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.
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.
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.
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 wishesChris ElliottReaders’ editor […]”
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.
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.”
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]
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 –
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
The Witchfinder examines the use of discriminatory and / or stigmatising language and tropes in online statements by Anita Sarkeesian and by Gawker (for example Sam F Biddle) in light of the well known #TimeToChange campaign against mental health discrimination and stigmatising language. Your Inquisitor continues to call for an advertiser boycott of Gawker.com .
Sam F Biddle makes use of stigmatising mental health tropes, singling out an apparently vulnerable individual. Picture used for the purpose of criticism pursuant to s 30 (1) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Your author is a law student with a specialist interest in mental capacity and mental health law, who has represented people in Court pro-bono. As a result of his work your author was asked to give evidence to the House of Lords Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 under his real name, Sam Smith. See pages 1608 – 1614.
The Witchfinder focuses on the remedy of last resort – namely lawsuits. However, much of the work of ending mental health and disability discrimination begins before then – in ending oppressive tropes and language. Time to Change have published a guide to inappropriate and stigmatising media content. Unfortunately, the Witchfinder has found that use of discriminatory terms is far more prevalent in certain parts of the left, notably the self-appointed guardians of ‘social justice’ than it is on the right. This article discusses Sam F Biddle of Gawker and Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency.
The 2007 academic paper, ‘250 labels used to stigmatise people with mental illness’ was written by academics from the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London and Mental Health Charity Rethink. It contains a convenient table of discriminatory words used to oppress disabled people. Of course everyone uses such words and it is simplistic and inappropriate to adopt crass Duke University style speech codes.
However, irresponsible journalism can hurt by stigmatising the mental ill as likely to be violent, when research shows the opposite is true. Alastair Campbell, formerly Press Officer to Tony Blair ,wrote powerfully in the Guardian about the problems caused by ‘psycho patient’ costumes. Famous Footballer Stan Collymore publicly condemned the costumes, warning of suicides –
Stan Collymore bravely speaks out. (c) StanCollymore/Twitter .
These days, most journalists are careful to avoid such images, knowing that their careers may be damaged by using such images and they may cause suicides.
Gawker.com (whose parent company Gawker Media has Nick Denton for a CEO) thought it would be really funny to poison Coca Cola’s #MakeItHappy campaign with text from Mein Kampf. The Witchfinder thinks it would be really funny if no one advertised with Gawker ever again and Mr Denton was socially ostracised. Swastika by Dreamstime, Nick Denton by Dave Winer on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0 License – http://ow.ly/ICKRe
Incredibly conveniently, Gawker decides to demonstrate just who the villains of the #GamerGate saga are by writing software to interfere with Coca Cola’s latest publicity campaign by causing it to spew out Nazi propaganda. The Witchfinder calls for a boycott of any business owned or operated by Gawker Media CEO Nick Denton until Gawker Editor Max Read is fired. Also undesirable is generally objectionable Gawker Writer Sam F Biddle who has recently apologised for joking about bullying.
Ethics in Journalism. A weighty phrase, oft-debated with varying degrees of cynicism. The members of #GamerGate say they back it. Some people think it is ethical to go through a politician’s trash. Some do not. Some people think it is ethical to hack phones. Some do not.
Your Inquisitor is going to go out on a limb and suggest that subverting a campaign by a soft drinks manufacturer to #MakeItHappy by writing a bot to cause it to spew out the text of Adolf Hitler’s infamous book ‘Mein Kampf’ is one of those things where most people ‘do not’. Yes Gawker did that – then they wrote an article about how funny it was.
Gawker.com has a history. For example in 2014 Gawker writer Sam Biddle was shamed for saying “Nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission.” After some advertisers pulled their advertising Biddle apologised for his ‘joke’.
In late 2014 Nick Denton reorganised the company to share managerial responsibility. However his is still ultimately the leadership. Denton sets the tone and the parent company website still lists him as CEO. It is unlikely, given the media coverage, that Denton is unaware of the ‘Mein Kampf’ story but even if he is, as the top man he bears moral responsibility.
Rupert Murdoch tells it how it is. (C) Eva Rinaldi, licensed under Creative Commons license.
Rupert Murdoch has recently been criticised (again) by the loony left. After recent terrorist atrocities he wrote that ‘peaceful’ Muslims who had failed to ‘destroy’ the ‘jihadist cancer’ ‘must be held responsible’. The Witchfinder agrees.
A reasonable desire to avoid bigotry or hate does not mean turning a blind eye to mass murder or child abuse.
Mr Murdoch’s comment is a brave one and inspired this supportive article in which the Witchfinder deals with the difficult topic of Islamic extremism and the equally difficult topic of left wing denial and hypocrisy along with their denial and demonising of those who ask awkward questions.
Screenshot of two tweets by Rupert Murdoch in which he comments on “jihadist danger”. Picture via Twitter (c) rupertmurdoch/Twitter.