Talk:Grant Shapps/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Read Before Removing parts of this biography

• This change keeps happening and I keep undoing it. The points removed are valid and relevant and seem to belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangers (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'll undo it again. Please do not remove postings simply because you do not agree with them. Place a comment here as to why they should be removed Bangers (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have put a request in at Biographies Noticeboard to see of these facts should be removed. Please do not remove anything until there is some feed back Bangers (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• To whoever is removing text: Please stop. Your fake threats are making you look very silly. You may not like what has been written about Grant Shapps, but it is sourced and appears to be a valid part of his biography. If you disagree, please post why here. If you just keep removing it I will just keep putting it back. Bangers (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Bangers. Your repeated edits are clearly based on a partisan motive which breaches Wikipedia rules; including; "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner...", whereas your approach appears to be from a deliberately partisan Liberal Democrat perspective. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented...in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." I have re-added ikipedia is to remain a reliable reference source. These types of disputes are rarely very productive and our last post was designed to incorporate some of your concerns. We've replaced it once again and suggest that you edit in your comments to the more detailed biography which is now present without contravening any of the guidelines and we can all get on with something more meaningful elsewhere on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The comments being removed were not made by me, which you can verify by looking at the history. I do not have a pro Lbaour/Liberal or anti Conservative agenda, but I do not see why they should be removed, which is why I keep putting them back.
  • I do not see that the information is anything more than mildly embarrassing to Grant Shapps, but it is true and it is relevant.
  • I did remove some of your last post. This was unintentional as I thought I could roll back two revisions. I will try to reinsert your missing text.
  • Please do not remove the text again as this edit war must end. Ask an editor to review this and I will abide by what they say
  • If you think this fails in a NPOV, please reword.
  • Bangers (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I see you have already reverted it again. This is getting silly. I'll leave it like this for noe but will ask an Editor to adjudicate in the morning Bangers (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Have requested editorial review also. Editor: The problem we have with Bangers amends are not specifically related to this individual but that the facts quoted are all disputed, whereas Bangers presents them as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The amendments are not mine, I am reinstating them because I think they belong here. The facts quoted are not in dispute and they have been properly referenced. I will reinsert the missing information latter today, but I will try to ensure that it is insert in a more neutral way (Gaffs is not a good header). If you do not agree with my inserts please modify them if possible, mark 'citation needed' or indicate the facts are disputed by others (giving citations) or discuss it here. Please do not simply remove them. Bangers (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP response

I've cleaned the article up a bit, including removing the material about Hodgkin's Lymphoma and remission, which must be cited before it can be re-added into the article (text can be found in history if citation is found). This still needs some clean-up and if any parts are still under contention for BLP, make sure additions are well cited to reliable sources. If something is even a bit iffy, it should be left out until well verified. --Faith (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealing Southall by-election

I have re-added the YouTube postings. I have reworded them to be NPOV. If you do not feel this is not yet sufficiently NPOV please edit or expand. Please do not simply remove or we will be sliding back to edit war again. One of us needs to find out if Grant ever denied or admitted making the posting. Bangers (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see we are heading back to an edit war. The changes now mean that the YouTube incident is reported in an unbalanced way and that citations have been removed, making it less well referenced. My last posting stated what happened and how Grant Shapps explained it. I don't see that reporting his explanation as undisputed fact has improved this article. Please update this to be more balanced and better referenced or I will revert it back to my last edit again Bangers (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered WP:RS. I can't see how www.order-order.com could possibly be a RS either. --Faith (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The parts removed are not what I entered. What I would like to add included a reference to a blog to give Grant Shapps' denial, but otherwise referenced 'relaiable' sources. I will post the NPOV section to your talk page Bangers (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, please keep related information on this talk page. I have it on my watch list now and I'll see your reply. IIRC, the last blog listed on the section I removed may have qualified for a RS blog. Review WP:RS to see. --Faith (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thinking about the YouTube I think it should be reworked as part of him being Vice Chairman in Charge of Campaigning . I'll try to post it up in the next few days. Bangers (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shadow housing minister donations

I've added back in the bit about the donations. Again I've tried to make this NPOV and have included the denials that he was influenced. Again, please do not simply remove. Instead work with me and we will make this bio both extensive and neutral. Bangers (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the refs, removed the bad refs, and added the end of the story that they were allowed to take the funds in the first place and were exonerated for their failure to report. This presents a NPOV of the topic. --Faith (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Computer programmer?

