By popular request. And I’ve not seen anyone else wiki-literate discussing this, so I will. the Graun says
Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals.
Online encyclopedia administrators block user account believed to be run by Tory party co-chairman or ‘someone else … under his clear direction’. Wikipedia has blocked a user account on suspicions that it is being used by the Conservative party chairman, Grant Shapps, “or someone acting on his behalf” to edit his own page along with the entries of Tory rivals and political opponents.
(and I should probably note that Grant Shapps denies Wikipedia claims according to Aunty). Some of this is the usual misunderstandings: Online encyclopedia administrators is wrong, indeed necessarily wrong, in using the plural: you can only be blocked by any one admin at any one time, and in this case there’s only one block, by User:Chase me ladies, I’m the Cavalry. Who I rate rather lowly, for reasons too obscure to go into or possibly even remember. But he should not be confused with Chase me, ladies, I’m in the cavalry who is much funnier (Colombia’s most feared terrorist, alias El Paisa, drinks Bailey’s Irish Cream according to this report. I went right off him when I read that. What a gigantic wooftah). References to the actions of “The online encyclopedia” are almost always really the actions of individual editors or admins. In this case, it does seem to be very much an individual action.
TL;DR
My best guess is that the block on User:Contribsx is spurious on the grounds given: there’s no obvious socking; the evidence looks to be far below the standards that would usually be expected. However, assuming the account really is run by GS or a minion, which appears at least plausible, User:Contribsx is unlikely to appeal the block and so will probably stay blocked.
User:Contribsx blocked by User:Chase me ladies, I’m the Cavalry
User:Contribsx was blocked at 2015-04-21T15:13:41 by Chase-Me; see the block notice. The block notice uses a standard template for sock-blocks, saying This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not… This, on the face of it, is distinctly dubious and not at all the same thing as the Graun’s accusation that Wikipedia has blocked a user account on suspicions that it is being used by the Conservative party chairman, Grant Shapps, “or someone acting on his behalf” to edit his own page along with the entries of Tory rivals and political opponents. Editing a page about yourself is permitted, if discouraged (I have edited William Connolley in the past; I stopped not because anyone told me to, but because a combination of the COI rules and general stupidity make even reading the thing painful; I no longer watch the page). Its certainly not grounds for a sock-block.
Other people have noticed this, and asked Chase-Me about the grounds for the block: see his talk page. Note there the classic block-n-run: I’m currently off work with the flu – and I didn’t expect the sort of reaction that’s happening – so please bear with me if I don’t reply as quickly as you would like. This is a transparent tactic for when you don’t want to answer questions about something dodgy that you’ve done. Its so transparent that I’d either call it an admission of guilt, or a deliberate “fuck off”, but I’m not sure which.
Arbcomm?
This is all sufficiently dodgy that its gone rather rapidly up to Arbcomm: see http://ift.tt/1JsS5QG. The LOL-note for those familiar with WP:BLP and its many failings is the convoluted and entirely pointless way that case avoids mentioning GS’s name. That’s already got 4 “accepts” in very little time, so will be going ahead, possibly (in complete reversal of arbcomm’s norms) urgently.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh
Grant Shapps denies Wikipedia claims
Says Aunty, as noted above. As I noted above, the Grauns claims are distinctly garbled, so it would be possible to Jesuitically deny them, which not talking about the substance. However, he’s not doing that. He says:
Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has denied claims he repeatedly edited entries about himself and other MPs on Wikipedia.
Mr Shapps told the BBC the allegations – reported by the Guardian – were “categorically false and defamatory”.
Is he telling the truth? I can’t tell. Note, however, that the GS wiki article has a section for “Wikipedia editing” that says Shapps’s Wikipedia article has repeatedly been edited from his office, both to correct errors and to remove embarrassing information.[50][51][52] I haven’t checked those refs, but it wouldn’t still be there if they weren’t reasonable.
He’s been asked directly if he’s GS and hasn’t yet replied. That was just before 8 pm last night; not long ago, but certainly long enough to have replied if he’d wanted to.
Its worth pulling out another error, this time by the Beeb:
Creating a fake online identity to mislead other people – known as “sock-puppetry” – is banned.
This isn’t really right. Classic sock puppetry – on wikipedia – is creating a second or multiple accounts, and editing as though those two accounts were not connected (simply having two accounts isn’t banned either. I’m also user:WMC). So, for example: you make an edit as user A, someone else removes it, and instead of re-adding it under user A you re-add it as user B. That’s definitely banned. “Creating a fake online identity” is not a well defined statement – many wiki users are anonymous. Some have names – like Chase-Me – that clearly say they aren’t real names. But some have what look like “real names” that aren’t their own real name. That’s kinda misleading, but not a problem. Creating an account under the name of a real person – attempting to be User:Bill_Clinton if you’re not him – would get your account blocked (or renamed). “Creating a fake online identity to mislead other people” isn’t well defined either. In this case the account – User:Contribsx – isn’t obviously misleading. Its clearly a non-real-name. And it clearly states on its user page I am a keen reader of British politics. I’ve read most contemporary and historic British political biographies at some point over the past 30 to 50 years. My interest stretches from current day to the approximate birth of democratic British politics. However, most of my time is spent on 20th and 21st Century figures. It doesn’t say that he’s GS, but it would not be at all odd for a political figure to remain undeclared. OTOH, editing a page without declaring a COI is bad; and he’s clearly talked as though he was not GS (e.g. here) so if he is, he’s being deceptive.
