Category Archives: Grant Shapps

Paedophiles of Wikipedia

Posted on by
6

The Witchfinder reveals how Wikipedia’s lax policies and laxer enforcement, from the project’s beginning to the present day, create opportunities for paedophiles, their apologists and other sinister denizens of the internet. Questionable characters, even one admitted contact offender, have been allowed to hold administrator roles. Matthew Hopkins News calls on Jimmy Wales to show leadership on the issue or risk being tarnished himself.

LaptopTentaclesOminous

Do parents know what sinister forces may be reaching for their children when they visit Wikipedia? Laptop and tentacles image via Dreamstime. Wikipedia logo via CC BY-SA 3.0 and Policy

Modern users of Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with its murky history, for example the appalling and enlightening 2006 ArbCom case entitled, “Pedophilia userbox wheel war” (Archive here). What is a ‘wheel war’?

Continue reading →

Share Button

Vindicator – BBC in Humiliating Apology to Grant Shapps MP as Clouds Gather Around Wikipedia

Posted on by
3

Following recent ArbCom findings exonerating Grant Shapps the BBC has apologised over its lacklustre coverage. Furthermore, the Witchfinder can exclusively reveal that Shapps has now written to Wikipedia’s UK chapter, the charity Wikimedia United Kingdom (WMUK), formally demanding disclosure of documents and expressing concerns about the charity’s political involvement. At the same time, a number of other powerful institutions are expressing frustration over legitimate concerns about bias, harassment and ineptitude at the encylopaedia.

WikipediaClouds

Ominous clouds are gathering around the embattled online encyclopaedia as powerful and aggrieved individuals and institutions queue up to vent their frustrations. Clouds picture via Dreamstime. Wikipedia logo via CC BY-SA 3.0 and Wikipedia Trademark Policy

The BBC, which spent a whole day on Grant Shapps’ alleged editing of Wikipedia, was curiously less forthcoming on apologising – leaving Shapps with legitimate complaint. It is a foolish move for an institution whose very existence is under threat to alienate its few allies. Shapps, now the Minister of State for International Development, is one of the minority of Conservatives who does not favour the BBC’s abolition.

Mr Shapps is also not the only public figure with grievances about the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. He finds himself in company with left-wing journalist David Auerbach, right-wing media organisation Breitbart and the enormous consumer movement known as #GamerGate – one of whose forums KotakuInAction alone now boasts over 40,000 members and whose key figures like SargonOfAkkad have hundreds of thousands of followers.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Sinister

Posted on by
2

The Witchfinder exposes the way in which shoddy left-wing journalism has lent credibility to and empowered troublesome Wikipedia users such as Mark Bernstein, as well as a suggestion as to what ethics campaigners can do about it.

Title music – The Escape – (c) – Machinimasound (Commercial license purchased)

Wikipedia sign up here. The Great Work Subreddit is now open here.

Share Button

Guardian Responds … Inadequately

Posted on by
Reply

The Witchfinder has received an unedifying response from the Guardian, and comments –

(preamble removed for brevity and to remove non-public information – my quotes in Green)

“[…] However, I believe at the heart of your complaints are two substantial allegations:
1) You say Ramesh only spoke to Richard Symonds and not other Wikipedia administrators
2) You believe the Guardian story may have been technically untrue when it went up because it went up 15 minutes before the Wikipedia page confirming the story.
You are mistaken on both counts. Ramesh has followed the career of Grant Shapps for some time and has written many stories about him. He noticed that many of these stories – examining Shapp’s business career for instance – were never to be found on his Wikipedia page. He thought that was unusual and noted that there many comments to that effect. He made his own study of the editing pattern on Shapp’s Wikipedia page and his suspicions grew. He legitimately took those suspicions to a Wikipedia administrator and a press officer for Wikimedia on April 2.
That Wikipedia administrator was too busy to investigate and Richard Symonds, a senior investigator, contacted him and said he would take a look. Ramesh gave his analysis with supporting evidence to Symonds.
The Guardian asserts there were multiple administrators but does not say who they were or provide any verifiable evidence. For the sake of argument, I will accept this – although on the Guardian’s account Symonds is the main, figure and the others seem peripheral. However it does not answer the central question about timing.
In addition Symonds was able to access CheckUser data. There was none for the earlier edits because, as you know it expires within 90 days, but as I understand it there was for later edits. Symonds could not release that CheckUser information because it would have been a breach of privacy. However, by April 17 Symonds had completed his investigation and was able to confirm in an email reproduced below that he believed this was a case of sock puppetry by Shapps or someone on his behalf. The Guardian story was correct when it went up and the use of the words “Wikipidia’s  administrators” came from the email confirming the results of the Symonds investigation.
This does not address the central point. The 21/04/2015 story that stated Contribsx had been blocked, opening with the phrase “Wikipedia has blocked a user account […] was factually incorrect because Contribsx, per ArbCom had not in fact been blocked and was not blocked until 17 minutes later.
Furthermore the Wikipedia process for investigating Sockpuppetry requires on-wiki posting and deliberation which had not happened until Richard Symonds opened his 1 minute investigation. The private investigation by Mr Symonds does not by itself follow Wikipedia process.
Whatever happened subsequently the Guardian’s 21 April story was absolutely correct and legitimately gathered therefore there has been no breach of the Guardian’s editorial code. I have gone a great deal further than I would normally have done in giving you the background to this story but your allegations were very serious. I can go no further.
Best wishes
Chris Elliott
Readers’ editor […]”
Partial emails provided by the Guardian
The next two paragraphs are what the volunteer administrators believe and are their words:

Wikipedia’s administrators believe that the account Contribsx is a “sockpuppet” of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia. A sockpuppet is a second user account created for an improper purpose, such as to mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus or avoid sanctions. The administrators believe, based on the evidence they have, that the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.

The administrators believe that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed in order to split his editing history, so that other editors were not able to easily detect patterns in his contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances, it was not in this case: it is clear that the account was created in order to confuse or deceive editors. Further, the website’s Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation. As the account has misrepresented its affiliation, and the account is clearly controlled by Shapps, this is a violation of the Terms of Use.

This final section is Wikimedia UK’s quote:
 

A spokesperson from Wikimedia UK, the UK charity which supports Wikipedia, said “We would welcome any MPs who choose to become editors, and are happy to provide training sessions to anyone who wants to learn. However, the Wikipedia project is founded on trust, and anyone who tries to deceive our volunteers and readers in order to further their own ends should think very carefully about the morality of what they’re doing. Eventually, the public will find out.”

Share Button

Wikipedia Votes to Terminate Richard Symonds Admin Status, Unbans Alleged ‘Shapps’ Account and Releases Hugely Damaging Ruling Regarding Guardian Newspaper

Posted on by
Reply
EpicGuardianFail

The Guardian published an article claiming that Contribsx had been banned as a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps MP 17 minutes before the 1 minute trial, conducted by a Guardian source, even opened.

The Witchfinder reports on astonishing developments in the Grant Shapps MP / Contribsx Wikipedia Case, which has closed a few minutes ago. As a reminder the case before ArbCom concerns allegations reported in the Guardian Newspaper by journalist Randeep Ramesh that Grant Shapps MP operated a sockpuppet account called Contribsx, used to puff himself and badmouth political rivals in his own party.

Another body at Wikipedia has now made a further ruling unbanning Contribsx on the grounds that his ‘trial’ was a shambles, with disturbing revelations including the fact that the Guardian reported the result online before the investigation page was even created.

[Edit – now incorporating Guardian responses to my complaint 12/06/2015]

Continue reading →

Share Button

Guardian Confirms Investigation Into Complaint About Journalist Randeep Ramesh Who Wrote Wikipedia Story

Posted on by
Reply

The Witchfinder has some concerns about ethical journalism.

Before beginning this article, it is necessary to declare my interests. This is already stated elsewhere, however, cards on the table –

  • I am a Conservative blogger (and Party member)
  • I know Grant

Having said that, I have criticised Shapps stridently and impartially where appropriate in the past. and I intend to be impartial here.

The reason for my disclosures is that I have made a complaint about the journalist who wrote the Grant Shapps story, Randeep Ramesh, and the Guardian have now confirmed they are looking into it. This story sets out my reasoning as a follow-up from my earlier story, which has now been picked up by the BBC.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Explosive! Grant Shapps MP Vindicated by Wikipedia Investigation! Accuser Contact With Guardian “was not appropriate” – Arbcom Voting on Sanctions Now

Posted on by
1

The Wikipedia Arbitation Committee (ArbCom) is a respected and thoughtful quasi-judicial body that has ultimate oversight of disputes on Wikipedia. It has been so successful as to be cited in academic articles as a model for dispute resolution. An investigation by ArbCom whose proposed findings were released a few hours ago has comprehensively devastated media claims that Grant Shapps MP edited his own or colleagues’ Wikipedia entries. Members of ArbCom have proposed dismissing his accuser and are voting now.

GrantShappsTeam2015

Grant Shapps MP – Innocent Victim of Political Smears

What sort of person has a username of “Chase Me Ladies, I’m the Cavalry“? Aside from the obvious drawback of taking a really long time to type, it has the secondary problems of being prima-facie sexist (as opposed to imaginary SJW sexism) and somewhat creepy.

When people like Anita Sarkeesian or @Eastgate talk about pervasive misogyny or a hostile environment your author often treats them with scepticism but in this case it looks pretty clear cut. Imagine setting that as a username or email address in any other workplace?

The username is that of Richard Symonds, the Wikipedia administrator and Liberal Democrat who accused Grant Shapps, who thinks it amusing. That alone raises questions about his judgement and suitability. The name itself has lent a slightly surreal air to the ArbCom proceedings and seems inconsistent with Liberal Democrat stated policy on equality.

