This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/09/wikipedia-account-at-centre-of-row-not-linked-to-grant-shapps
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Wikipedia: account at centre of row 'not linked' to Grant Shapps | Wikipedia: account at centre of row 'not linked' to Grant Shapps |
(35 minutes later) | |
A Wikipedia account that was suspended on suspicions that it was being used by the former Conservative party co-chairman Grant Shapps or “someone acting on his behalf” was unblocked following a vote by members of the site’s “high court”. | A Wikipedia account that was suspended on suspicions that it was being used by the former Conservative party co-chairman Grant Shapps or “someone acting on his behalf” was unblocked following a vote by members of the site’s “high court”. |
The online encyclopedia’s arbitration committee, comprised of volunteers elected to consider controversial decisions, chose to remove the status of site administrator from Richard Symonds, who had blocked an account belonging to a user known as Contribsx because he thought there was evidence linking it to Shapps. | |
In a ruling, the committee said Symonds had an “apparent” conflict of interest because he was a former Lib Dem supporter, that he had not been able to produce three years of records detailing previous investigations and had supplied information to the Guardian which “gave the appearance of exert[ing] political or social control”. | In a ruling, the committee said Symonds had an “apparent” conflict of interest because he was a former Lib Dem supporter, that he had not been able to produce three years of records detailing previous investigations and had supplied information to the Guardian which “gave the appearance of exert[ing] political or social control”. |
A few hours after the vote, another Wikipedia administrator moved to reverse Symonds’s decision to block the user Contribsx. | A few hours after the vote, another Wikipedia administrator moved to reverse Symonds’s decision to block the user Contribsx. |
Wikipedia’s arbitration committee decided that there was no “definitive” evidence that linked the user to Shapps and criticised Symonds for not running his decision past colleagues, who are all volunteers, before blocking the account. | Wikipedia’s arbitration committee decided that there was no “definitive” evidence that linked the user to Shapps and criticised Symonds for not running his decision past colleagues, who are all volunteers, before blocking the account. |
At the time of making of the decision in April, Symonds said that “there’s no smoking gun, just a wealth of other evidence that really points in [Shapps’s] general direction”. Shapps had strenuously denied the allegations, saying they were “false and defamatory”. | At the time of making of the decision in April, Symonds said that “there’s no smoking gun, just a wealth of other evidence that really points in [Shapps’s] general direction”. Shapps had strenuously denied the allegations, saying they were “false and defamatory”. |
Symonds’s decision to investigate Contribsx was sparked by the Guardian, which had approached Wikipedia to point out that Shapps’s page on the site appeared to have had critical comments removed. Other users had also asked whether this was not the result of “sock puppetry” – editing under a fake online identity – by the party co-chairman. | |
The Guardian had first approached the website’s administrators on 2 April and Symonds said he had “decided to look into the edits independently of the newspaper ... I asked them for any evidence they had uncovered themselves and were able to share with me”. | The Guardian had first approached the website’s administrators on 2 April and Symonds said he had “decided to look into the edits independently of the newspaper ... I asked them for any evidence they had uncovered themselves and were able to share with me”. |
The high-profile nature of the news saw Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales briefly drawn into the fray, giving discreet support to Symonds but also reassuring critics that the decision did not represent the site’s “corporate view”. | The high-profile nature of the news saw Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales briefly drawn into the fray, giving discreet support to Symonds but also reassuring critics that the decision did not represent the site’s “corporate view”. |
The committee singled out Symonds’s contact with the Guardian saying that this could be viewed as favouritism. “The email sent to The Guardian was not appropriate as it provided not yet public information in Wikipedia’s voice to a third party ... [We do] not believe that there was a significant violation of policy through this action but that it creates an appearance of favouritism.” | |
The identity of Contribsx remains unknown. The user has not reappeared on any part of Wikipedia. | The identity of Contribsx remains unknown. The user has not reappeared on any part of Wikipedia. |
In an emailed statement, Symonds said: “I am happy to see that the committee found no evidence of foul play or political activism on my part, and I am glad to see that they were confident enough with my evidence to not overturn the block I made on Contribsx themselves, even though others might. I understand that they had concerns and had to review my actions, but my losing a few extra buttons is not the end of the world.” | In an emailed statement, Symonds said: “I am happy to see that the committee found no evidence of foul play or political activism on my part, and I am glad to see that they were confident enough with my evidence to not overturn the block I made on Contribsx themselves, even though others might. I understand that they had concerns and had to review my actions, but my losing a few extra buttons is not the end of the world.” |
Ahead of the final vote by the committee, Shapps told his local newspaper, published on Tuesday: “Wikipedia’s investigation has resulted in the strong disciplinary action now being taken. However, the failure of various media outlets to check even basic facts meant that this false and damaging story ran for an entire day during the general election campaign.” |
Previous version
1
Next version