Soviet-style language, sockpuppetry and importuning
One bemused old man’s journey into the bizarre world of Wikipedia
Written by Austin Makinson
Towards the end of June (2022), I sent an email to this website concerning, amongst other things, the myths that continue to surround Peter Wyngarde – the origins of which, more often than not, can be traced back to the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
| My Email: 27th June, 2022 Hello Tina, Just been reading many of the comments below and was especially shocked to learn about the amount of misinformation there is out there about Peter. It must have been appalling for him to have to live knowing that there are such malicious and unthinking people out there. As someone has already stated, what ever has happened to ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’? As has quite rightly been highlighted on this page, Wikipedia (W.P.) has much to answer for. I recall them insisting at one time that Peter had been given a police caution in 1974, supposedly for importuning in Birmingham. They asserted that the information had come from a book entitled, ‘Crime Through Time: the Black Museum’ by Stephen Richards. The trouble was there was no such claim in the book. But even if this allegation had been in this publication, what made Wiki believe that the Richard’s was correct? It was actually a very serious statement to repeat, especially as Mr Wyngarde was alive at the time this appeared on Wikipedia, and since much research has been done both by myself and other, there has been no evidence found to substantiate this declaration*. Had the Wiki lot stopped to consider for a second what impact such false information could have on someones life? Evidently not. From Wikipedia, this blatant lie has since seeped into the public consciousness having been picked up by the press. I wonder if the person or persons responsible for posting it on W.P. have or ever will have the decency to apologise? I for one won’t be holding my breath! I’ve attempted to contribute to the Peter Wyngarde biography on W.P., but despite there being an open invitation to any and all of us add to the encyclopedia, my contribution(s) have immediately been deleted by those that have created the P.W. biography. Another thing about those referred to above and the fuss they make over Peter embellishing his ‘biography’: As has been pointed out previously on this page, almost every actor did this. In addition to those personalities already mentioned, there’s William Hartnell. He claimed that his father was a farmer but latterly said he was a soldier who’d taken up stockbroking. Where’s the song and dance over that? There is far too much reliance on W.P. by the press, bloggers, authors and the public in general. The people who compile these biographies and other articles on there are not philosophers and scholars they’re just ordinary Joes like the rest of us with no access to privilege knowledge than anyone else. They simply cherry pick what they think will pique the reader’s interest while discarding the information that doesn’t fit their agenda. In that they’re no different to the tabloid newspapers that feed off them. Bless you Tina in you’re inexhaustible mission to expose the truth. Austin Makinson * All references to this alleged incident in the press have come AFTER this allegation was made on Wikipedia, NOT before. |
Following the publication of my email [see right] both on this website and the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society Facebook Group page, it was reported that over 312 Wyngarde fans responded to the points I’d raised via the aforementioned platforms.
One of those people was a gent by the name of Andrew Humphries, who himself is a member of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society (O.P.W.A.S.) and is also a semi-regular contributor to Wikipedia (W.P.).
Mr Humphries took it upon himself to investigate one of the more damaging assertions made by W.P., namely that Peter Wyngarde had been “cautioned” for importuning in Kennedy Gardens, Birmingham, in 1974. It was claimed at the time that the source of this story had been a book entitled, ‘Crimes Through Time: The Black Museum’ by Stephen Richards (Mirage Publishing – 2003), but no mention of such an incident could be found in the book.
According to Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins[1] who was Wyngarde’s soulmate for almost 30 years the actor had, from time to time, referred to an episode that had taken place in Gloucester in 1975, but had never once spoken of an incident in Birmingham a year earlier.
While this baseless contention had latterly been removed from the Peter Wyngarde biography, it was reuploaded onto Wikipedia in 2018. The ‘Contributor’ responsible for this cited The Mirror[2] as his/her source without realising that The Mirror had got the story from Wikipedia in the first place (Andrew Humphries sleuthing at the end of June and into July of 2002 revealed categorically that this myth had it’s roots firmly planted in Wikipedia soil).
| Conclusion of Andrew Humphries detective work: ‘I have been sleuthing again, because I found some blogs from 2013 and 2014 that mentioned a Kennedy Gardens incident. This was long before the 2018 Mirror article that I said was the original source, but I can see I was wrong about that. Looking at the Wikipedia article again, but going back much further, I can see that a user added the info on 28 Sept 2010, but with no source. It was only removed by another user in about June 2016 who noticed it was not sourced, or not sourced properly. It was then added back in after the Mirror article was published in Jan 2018, but without any citation of The Mirror. The true crime book was already a source for something else, and sloppy editing made it look like it was also being cited for this new info. I tend to agree with Tina [Wyngarde-Hopkins] now, that the earliest trace of this factoid is when a Wikipedia editor added it in 28 Sept 2010. It *appears* to have been sincerely added as a fact, and specific newspapers are mentioned, but without any proper verifiable source or citation. As for The Mirror, I think they probably had a pre-written obit for PW, perhaps prepared when that questionable info had been live on Wikipedia between 2010 and 2016.’ Andrew Humphries |
Although I was warned several times about how jealously the Wikipedia PW biog is guarded, and that the chances of me being allowed to contribute, edit, change or challenge any of its content was virtually nil, I decided to chance my arm and join Wikipedia nonetheless. I mean, what’s the worst that could happen? Famous last words…
And so by merely entering a ‘Username’ and not much else, I was suddenly to find myself a fully-fledged Wikipedia “Expert” who was free to post on just about any subject I fancied, regardless of whether I actually had any knowledge about it or not. After locating the Peter Wyngarde biography, I went ahead and added the following into the body of the article:-
| It was wrongly stated on this page some years ago that Peter Wyngarde had been arrested and charged for importuning at Kennedy Gardens, Birmingham in 1974. The origin of this claim was said to have been ‘Crime Through The Ages: The Black Museum’, a 2003 publication by Stephen Richards. It has latterly been discovered that the author of this book was in error and that the contributor responsible for repeating this unreliable information here had failed to carry out the necessary checks befitting such a consequential statement. It is now understood that much pain, anger and embarrassment had been caused to Mr Wyngarde by this appalling inaccuracy prior to his death. While this wholly inaccurate paragraph has since been withdrawn it had, unfortunately, already been picked up on by the British press and subsequently republished by bloggers and those frequenting online forums, which is continuing to cause unimaginable upset to those people closest to Mr Wyngarde and who still morn him. This is of sincere and deep regret.’ |
As predicted, my contribution was immediately removed by someone calling his or herself ‘Theheartof’ (username), who turned out to be one of the dreaded editors/admins/contributors that oversee the biography. I was duly informed that I’d broken W.P. rules by not “discussing” with (for this read ‘failing to gain the permission of’) the conglomerate that appear to own this particular article. And so a ‘discussion’ ensued between myself and others during the course of which I attempted to put my case across. Not unsurprisingly, the false information about Wyngarde which had been proven to have originated on Wikipedia and latterly seized upon by the tabloids, was explained away as “vandalism”[3], which seems to be the go-to excuse for anything any one of these ‘Contributors’ gets wrong. And yet in spite of this defacement being reposted on Wikipedia for a second time in 2018, I was soon to realise that the chances of anyone actually acknowledging the damage caused by this misinformation was even less likely than my contribution being allowed to stand.
Being point-blankly prevented from updating, editing or contributing to the online encyclopedia is not unique to this specific ‘biography’. Watch Sharyl Attkisson’s jaw-dropping exposé ‘The Dark Side Of Wikipedia’ by clicking HERE
Now that the shutters had come down on any kind of dialogue regarding the Kennedy Gardens myth and my protest ostensibly being stifled, I attempted to debate as to why, when there are so many more credible sources of information out there about Peter Wyngarde, this apparent closed shop still insist on quoting so persistently from a universally condemned “obituary” published by The Guardian three days after Wyngarde’s death in January 2018. Once again, I was shouted down. I was soon to discover why… (see under ‘Suddenly It All Becomes Clear…’ later in this article).