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry offers its nutshell view:
This page in a nutshell: The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person’s account. Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor.
There you go.
User contributions
You can look at Special:Contributions/Contribs. He isn’t prolific:
2015-04-05T14:39:25 (diff | hist) .. (+276) .. Karl Turner (politician) (Update) 2015-04-05T14:27:28 (diff | hist) .. (+215) .. Grant Shapps (→Political career: Expenses section recovered) 2015-04-05T14:24:13 (diff | hist) .. (+343) .. User talk:Contribsx (→Grant Schapps) 2015-04-05T14:21:52 (diff | hist) .. (+352) .. User talk:Contribsx (→Notability of Les Jones (politician)) 2015-03-29T14:15:29 (diff | hist) .. (-3,362) .. Grant Shapps (Edits following recent heavy anon amends of page) 2015-03-29T13:41:19 (diff | hist) .. (+5) .. Afzal Amin (→Political career: new candidate selected to fight Dudley North seat) 2015-03-29T13:39:27 (diff | hist) .. (+1) .. Afzal Amin (→Political career: new candidate selected to fight Dudley North seat) 2015-03-29T13:23:01 (diff | hist) .. (+231) .. Afzal Amin (→Political career: new candidate selected to fight Dudley North seat) 2015-03-29T13:14:45 (diff | hist) .. (+327) .. Afzal Amin (Split out political career and added selection as Parliamentary candidate details) 2015-03-29T13:06:05 (diff | hist) .. (+344) .. Francis Maude (→Efficiency and Reform: more neutral presentation of facts with some additional information added) 2015-02-22T14:43:58 (diff | hist) .. (-1,694) .. Grant Shapps (Removed anon ip changes) 2015-02-08T18:12:35 (diff | hist) .. (+130) .. Francis Maude
And he had only 19 contributions in 2014. Note that he’s not very talkative – there are very few edits to talk space. This is suspicious – it looks like he’d rather avoid getting into discussions. Though he does; just rarely.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JsS5QK
By popular request. And I’ve not seen anyone else wiki-literate discussing this, so I will. the Graun says
Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals.
Online encyclopedia administrators block user account believed to be run by Tory party co-chairman or ‘someone else … under his clear direction’. Wikipedia has blocked a user account on suspicions that it is being used by the Conservative party chairman, Grant Shapps, “or someone acting on his behalf” to edit his own page along with the entries of Tory rivals and political opponents.
(and I should probably note that Grant Shapps denies Wikipedia claims according to Aunty). Some of this is the usual misunderstandings: Online encyclopedia administrators is wrong, indeed necessarily wrong, in using the plural: you can only be blocked by any one admin at any one time, and in this case there’s only one block, by User:Chase me ladies, I’m the Cavalry. Who I rate rather lowly, for reasons too obscure to go into or possibly even remember. But he should not be confused with Chase me, ladies, I’m in the cavalry who is much funnier (Colombia’s most feared terrorist, alias El Paisa, drinks Bailey’s Irish Cream according to this report. I went right off him when I read that. What a gigantic wooftah). References to the actions of “The online encyclopedia” are almost always really the actions of individual editors or admins. In this case, it does seem to be very much an individual action.
TL;DR
My best guess is that the block on User:Contribsx is spurious on the grounds given: there’s no obvious socking; the evidence looks to be far below the standards that would usually be expected. However, assuming the account really is run by GS or a minion, which appears at least plausible, User:Contribsx is unlikely to appeal the block and so will probably stay blocked.
User:Contribsx blocked by User:Chase me ladies, I’m the Cavalry
User:Contribsx was blocked at 2015-04-21T15:13:41 by Chase-Me; see the block notice. The block notice uses a standard template for sock-blocks, saying This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not… This, on the face of it, is distinctly dubious and not at all the same thing as the Graun’s accusation that Wikipedia has blocked a user account on suspicions that it is being used by the Conservative party chairman, Grant Shapps, “or someone acting on his behalf” to edit his own page along with the entries of Tory rivals and political opponents. Editing a page about yourself is permitted, if discouraged (I have edited William Connolley in the past; I stopped not because anyone told me to, but because a combination of the COI rules and general stupidity make even reading the thing painful; I no longer watch the page). Its certainly not grounds for a sock-block.
Other people have noticed this, and asked Chase-Me about the grounds for the block: see his talk page. Note there the classic block-n-run: I’m currently off work with the flu – and I didn’t expect the sort of reaction that’s happening – so please bear with me if I don’t reply as quickly as you would like. This is a transparent tactic for when you don’t want to answer questions about something dodgy that you’ve done. Its so transparent that I’d either call it an admission of guilt, or a deliberate “fuck off”, but I’m not sure which.