It is frankly bizarre that the left would criticise the entirely reasonable decision of ArbCom over #GamerGate but ignore a person whose username is a hair away from, “Stick to the Kitchen Sink, Girls!”

Continue reading →

Share Button

Heroes! – Shapps Spectacularly Vindicated by Outright Conservative Victory – Mensch Vindicated Over Vote Tory Not UKIP

Posted on by
Reply
GrantShappsTeam2015

Grant Shapps MP Leading a Team of Conservatives to Spectacular Victory

Victory requires no explanation. Defeat allows none. The Witchfinder praises Grant Shapps and Louise Mensch for their work. Now we must reform Parliamentary boundaries without delay to undo the system rigged in Labour’s favour.

If the Conservative Party had lost,  or had a mediocre result, the knives would be out. “Shapps not up to it”, they would say, the rivals, the haters, those with grudges. Instead the Conservative Party had an unlooked for victory.

Fundamentally the Conservative Campaign nationally was a mirror of the local campaigns in Welwyn Hatfield – disciplined, inclusive, organised and effective. For that Shapps should be praised. He has proven an incredibly effective campaign leader.

Of course, the victory would have been a lot less close were it not for the rigged constituency boundaries which currently mean many Labour seats have less voters in them than Conservative ones. The slim Conservative majority must not be wasted – a first goal in the new queen’s speech must be to complete the boundary reform attempted in the last parliament.

Shapps has also shrugged off many trivial attacks such as the allegations he ran a sockpuppet called Contribsx on Wikipedia – his accuser revealed as a Liberal Democrat with no evidence other than ‘behavioural’ aspects of the account.

At the same time Grant has taken the time to help less glamorous but still important campaigns such as the condemnation of Gawker for its recent Nazi stunt by online ethics activism group #GamerGate. Whilst he has not expressed any explicit position on GamerGate, he has made clear that Gawker’s despicable stunt with a Twitter bot programmed to automatically tweet passages from Mein Kampf was indefensible.

This has led to curious fringe benefits for Grant. One might call it Karma. #GamerGate sympathisers have made great strides in removing rule breaking editors from Wikipedia, via disciplinary resolutions passed via its supreme dispute resolution body, ArbCom. Shortly after the wikipedia story broke a formal case was opened against the administrator responsible, Richard Symonds, via ArbCom. Your author imagines there will be many voices sympathetic to Grant on Wikipedia now. Symonds is at great risk of losing his administrator status.

Louise Mensch image

Louise Mensch, Conservative media mastermind

The other hero? Louise Mensch. Your author happens to believe Louise, whose personal following is rapidly approaching a cool 100K, has a massive political influence in the United Kingdom.

However today I am praising her for her focus on winning Conservative votes and her criticisms of George Galloway. The Witchfinder has no doubt that Louise contributed greatly to Galloway’s election defeat.

Share Button

Chair of UK Conservative Party Grant Shapps MP on Gawker.com Coca-Cola Robot Stunt – “Nazism and anyone sympathising for it is simply unacceptable”

Posted on by
Reply
Grant Shapps MP

Grant Shapps MP

This is going to be an upbeat post. The Witchfinder is pleased to note that people are listening to reasonable persuasion from GamerGate as well as other sensible, moderate voices. The battle against the unhinged, out-of-control left, the so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’ can be hard. When there are setbacks or things seem to be going badly it is worth reminding ourselves of our successes.

No matter how much the left-wingers who infest the media try to talk it down, from their perspective the truth is grim. Moderate and Conservative voices in the gaming industry and more generally in society outnumber them vastly.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Can Disgraced Ex-Councillor Dean Archer Sue Grant Shapps?

Posted on by
3

So Dean Archer, a former Labour Councillor your author calls ‘disgraced’ because he was removed from office for non-attendance at council meetings, is upset with Grant Shapps MP. It appears that Mr Archer’s public libel apology to Mr Shapps, drafted by Shapps’ lawyers was in fact misleading. Archer now indicates that he intends to seek compensation from Shapps for stress.

Before continuing, the Witchfinder would like to point out that he still thinks Archer is a ‘constituent’ – only without the ‘onstit’ and the ‘e’. However it is irritating, to say the least, for a loyal Conservative blogger to have to ‘update’ a story due to an error by their own Conservative MP. So I thought it would be a nice legal exercise to speculate as to what causes of action might be arguable and how much Archer might get. This is of course only speculation and no substitute for a Court decision.

There is a legal subtlety here that needs to be highlighted firmly. The law distinguishes between accidental or negligent mistakes on the one hand and lies and malice on the other. The law also makes it very hard to prove lies. A common (and essential) legal tactic is to pick laws where mistake is all that is needed or where the burden of proof is reversed. Grant says it is all an innocent mistake so your author is going to run with that for the purposes of this article.

Continue reading →

Share Button