Talk:Ellie Reeves

Reverting your edit

You can say what you like on your website, MHN, but not on WikiSpooks.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (GMT)

Sure Patrick but what is the specific objection? The facts are true, not denied by the subject and clearly relevant to the site’s mission. Can you please give me an idea of how you feel it breaks the editorial rules? MHN (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)

No comment!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)

Hi Robin I have a dispute with Patrick Haseldine on the content of this page. Patrick has reverted the changes I made under the heading “Criticism Over Child Protection” and per his comment above, declines to give reasons. The allegations he has removed were cited and are not disputed by the article subject. In accordance with site policy we are supposed to explain our reasons. Because Patrick refuses to do so, I am not able to understand his reasoning. I would therefore ask your permission to restore the content or give reasons why not. I can provide additional information if necessary.MHN (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Labour First

The changes you have made to the Labour First heading appear slightly mistaken. The sense of my text was that the *faction* is anti-Corbyn, whilst you have changed it to refer to Luke Akehurst being anti-Corbyn. Also you removed citations unnecessarily that suppported the contentions. Is there any rule against over referencing? MHN (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2018 (GMT)

Three references are sufficient!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2018 (GMT)

Hi Robin I have a dispute with Patrick Haseldine on the content of this page. Patrick has amended the changes I made under the heading “Labour First”. The original paragraph I wrote referred to the *faction* as “anti-Corbyn”. Those quoted words came from a cited article and referred to the faction. I also noted that Luke Akehurst is the National Secretary of Labour First. Mr Haseldine has changed it to describe Mr Akehurst as “anti-Corbyn” but this is a change to the allegation and not what the quote refers to. He has also arbitrarily removed citations that improve article quality. He does not address the point above except for the assertion that three citations is sufficient. I request permission to restore the correct meaning and the citations. MHN (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Clarification of Editorial policy

User:Patrick appears to operated within the letter of the policy, but outside of its intended spirit - so I've just tweaked the General courtesy section of the Wikispooks:Editorial Policy to clarify it:-). It now reads: "if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave an explanation on that page's talk page or on the user's page. At a very minimum, use the comment box to explain the reversion." He did leave a note "You can say what you like on your website, MHN, but not on WikiSpooks" but this is hardly an explanation. Accordingly, more specifics are in order.

As far as references go, more is better than less, since they're small and help establish credibility or give new perspectives. References are preferred to long third party quotes. There's little point if they all say basically the same thing, but in general I wouldn't consider 4 references too many, provided they gave different angles and were worth reading their own right. -- Robin (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Okay Robin so I propose to restore the paragraph “Labour First” to the version I submitted but I will await further comment from Patrick Haseldine for a day or so before restoring that. MHN (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Correction I will wait for comment or a day before restoring the “Child Protection” heading. MHN (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Defamation and Ellie Reeves

Quoting from MHN's website:

DEFAMATION

"This blog allows (moderated) comments by readers and relies on the notice procedure under s5 Defamation Act 2013. Under the new Act it is a complete defence to any defamation claim that a post was made by someone other than the operator of the site, regardless of whether posts are moderated (s5 (2) and s5 (12)) unless the notice procedure has been complied with. Notices under s5 may be sent to the email above (matthopkins@thewitchfindergeneral.com)."

Apart from reiterating my initial comment ("You can say what you like on your website, MHN, but not on WikiSpooks") I have nothing to add.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

I do not understand this comment Patrick Haseldine and under the circumstances am reverting both your edits. Tagging Robin. MHN (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (GMT)

Mendacious kindergarten politics

Brief research on the links in the disputed section, together with a few Google searches reveal it to be a mendacious account of a planned attack on an British MP using contrived and spurious connections to two of the 15,000 or so US homicides per year and which have zero connection to British politics or Ellie Reeves other than the contrived ones of this section. It is a good example of a nasty little 'storm in a kindegarten-politics tea cup' manufactured by at least two people in pursuit of a political agenda. As such it contravenes both Wikispooks:Editor Undertakings and Wikispooks:Editorial Policy