Arbcomm?
This is all sufficiently dodgy that its gone rather rapidly up to Arbcomm: see http://ift.tt/1JsS5QG. The LOL-note for those familiar with WP:BLP and its many failings is the convoluted and entirely pointless way that case avoids mentioning GS’s name. That’s already got 4 “accepts” in very little time, so will be going ahead, possibly (in complete reversal of arbcomm’s norms) urgently.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh
Grant Shapps denies Wikipedia claims
Says Aunty, as noted above. As I noted above, the Grauns claims are distinctly garbled, so it would be possible to Jesuitically deny them, which not talking about the substance. However, he’s not doing that. He says:
Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps has denied claims he repeatedly edited entries about himself and other MPs on Wikipedia.
Mr Shapps told the BBC the allegations – reported by the Guardian – were “categorically false and defamatory”.
Is he telling the truth? I can’t tell. Note, however, that the GS wiki article has a section for “Wikipedia editing” that says Shapps’s Wikipedia article has repeatedly been edited from his office, both to correct errors and to remove embarrassing information.[50][51][52] I haven’t checked those refs, but it wouldn’t still be there if they weren’t reasonable.
He’s been asked directly if he’s GS and hasn’t yet replied. That was just before 8 pm last night; not long ago, but certainly long enough to have replied if he’d wanted to.
Its worth pulling out another error, this time by the Beeb:
Creating a fake online identity to mislead other people – known as “sock-puppetry” – is banned.
This isn’t really right. Classic sock puppetry – on wikipedia – is creating a second or multiple accounts, and editing as though those two accounts were not connected (simply having two accounts isn’t banned either. I’m also user:WMC). So, for example: you make an edit as user A, someone else removes it, and instead of re-adding it under user A you re-add it as user B. That’s definitely banned. “Creating a fake online identity” is not a well defined statement – many wiki users are anonymous. Some have names – like Chase-Me – that clearly say they aren’t real names. But some have what look like “real names” that aren’t their own real name. That’s kinda misleading, but not a problem. Creating an account under the name of a real person – attempting to be User:Bill_Clinton if you’re not him – would get your account blocked (or renamed). “Creating a fake online identity to mislead other people” isn’t well defined either. In this case the account – User:Contribsx – isn’t obviously misleading. Its clearly a non-real-name. And it clearly states on its user page I am a keen reader of British politics. I’ve read most contemporary and historic British political biographies at some point over the past 30 to 50 years. My interest stretches from current day to the approximate birth of democratic British politics. However, most of my time is spent on 20th and 21st Century figures. It doesn’t say that he’s GS, but it would not be at all odd for a political figure to remain undeclared. OTOH, editing a page without declaring a COI is bad; and he’s clearly talked as though he was not GS (e.g. here) so if he is, he’s being deceptive.
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry offers its nutshell view:
This page in a nutshell: The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person’s account. Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor.
There you go.
User contributions
You can look at Special:Contributions/Contribs. He isn’t prolific:
2015-04-05T14:39:25 (diff | hist) .. (+276) .. Karl Turner (politician) (Update) 2015-04-05T14:27:28 (diff | hist) .. (+215) .. Grant Shapps (→Political career: Expenses section recovered) 2015-04-05T14:24:13 (diff | hist) .. (+343) .. User talk:Contribsx (→Grant Schapps) 2015-04-05T14:21:52 (diff | hist) .. (+352) .. User talk:Contribsx (→Notability of Les Jones (politician)) 2015-03-29T14:15:29 (diff | hist) .. (-3,362) .. Grant Shapps (Edits following recent heavy anon amends of page) 2015-03-29T13:41:19 (diff | hist) .. (+5) .. Afzal Amin (→Political career: new candidate selected to fight Dudley North seat) 2015-03-29T13:39:27 (diff | hist) .. (+1) .. Afzal Amin (→Political career: new candidate selected to fight Dudley North seat) 2015-03-29T13:23:01 (diff | hist) .. (+231) .. Afzal Amin (→Political career: new candidate selected to fight Dudley North seat) 2015-03-29T13:14:45 (diff | hist) .. (+327) .. Afzal Amin (Split out political career and added selection as Parliamentary candidate details) 2015-03-29T13:06:05 (diff | hist) .. (+344) .. Francis Maude (→Efficiency and Reform: more neutral presentation of facts with some additional information added) 2015-02-22T14:43:58 (diff | hist) .. (-1,694) .. Grant Shapps (Removed anon ip changes) 2015-02-08T18:12:35 (diff | hist) .. (+130) .. Francis Maude
And he had only 19 contributions in 2014. Note that he’s not very talkative – there are very few edits to talk space. This is suspicious – it looks like he’d rather avoid getting into discussions. Though he does; just rarely.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JsS5QK
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire