of them to be unjust.[21] Due to the controversy, in February 2016 the woman spoke publicly for the first time under the pseudonym "Carol", in an interview with the Brighton Argus about being sexually abused from the age of five until her family moved away when she was nine.[22]

In June 2016 the Church of England announced that it would hold an independent review of the procedure used to investigate the church's handling of the allegations (not the truth of the allegations themselves) and in November it announced that Alex Carlile, a QC and a member of the House of Lords, would be the reviewer.[23][24][25] Carlile submitted his report to the Church of England in mid-October and on 15 December 2017 the church published it.[20][23]

Carlile found that "there was a rush to judgment: The church, feeling it should be both supportive of the complainant and transparent in its dealings, failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the bishop."[23] The report also found that the available evidence did not suggest there would have been “a realistic prospect of conviction” in court, the standard that prosecutors in England and Wales use in deciding whether to pursue a case.[23]

The Church of England released a statement with the report, in which it apologized to Bell's relatives for the way it investigated child abuse claims made against him, acknowledged the mistakes highlighted by the report, and promised to implement all except one of its recommendations.[21][23][26] Archbishop Welby rejected calls to state that the investigation had cleared Bell’s name and said that the allegations were handled as a civil matter, not a criminal one.[27]

In March 2018, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse began examining the handling of allegations of sexual abuse in the diocese of Chichester, including this matter, which it said would unfold over two years.[28]

[Randy from Boise]

...........Peter Hitchens claims in the piece that he used his real name as an editor (and a pox on those cowards who use pseudonyms) and intimates that he was the chief defender of the sullied bishop's post-mortem honor, but there is not a single edit to the piece made since 2005 by any editor using the name "Peter Hitchens."

This is shaping up as a real Daily Mail classic....

RfB

ADDENDA:

He says that he established a WP account as an editor years ago under his real name was was initially concerned with keeping his own bio factual, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, but at no point was there ever an editor named Peter Hitchens (T-C-L) who worked on the piece. Back in 2006 he edited it as IP 195.93.21.137 (T-C-L), self-identifying as Peter Hitchens in the edit summary, but that hardly verifies the assertion he makes in his anti-WP hit piece.

I see from the bio that this is Christopher Hitchens' brother. Learn something every day.

======

I am surprised that Sept. 12, 2006 wasn't his last day as a Wikipedian...

16:13, 12 September 2006 (diff | hist) . . (+2,284)‎ . . Peter Hitchens ‎ (I am Peter Hitchens. Do you really want me to sue your bottoms?)

======

And you simply MUST take a look at the garbage that the brave IP editor self-identifying as Peter Hitchens pretended he was willing to sue over...

Bwah-ha-ha!!!

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=75313914[/link]

RfB

[Poetlister]

If this IP really was Peter Hitchens, why did he alter the correct "He challenged [[Michael Portillo]] for the Conservative Party nomination" to the patently absurd "He challenged [[Michael Mann]] for the Conservative Party nomination"?

[Randy from Boise]

If this IP really was Peter Hitchens, why did he alter the correct "He challenged [[Michael Portillo]] for the Conservative Party nomination" to the patently absurd "He challenged [[Michael Mann]] for the Conservative Party nomination"?

So if this wasn't him — which seems 100% possible — which editor in that history WAS him? Pray tell...

RfB

[Dysklyver]

So... If this was Peter, he added:

Hitchens has also suggested that "the Negros" (his polite variant of racial classification) are a problem in need of an urgent final solution.

uhh...

[lonza leggiera]

If this IP really was Peter Hitchens, why did he alter the correct "He challenged [[Michael Portillo]] for the Conservative Party nomination" to the patently absurd "He challenged [[Michael Mann]] for the Conservative Party nomination"?

So if this wasn't him — which seems 100% possible — which editor in that history WAS him? Pray tell...

RfB

Clockback (T-C-L). This seems to me to make the last sentence of the following passage in his Spectator aricle just a little pompous:

And I made it hard for myself by being open about who I am. Most Wikipedia ‘editors’ use pseudonyms. I do not.

On the other hand, he did sign his third edit, to the talk page of the Wikipedia article about himself, with "Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback", and seems to have kept doing this in his subsequent contributions to talk page discussions. So his assertion about having been "quite open" about who he was seems to me to have been perfectly reasonable.

[Beeblebrox]

This same patron and his anti-wp articles are already discussed in the “The mess that is George Bell” thread, BTW. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9530

[Poetlister]

So... If this was Peter, he added:

Hitchens has also suggested that "the Negros" (his polite variant of racial classification) are a problem in need of an urgent final solution.

uhh...

I can't find anywhere that he ever said that. As he is well aware, he has some Jewish ancestry (indeed, his late brother Christopher sometimes identified as Jewish although he never has), so it would be an incredibly crass thing to say.

[Bezdomni]

It comes from RfB's post. Tim was pretending to believe the IP was Hitchens for dramatic effect or hadn't been following the story. I suspect the former.

Bwah-ha-ha!!!

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=75313914[/link]

RfB

[Dysklyver]

So... If this was Peter, he added:

Hitchens has also suggested that "the Negros" (his polite variant of racial classification) are a problem in need of an urgent final solution.

uhh...

I can't find anywhere that he ever said that. As he is well aware, he has some Jewish ancestry (indeed, his late brother Christopher sometimes identified as Jewish although he never has), so it would be an incredibly crass thing to say.

It's in this diff, although I am not sure if we still think that was him.

