Yearly Archives: 2015

Improper

Posted on by
8

How vicious GamerGate Wikipedia opponent and Guardian source Mark Bernstein, who caused outrage when he tried to gratuitously link GamerGate to the Charleston shootings, used the encylopaedia to edit his own company article, as well as those of products and business associates in flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules.

SelfInterest

Wikipedia must not be used to promote personal commercial interests. Picture via Dreamstime.

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia open to everyone. Amongst the few rules those of greatest importance are the Conflict of Interest rules. Wikipedia must not be used to advance personal commercial interests. As the policy says –

“COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public’s confidence in Wikipedia as an independent resource, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted […] If it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked.”

It goes on –

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

Ethics and Oil

Posted on by
Reply

The Witchfinder is inspired by the weird dystopian leftist fan-fiction covering the future after #GamerGate. In his view, it just does not go far enough… (This story is a parody of SJW hate fiction and any resemblance in it to characters living or dead is for entertainment value only).

Starfield

The Mission of the Righteous Enterprise – to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before and to slaughter the vile, unethical alien vermin and liberate their oil! Picture via Dreamstime.

The British Empire Starship Righteous Enterprise surged through interstellar space at an enormous multiple of c, its petroleum fusion drives pulsating with power. Commander Kevin Ian Lance Lewis (‘KILL’, to his peers) sat in the bridge throne and watched as the stars parted before his ship’s powerful hyperlight engine.

In the wake of the Ethics Revolution of the late 2010s and early 2020s the British Empire had made a huge comeback. With unethical, non-productive sorts dealt with the United Kingdom had been able to make huge cuts to its oversized welfare state and rebuild its depleted military with the latest technologies.

World warfare against the forces of evil by the British and their allies the Neoconfederacy had led to rapid advancements in technology, the discovery of cheap space flight and finally faster-than-light travel. By the 2150s every child at school was taught the timeless wisdom that war was the engine of human progress.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Please Note Project Untechnica Has Ended

Posted on by
Reply

This is just a note that Operation Untechnica has ended as it has now been confirmed that Intechnica has not been supporting the Block Bot. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to tweet them. The project on the wiki has been marked accordingly.

Share Button

I Rate TheHat2. That is All

Posted on by
Reply

People get passionate about things they care about and 34,000 people care about KiA. It is natural to give feedback – for example about the new layout.

As it happens I like the layout. I do have feedback for tweaks given in the appropriate thread. I also agree that as the community grows KiA will need sub and sibling forums like /r/SocialJusticeInAction and will need to reach out to like minded groups. If we reach 100,000 we are not going to coordinate all those people on a single subreddit.

When people are tempted to bitch they should remember part of the reason they care about KiA is that the moderator team have already done a really good job.

Share Button

Discontinuing County Court Claim, Leaving ICO Running

Posted on by
Reply

The Witchfinder has annoying, but necessary news.

I will be blunt. As everyone knows, I started a County Court claim against James Billingham on 24/04/2015. However, on 06/05/2015 (Wednesday last week) the Information Commissioner’s Office (a part of the UK Government) decided to wade in by announcing they were taking action, whereas before I only knew they were investigating [Edited for clarity 09/05/2015]. There are a lot of people in on the matter now and I have taken further advice over the last week.

The short version of the advice is that circumstances have changed – there will now be a significant investigation and anything I can achieve with my claim is now achievable via the ICO. The claim is obviously not meritless as the ICO have agreed to investigate, but the investigation is likely to be complex and create large, risky costs in County Court because of the very large number of people involved. It is extremely likely that the claim would now not be allocated to the Small Claims track. If it was ever suitable for Money Claims Online it is not now.

Fortunately, up until now the Defendant and his employer have refused to reply to correspondence or take any steps in the proceedings (thereby flouting the costs rules) which means they would normally be sanctioned and in any event would be hard pressed to gain costs of discontinuance. Conveniently the same would apply if it was struck out via MCOL. So now is a good time to refocus on the efforts via the ICO and minimise personal risk.

Also, I have been conducting this matter responsibly and it is important to take legal advice when it is given – to do otherwise really would be ‘harassment’. Having cleared my name once I do not wish to do so again.

Regarding the GoFundMe. I will hold the monies against any risk and then use them as promised for entertainments at the next GamerGate meet up. To be clear – so far no money has been drawn and I will produce accounts.

The ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) complaint remains running, we are also still able to campaign against the Block Bot by (for example) email campaigns and should they engage in further objectionable conduct we can look again at legal proceedings. There are likely to be significant sanctions if the Block Bot transfers the data abroad.

Share Button