Specifically:

1. Both the heading and sub-heading are contrived from a clearly planned initiative by Sam Smith and Margaret Pless - and probably others. In addition the sub-heading naming the two murder victims is crude, tone-setting and headline-grabbing that offends Wikispooks style guide and is inappropriate to the biographical nature of the page.
2. The 'cyberstalker group' was one of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar such nasty, juvenile venues frequented by millions of increasingly disaffected angry young men/women with nothing better to do. It was nothing special in other words.
3. To say ...it had been described by New York Magazine as... is grossly misleading. New York Magazine did not describe anything; it was the same Margaret Pless in her one and only article for the publication that did the describing and brief research will quickly reveal her to be something of a cyberstalking Dox artist herself.
4. To describe the murderer as 'a member of Kiwi Farms' is also misleading. He had simply signed on to a web site (as had Margaret Plessy herself + many other of its hand-wringing critics) so he could post crap, just as millions of similar young disaffected hot-heads do every day. IOW, Nothing special or significant, but made to appear sinister and scary for the purposes of the attack.
5. "Reeves was the only major politician to completely ignore the requests for help". This begs the key but unaddressed questions 'who were requested?' and 'how did they respond?'
6. It gives the misleading impression of sympathetic intent in contacting Reeves by alleging that one of her friends had been cyberstalked, but provides no link or evidence for the claim.
7. And of course that trusty knee-jerk icing-on-the-cake anathama 'failure to condemn alleged antisemitism'

As an example of 'Deep politics' it is risible. Dealing with such 'Kindergarten politics' contributions is deeply distracting from the site's core mission. Wikispooks can do without such calculated mendacity. In the absence of a convincing rebuttal to these charges within the next 24 hours, the entire section will again be removed. --Peter P (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2018 (GMT)

Per the above the disputed section has been removed. It is reproduced below for reference purposes --Peter P (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2018 (GMT)

---

Removed section begins

Criticism Over Child Protection

Murders of Casey Jordan-Marquez and Francisco "Paco" Fernandez

On 9 November 2017 American journalist Margaret Pless wrote to Ellie Reeves and asked her to assist in a campaign against a cyberstalker group that had distributed textual paedophile stories, voted to target children and whose leader had expressed far right views. A former acquaintance Sam Smith, the editor of Matthew Hopkins News wrote to her on 11 November 2017 with the same request, which he later recounted in an article.

The group, Kiwi Farms, had been described by New York Magazine as the "Web’s Biggest Community of Stalkers" in an article recounting their cyber-stalking of disabled persons, their sexual exploitation of a vulnerable adult and grooming of a 13-year-old. According to the article by Smith, Reeves was contacted because one of her friends had been targeted by the group. Reeves was the only major politician to completely ignore the requests for help, despite tracking software showing she had read the email and despite the apparent consent of Smith's MP Grant Shapps. Ms Reeves also failed to condemn Kiwi Farms' anti-Semitism. According to Smith, Shapps, former Liberal MP John Hemming and Brendan Cox all agreed to help.

On 7 December 2017 Kiwi Farms member William Atchison walked into Aztec High School in New Mexico and opened fire, killing two students and failing to kill 17 others. The murdered students were Casey Jordan-Marquez (a cheerleader) and Francisco "Paco" Fernandez .

As a result, Smith drafted his article for Matthew Hopkins News criticising Reeves.

Failed Harassment Allegations Against Blogger

According to Smith, Ellie Reeves reported him to the police for harassment upon receiving a draft of his article, "Ellie Reeves MP and the Corpses of Children", for comment. After he spoke to a Detective Inspector however, the police decided to take no formal action against him and did not give him a harassment warning. Aside from the failed allegation of harassment, Reeves has never denied the truth of the allegations made by Matthew Hopkins News and did not respond to requests for comment.

References

End of removed section

---