[Kumioko]

Not specific to this case but if people have a problem with what is printed on Wikipedia they need to start suing the editors and the WMF. As I have stated before, they don't have to win, all they have to do is be willing to do is spend some money to bring the problems to the surface. But as we all know, most people can't afford to face the WMF legal team.

When the WMF has to start spending money on lawsuits and editors start being sued the WMF will be forced to start reacting to requests for information to be removed in order to stop spending money, stop editors from being run off out of fear or being sued, they will have to fix the negative publicity and it could cost them donations if it happens enough and publicly enough.

As long as people are willing to let other people control their online data being used in this way, then the WMF will continue to do it.

[Dysklyver]

Not specific to this case but if people have a problem with what is printed on Wikipedia they need to start suing the editors and the WMF. As I have stated before, they don't have to win, all they have to do is be willing to do is spend some money to bring the problems to the surface. But as we all know, most people can't afford to face the WMF legal team.

When the WMF has to start spending money on lawsuits and editors start being sued the WMF will be forced to start reacting to requests for information to be removed in order to stop spending money, stop editors from being run off out of fear or being sued, they will have to fix the negative publicity and it could cost them donations if it happens enough and publicly enough.

As long as people are willing to let other people control their online data being used in this way, then the WMF will continue to do it.

Certainly editors should be aware that "no legal threats" does not mean "no legal action". Over the next couple of months I am going to see if I can outline some of the main things that people can use the law to assert, and more importantly how they should do so. The method can be as important as the cost.

There's a relatively small number of people who have actually been involved in legal disputes regarding Wikipedia though, so there is limited source material. However, legally, Wikipedia is just another website, precedents and laws from other incidents generally apply.

[Randy from Boise]

So... If this was Peter, he added:

Hitchens has also suggested that "the Negros" (his polite variant of racial classification) are a problem in need of an urgent final solution.

uhh...

I can't find anywhere that he ever said that. As he is well aware, he has some Jewish ancestry (indeed, his late brother Christopher sometimes identified as Jewish although he never has), so it would be an incredibly crass thing to say.

It's in this diff, although I am not sure if we still think that was him.

I think we can say with confidence that the IP I mentioned above was NOT Peter Hitchens... I didn't give more than a cursory glance at the material the IP was defending. After after looking more carefully, this was clearly a troll PRETENDING to be Peter Hitchens.

As for Clockback ...

This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

18:15, 4 August 2018 Jpgordon (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Clockback (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.)

He DOES clearly identify on his user page:

User:Clockback

This is the profile used by the journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens (confirmation).

So: IP was a troll, Clockback is Peter Hitchens...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

More Clockback (T-C-L) info...

Barely over 200 edits to Wikipedia total for the 2011-2018 interval. 875 total edits with just over a third of those (36%) to mainspace. ( linkhttps://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipe ... /Clockback[/link] )

Block log:

• 18:15, 4 August 2018 Jpgordon (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Clockback (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.)

• 08:21, 31 July 2018 JzG (talk | contribs) blocked Clockback (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.)

10+ year Wikipedian with a previously clean block log indeffed by the insufferable JzG (T-C-L) with no short warning blocks preceding action.

I'd be pissed, too.

RfB

P.S. Then again, it may have been a patently obvious case of [[WP:NOTHERE]], to use the cult jargon...

[Randy from Boise]

Here is the version of the Bell article that set Clockback off...

George Bell (bishop)

Complaint and content warring started July 30; issues with the piece seem to have been fixed by our friend Jytdog on Aug. 4, judging by the history.

RfB

[Poetlister]

I think we can say with confidence that the IP I mentioned above was NOT Peter Hitchens.

It's good to be able to agree enthusiastically with RfB.

[Kingsindian]

Here is the version of the Bell article that set Clockback off...

George Bell (bishop)

Complaint and content warring started July 30; issues with the piece seem to have been fixed by our friend Jytdog on Aug. 4, judging by the history.

RfB

You missed one very important person here. The talk page might give some more clues as to who it is.

As Beeblebrox mentioned, this case is also being discussed in the thread "The mess that is George Bell".

[lonza leggiera]

……

He DOES clearly identify on his user page:

User:Clockback

This is the profile used by the journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens (confirmation).

……

RfB

That wasn't him identifying himself on his user page—which he did not create, and never appears to have edited. His user page was created by user Bensonby (T-C-L) with the contents "This is the profile used by right-wing journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens." It has subsequently been edited by various busybodies, but never, as far as I can tell, by Hitchens himself—and certainly not from his Clockback account. He did, however, clearly identify himself on his talk page, with his first edit, just as he had already done in edits to numerous other talk pages.

[Kingsindian]

His signature contains his name.

As fate would have it, he forgot to sign in his complaint at ANI -- which led to him being indeffed by JzG who didn't even know who he was.

[Bezdomni]

His signature contains his name.

As fate would have it, he forgot to sign in his complaint at ANI -- which led to him being indeffed by JzG who didn't even know who he was.

Seriously? Where did he write that?

[tarantino]

10+ year Wikipedian with a previously clean block log indeffed by the insufferable JzG (T-C-L) with no short warning blocks preceding action.

I'd be pissed, too.

Then Josh Gordon took away his ability to post on his talk page.

Gordon deserves to have a wiki bio too. He's probably notable enough by their rules.

Here's The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo on The Gong Show, contemporaneous to when he played trumpet for them, with Richard and Danny Elfman.
Here's his autobiography posted to the ThelemaNet BBS in 1988.