Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh

Hackneymarsh

Hackneymarsh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh/Archive.

21 April 2015

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

• Contribsx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A Guardian journalist contacted me with concerns that Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Hackneymarsh. Hackneymarsh was outed in the newspaper several years ago as allegedly being run by a prominent UK politician. I started investigating (independently of the Guardian) whether Contribsx could indeed be a sockpuppet of Hackneymarsh, and the evidence is pretty conclusive:

• [1] Contribsx attacks an opposition MP who had referred Shapps' activities to the police, and who had provided a quote critical of Shapps to the Guardian here.
• [2] Contribsx made a change to Michael Fabricant’s page to say he was sacked by Grant Shapps rather than on the order of Lynton Crosby.
• Unlike many others in his party, Shapps is a big supporter of gay marriage and got into a spat with several other politicans (cf. here) and Contribsx made edits to draw attention to other Cabinet members for supporting gay marriage here and here.
• This shows Contribsx making an edit critical of Justine Greening for missing a vote, and being against a third runway at Heathrow. Shapps, has criticised her for this in the past.
• Shapps was the Conservative party Chairman who sat in judgement over Afzal Amin in 2015, after Amin resigned over claims he had links to far-right group the English Defence League. Contribsx links to his successor, and created the page for his previously unknown successor - which was deleted as failing notability guidelines. he also got into a bit of a spat about on on [the talk page.
• Contribsx adds a critical paragraph to a (relatively unknown) opposition party member's page. The key fact here is that less than a month previously, Shapps had been criticised by the very same MP! The criticism section is biased and misleading as it fails to mention the full and frank apology, or the fact that the Parliamentary authorities investigated and found very little wrong (he didn't even get a slap on the wrist, so minor was the incident).
• Contribsx also edits huge swathes of the Grant Shapps page, almost always removing criticism. These can be viewed on Contribsx's contributions page and going into detail here would be superfluous...
• Finally, the Contribsx account is probably linked to several other IP addresses, in the 85.237.211.x and 85.237.212.x ranges, (Areti IP addresses linked to online marketing) which have been making the same edits since 2013. Examples:
  • [3] Removes material to do with How To Corp and editing of Wikipedia, Adds political credentials.
  • [4] Edits political credentials so he is listed as Chairman of Conservative Party, not listed as Co-Chairman. He is, in fact, Co-Chairman, Baron Feldman having been Co-Chairman since 2010, initially alongside Baroness Warsi.
  • Various ongoing disputes with Edwardx, Kookiethebird, on this issue throughout summer 2013...
  • Argument with Kookiethebird on edits - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grant_Shapps&diff=prev&oldid=570140746#Negative_comments_by_85.237.212.58. The wording used by this IP address contains what I am reliably informed are "standard Shapps lines", including comparing Shapps' previous non-Wikipedia sockpuppetry to JK Rowling using a pen name (used by Nadine Dorries MP to defend Shapps). It also contains a reference to Robert Gould Shaw. A year earlier after The Guardian reported the first time on Shapps' use of Wikipedia sockpuppets, Willard Foxton wrote in Telegraph Blogs about Grant Shapps and compared the length of his entry to Shaw's.
  • There are also edits made by 78.105.128.156 and 212.118.232.x which act in the same way - edit wars with Edwardx mainly, but also a heated discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grant_Shapps#RfC:_Alternative_identity_practice_-_undue.3F.
• On 25 August 2013, the above IP addresses are unable to edit the article any more, as semi-protection is applied to the Grant Shapps article. On the same day, Contribsx is created, and starts by editing relatively random biographies, before moving onto protected or problematic ones after just over ten edits. He starts begins by talking to people he has previously argued with - Edwardx, Tom Morris and Kookiebird to name a few - as shown here and here, where he makes another JK Rowling reference.

