WIKIPEDIA: To ‘TheHeartOfIt’

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 encyclopaedia, 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 gentleman 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 ever 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 action cited The Mirror[2] as his/her source without realising that The Mirror had acquired 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, and often aggressively, the Wikipedia PW biography is guarded by its group of contributors, 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 anticipated, my contribution was promptly removed by a user operating under the username ‘Theheartof,’ who was revealed to be one of the infamous administrators overseeing the biography. I was informed that I’d violated their rules which, incidentally, bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Wikipedia’s own guideline concerning editing and contributing to articles, by failing to “discuss” the changes with the group beforehand (for this read, ‘gain the permission of’ the collection of oddballs who consider themselves the sole guardians of Mr. Wyngarde’s life story). A subsequent discussion took place during which I attempted to present my case. Predictably, the false information regarding Wyngarde, which had originated on Wikipedia and was subsequently seized upon by the mainstream press, was dismissed merely as “vandalism”[3], which appears to be the go-to excuse whenever these people are caught out lying through their teeth. Despite this extremely damaging falsehood being reposted to Wikipedia in 2018, it soon became apparent that the likelihood of anyone acknowledging this injustice was even lower than the probability of my contribution being allowed to stand.

Being point-blankly prevented from updating, editing or contributing to the online encyclopaedia 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 instantly regretted posting the aforementioned statement, particularly as I anticipated that this group of opportunists would immediatley attempt to locate Wyngarde’s son and force him into the public eye against his will.

“The only reek seems to be he (sic) great smell of sockpuppetry.” Theheartof (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

“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 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 Mr. Wyngarde over the years, I now found myself accused of dishonesty myself 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 sort of provocation or suggestion, I was approached by someone sporting the username ‘ColinProbert’, who made the following enquiry…

Upon consulting various friends and family members, I was informed that the phrase “Are you handy?” served as a coded proposition used by gay men – specifically within the context of “cottaging”[4] – during the era when homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom[5]. In my sixty-seven years, I have never been approached in such a manner; frankly, I found the encounter, particularly on a public forum, to be more that distasteful. I began to question the nature of my involvement with Wikipedia, as the entire experience was utterly bizarre.

Exercising my rights under Wikipedia’s guidelines, I brought these two matters to the attention of Wikipedia’s administrator. These volunteers oversee the website, acting as arbiters who possess the authority to remove offending material when disputes arise. I explained that, as a new user, I found “Theheartof’s” lack of “good faith” and allegations of “sockpuppetry” to be “unwelcoming”. Furthermore, regardless of “ColinProbert’s” sexual orientation, his unsolicited approach was genuinely unsettling. The administrator agreed that the assertions made by “Theheartof” were entirely groundless, and given that soliciting for sexual encounters via Wikipedia is prohibited (who’d ‘ave thought?!), both of these crass posts were immediately removed.

Like the ashen faced thrill seeker who emerges from a shark cage after facing off a Great White, I’m 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…

Suddenly It all becomes clear…

After harassing those responsible for the administration of the the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society throughout 2014 by repeatedly posting this threadbare “Are you handy?” slogan on their Facebook page, resulting in him being barred ,he attempted to regain entry to the Society’s Facebook group page in 2021, in spite of him being wholly unwelcome there. Undeterred, Gaughan continued to harass the Appreciation Society in early 2022 (see below).

My grateful and sincere thanks are to Pam of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society for providing these screengrabs. Austin Makinson

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 in 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 ostensive went to ground, only remerging in August 2021 to revive his infantile campaign of harassment 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 harassment 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…