Above: Peter Wyngarde has repeatedly been misrepresented by Wikipedia contributors
Having basically given up on getting anywhere with both the first and second issues I’d raised, I thought I’d take a look at what else was being discussed in the ‘Talk’ section of the Wyngarde biography. It was then that I came across the following under the title, “1 child” in Infobox:-
| “This has been recently added, but there is no source nor any other evidence that he [Peter Wyngarde] and Dorinda Stevens [Peter’s wife of 5 years] had a child together. Delete?” “Theheartof (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC) [reply] “Have removed as unsourced. Was added here on 24 August, by User: Ecosseboy, who might care to explain further.” Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC) [reply] “It may be connected, although the date given is years after his purported marriage, to a baffling, and needless to say, unsupported claim under ‘Trivia’ on Wyngarde’s IMDb entry that “He had one child — born in 1977.” “Dolmance (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC) [reply] |
I responded as follows:-
| “I would assume that at least one of the regular contributors to this biog will have read ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers'(?). On Page 381, with regard to the claim by the author that she and Wyngarde had discussed having a baby and buying a villa in Greece. Wyngarde is speaking. He lists a series of names for their child: “Here is a list of possibilities. Remember, he’ll be called by his Christian name more times than he will his surname – unless he’s in the Army – so we must call them out loudly and listen to how they sound. Here goes: Jason (my favourite), Justin, Jake, Togan, Sab or Seb, Jasper, Jonathan, Titus, Dugdale, Colwyn, Clayton, Vivyan (the male equivalent of my Vivien Leigh). One of these is what I’d like to call my next son.” How did you miss that?” TheWoolpack (Talk) 19:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC) [reply] |
I immediately regretted posting the above statement, not least because I envisaged this collection of busybodies attempting to track down Wyngarde’s son and dragging him, kicking and screaming, into the limelight whether he desired to be there or not!
It was reported in the 2020 biography, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers‘, that one of the above circle had actually ventured to extract personal information about the actor from members of staff at Golders Green Crematorium within days of Wyngarde’s funeral taking place. If they are capable of something so distasteful, their exposing Peter’s offspring to public scrutiny, regardless of his age, would doubtless trouble this collective not one iota. My observation would prompt ‘Theheartof’ to snap back at me as follows:
| “The only reek seems to be he (sic) great smell of sockpuppetry.” Theheartof (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC) [reply] |
As a man of almost 70 years of age who isn’t entirely au fait with Internet parlance, I was obliged to look up what a “sockpuppet” is. Here is Wikipedia’s own definition of the term: ‘Another word to describe a sock puppet would be alter ego. Often, a sock puppet identity is used to promote ideas or gather intelligence anonymously. Very often, they are used by individuals on the Internet praising themselves while pretending to be someone else.’ I responded to ‘Theheartof’ thusly:-
Me… apparently
| “Is labelling someone a “sockpuppet” how you self justify any sort of descent or challenge to what you post on here? From the little experience I’ve had of Wikipedia, it would appear to be something of a closed shop and that if potential contributors (to this bio at least!) aren’t willing to nod wildly in agreement with everything you say then they’re either accused of deception or vetoed. In view of this, might I remind you of W.P.’s own guidelines:-“Assume good faith” and “Be welcoming to newcomers” Is it any wonder that W.P. has such an atrocious reputation?” TheWoolpack (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) [reply] |
So having had the door slammed in my face twice already for daring to question the misinformation touted by Wikipedia about Wyngarde over the years, I now found myself accused of dishonesty by someone who doesn’t know me from Adam but who, rather hypocritically, had just spent several minutes attempting to absolve W.P. contributors like his/herself of their own sharp practices! And if this wasn’t enough of an affront, out of the blue, and without any kind of provocation or suggestion, I was approached by someone with the username ‘ColinProbert’, who made the following enquiry…
When I made inquiries of various friends and family members, I was reliably informed that this phrase is an old pick-up line oft used by gay men when importuning (“cottaging”[4]) back in the days when homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom[5]. In the 67+ years I’ve been on this planet, I have never once been propositioned in such a way and to be perfectly honest, I found the approach (on no less than a public forum) nothing short of nauseating. I was beginning to wonder what in the name of God I’d stumbled into with this Wikipedia thing. It was completely and utterly bizarre.
As was my right under Wikipedia ‘law’, I brought these two matters to the attention of one of the ‘Administrators’ who, basically, volunteer to police the W.P. website; act as arbiters and, when disputes arise, employ their powers to remove any offending material. I explained to him/her that, as someone new to Wikipedia, ‘Theheartof’s’ lack of “good faith” and allegation of “Sockpuppetry” had made me feel unwelcome, and regardless of ‘ColinProbert’s’ personal sexual orientation, his uninvited approach had genuinely turned my stomach. As it happened, the ‘Admin’ agreed that ‘Theheartof’s’ assertion was wholly unjustified and entirely groundless, and since “soliciting for sex on Wikipedia is forbidden” (who’d ‘ave thought?!?), both of these crass posts were removed forthwith.
Like the ashen faced thrill seeker who emerges from a shark cage after facing off a Great White, I am relieved that my one and only dalliance with Wikipedia is over. As far as the inner circle behind the Peter Wyngarde biography is concerned, I can’t say I wasn’t warned…
Sorry Peter, wherever you are; I did my best. But as my dear old dad would often say, “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to sh*t on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”
A wise man was my dad.
Suddenly it all becomes clear…
It was only when I presented the screengrabs and other material to be formatted for this article that the “Are you handy?” enquiry was identified as the calling card of none other than Gavin Stewart Gaughan – the disgraced author of the previously cited ‘Obituary’ (The Guardian – 18/01/18[6]. Gaughan was banned from the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society in 2014 having been cautioned on no fewer than three occasions for posting abuse and for behaving in an age-inappropriate manner. Because it’s now apparent that he’s involved to some degree with the Wikipedia Peter Wyngarde biography, it’s small wonder that his universally condemned ‘obituary’ is still being used as an, a-hem, “reliable source”.
Above Right: Gavin Gaughan had trolled the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society throughout 2014 by repeatedly posting this threadbare “Are you handy?” slogan on their Facebook page. These are his attempts in 2021 to regain entry to the Society’s Facebook group page, in spite of him being wholly unwelcome there. Undeterred, Gaughan continued to harass the Appreciation Society in early 2022 (see below).
With my grateful and sincere thanks to Pam of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society for providing these screengrabs. Austin Makinson
A Lightbulb Moment
Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins to Austin Makinson:
“It didn’t occur to me, even after Mr Gaughan had posted this “slogan” on our Facebook page and elsewhere over a dozen times that he might actually be soliciting; I just saw him as an attention-seeker. I suppose it takes a fresh eye to see what’s actually staring you in the face. He’s persistent – I’ll give him that. He’s been harassing us with this stupidity for 9 years now.”
| A bit of trivia... Even after being called out by the public following the publication of The Guardian ‘obituary’, Gaughan still had the brass neck to approach Thomas Bowington, Peter Wyngarde’s agent and friend of almost 15 years, to request his assistance in writing a book about the actor. Mr Bowington said, quite wisely it would seem: “I’d have rather placed Peter’s legacy into the hands of Old Nick than Gavin Gaughan’s!” |
| Notes: [1]. Peter Wyngarde’s soulmate of 30 years. Secretary of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society, 1991 to present day. Admin of this website and of the associated Facebook group. Author of, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers’ (Austin-Macaulay, 2020). [2]. British national newspaper formally known as The Daily Mirror. [3]. On Wikipedia, “vandalism”is the editing of an article in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner. [4]. “Cottaging” is a gay slang term, originating from the United Kingdom, referring to anonymous sex between men in a public lavatory. [5]. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 is an act of parliament in the United Kingdom (citation 1967 c. 60). It legalised homosexual acts in England and Wales on the condition that they were consensual, in private and between two men who had attained the age of 21. [6]. After being castigated both by the public and members of the film, television and theatre community for the hatchet job he’d done on his Peter Wyngarde ‘obituary’, Mr Gaughan ostensively went to ground, only remerging in August 2021 to revive his infantile campaign of harrassment against the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society. In May 2022, after being barred from the Society for eight years, Mr Gaughan twice attempted to gain entry to the group’s Facebook page – repeatedly using the line, “Are you handy?” Mr Gaughan was dismissed by The Guardian newspaper in April 2018 after Obituary’s Editor, Richard White, learned of the extent of his harrassment of the Appreciation Society. Mr White wrote the following:- “The circumstances that you detail in your email certainly sound disturbing, and I’m sorry for your distress. Up to the appearance of the piece, we had found Gaughan to be a dependable, occasional contributor. However, we immediately appreciated the need to present a better picture [of Peter Wyngarde], so I asked Tony Hadoke to provide a replacement. Gaughan isn’t among the writers who we’d now think of turning to. We would much rather have published a piece that no-one would consider unfair. We are not planning to ask Gaughan for any further pieces, and I cannot foresee any situation in which he would write for us again” |
With thanks to Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins for supplying a copy of the above email.
Click below for more about Wikipedia misinformation about Peter Wyngarde…
© The Hellfire Club: The OFFICIAL PETER WYNGARDE Appreciation Society: https://www.facebook.com/groups/813997125389790/
PETER WYNGARDE: The Official Website 
2 thoughts on “WIKIPEDIA: To ‘TheHeartOfIt’”