I ran a Checkuser, and it yielded a 'likely' result. On the basis of this, along with the wealth of behavioural evidence, I believe that the account is either run by Hackneymarsh directly in violation or being run under the owner of that account's clear direction (as a meatpuppet). It's also pretty clear that along the way, it misled other editors, distorted consensus and avoided potential sanctions (against the sockpuppetry policy), and I believe has also misrepresented its affiliation, this is also a violation of the Terms of Use. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I can't say either way that is Shapps' account, or run by him. All I can say is that I believe that it's a sockpuppet of the Hackneymarsh account. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Much of this evidence is unaccepable Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry as the arguments is based on what a certain person you believe may be behind the account has done and said outside Wikipedia. Thus it constitutes outing. You should strike/delete those arguments that are solely based on what a person has said outside Wikipedia, and instead focus on making a direct link between the suspected master and suspected puppet. This "investigation" seems to be far to much influenced by information from The Guardian, instead of following the ordinary procedure for handling SPI cases. Iselilja (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• You clearly haven't read it properly. The WP:DUCK is quacking very loudly here, especially the creation date and the similarities with the previous account. Not to mention the "likely" checkuser result. In the end, the only issue is "is this account Hackneymarsh or a meatpuppet of such", not "is this account some real person". Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my point which was an objection to "the Cavalry"'s use of off-Wiki sources about what a British politician has said and done as evidence in a SPI case that two accounts at Wikipedia are related (based on an implicit assumption that the politician is behind both). My argument is that these "evidences" are non-valid and should be stroked or deleted. It appears to constitute outing; in addition when the Cavalry explicitly says he is not making any claim that the politician is behind the account, "evidences" showing similarities between the politician's real life profile and the Wiki-account's profile are invalid on their face. I didn't say the result should be overturned as I have not looked enough into on-Wiki evidences and cannot have an informed opinion on CU evidences. Iselilja (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with an editor who previously edited as an IP address later editing as a username. I don't see the relevance of the sections of this account which suggest it may have happened on this occasion. Hobson (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• First edit in 2015 (and 2nd since 2012) for this editor who has previously edited conservative/conservative-related articles thus [5] [6] Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• One of the articles you linked to is about a UKIP supporter not a Conservative. You wrongly imply that I edit Conservative-related articles in particular - in fact I have also edited Labour-related articles [7], Liberal Democrat-related articles [8], video game blogger related articles [9], Star Wars-related articles [10], music-related articles [11], WWE related articles [12] and other bits and bobs. Do you disagree with the comment I made? Please explain why! Hobson (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• In addition, it may be useful to note that it is possible to view a large chunk of a user's contributions at one time by choosing to view 500 at once. Eg, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Hobson&limit=500&target=Hobson . A quick scroll down should make it clear that while some of my edits involve UK politics, there is no particular focus on Conservatives. And examining the edits I have made to pages dealing with UK politicians from other parties will show they are largely abour removing unsourced negative comment, or negative comment given undue prominence! I hope this goes some way to reassuring you of my good faith. (Just don't get into the rows about Willow Rosenburg!) Hobson (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• This smells. Especially given the run-up to the election. I would like to request a complete copy of all the correspondence between administrators and the Guardian journo who provided the information. I want to know who told who, when, and what information was passed across. As the news article in question states "The site’s administrators, selected Wikipedia volunteers who patrol the site, told the Guardian that they “believe that the account Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia ... and based on the evidence 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.”. It also has a ready-made quote from WMUK - an organisation with, at best, a murky history. Not to mention the blocking administrators connection to it. This stinks of using wikipedia in order to play politics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• And another thing, how does checkuser get a 'likely' result on an account that has not edited in 5 years? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I've blocked the account, but given the press coverage that will crop up, I've created this page to ensure a clear audit trail and list of evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, the investigation was done (and my decision was reached) independently of the Guardian, and at no point was any confidential data shared with them (although they did point out the likelihood of sockpuppetry and explained the connections between the various characters, which is a lot of work - thankyou!). No further action by CUs or admins is required - it just needs noting and filing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC) |status=checked }}

Looks like they were waiting for the block before they published: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

---