A long shot, and I suspect the answer is no, but... in the 26th July 1983 issue of Home Computer Weekly, on page 41, there's a letter from a Grant Shapps, the managing director of Firefly, talking about a computer game called "Dodger". I appreciate that "our" Grant Shapps was only 14 at the time, but teenage whizz-kid computer programmers weren't all that uncommon in the early 1980s, and it wasn't unknown for them to give themselves grand titles. Any chance they might be related? Loganberry (Talk) 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the same person. Although I believe the actual programmer was Grant's cousin. I'll check with my sources.--Umbriel (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How remarkable! There's a scan of the magazine (not made by me) on this site; the relevant letters page scan is near the bottom left, with a drawing of a blue(!) pillar box. Shapps' letter is in the second column. Loganberry (Talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was at school with Grant at this time, I am not sure any games where actually produced, but Grant claimed to have sold the company Firefly to BT for £3000 in 1984.

Homeless vs. Sleeping Rough

I have corrected an apparent error in the reported reasons for why Grant Shapps spent a night sleeping rough. It was quoted in the Telegraph that Shapps was drawing attention to the 130,000 children who sleep rough every night. This was also cited in the Wikipedia article, but anyone familiar with the subject (Shapps included) would have spotted this 'fact' is obviously wrong. The likeliest explanation is that the Telegraph conflated two separate facts: (1) that Shapps produced a report which criticized the official estimates for the numbers of rough sleepers, concluding that there are roughly 1,300 people sleeping rough in the country; and (2) that official data says there are 130,000 homeless children in England. Being homeless is, of course, not the same as sleeping rough. See [Shapps on Conservativehome] as an indication of both the data and Shapps' familiarity with it. Surely there are no objections to correcting the Telegraph's error, even though this means the reference to their report is now of limited worth? Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Business Interests

Please tell me which part of the BOLD text below was factually incorrect and/or why you chose to remove this?

In 1990, aged 21, Grant Shapps founded PrintHouse Corporation, a design, print, website creation and marketing business sited in London. He stepped down as a Director in 2009 in the same week when MP's expenses were made public and it became clear that he had utilised PrintHouse for numerous transactions.

The reference is valid, the text should not have been removed. I've reinstated it, and added to it another business interest. Widefox (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was removed again. Please login before you remove this, and explain your edit here. Removing referenced material is vandalism and will be immediately reverted. Widefox (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was removed again by the same IP address User talk:83.170.117.88 . I have now given two warnings to this editor. Further warnings will be given unless this vandalism/censorship of referenced content stops. Widefox (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed again - this time by User talk:206.225.81.156 . This is an NPOV problem with the article, I'm guessing from a COI issue, so have tagged article as such. Widefox (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed again, by User talk:72.13.91.132. Vandalism reverted. Widefox (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference removed, and reverted now...this time by User talk:209.44.123.5 Widefox (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Widefox appears to have a politically motivated reason for adding poorly referenced material to this wiki entry which is not written from a neutral point of view. For example, the vandalism Widefox refers to (and has now been removed once again) is a link to a weakly referenced forum post somewhere. This is not a credible reference source, such as a daily newspaper. Even though this section now also contains politically driven information, everything else has been left in place pending review.

Firstly, I am glad you are now engaging in dialogue here as I have requested. I have asked you multiple times, so now...please could you create an account, login, sign your comments (e.g. above), and discuss any controversial edits here before making any further edits to this article. Secondly, at that point, we can discuss about, for the record, if you have any connection with Grant Shapps? Please see WP:COI. Your edits here, from different IP addresses, without discussion breaks WP:NPOV and your comment above breaks WP:AGF, and are not welcome. I notice blanking this referenced material has been going on for two years, without dialog with me and other editors. This reflects very badly on the article, and I would reccomend that you refrain editing from this article if you have a WP:COI. I agree that the reference is not perfect, but this single fact is double referenced and your constant removal of this fact is a controversial edit that must be discussed here first in future. I will now revert your removal of this reference. Widefox (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the problem parts - there was a problem due to synergy, thanks Off2riorob for pointing that out. Also, I've found no 3rd party reference to the printhouse expenses, so I've removed that and place here: "PrintHouse is listed in his claims. " Widefox (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

YES, nice. The content is reading a lot more reflective of the reports now. Tonight I was thinking to further improve the article by formating the citations as they are a bit messy and it is a benefit to the content to be easily be able to see when and where and who the citations come from. I am going to start at the top, if anyone wants to help that is great. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Widefox, 1. Please note that I can find no reference to this individual at this reference site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8417868.stm and have therefore removed it. Please don't add it back again without checking. 2. According to Companies House the How 2 directorship was resigned in July 08. My edit reflects this, whereas yours did not and is therefore less inaccurate. 3. You've relied on a diary gossip column reference. This is clearly not a reliable source. The wiki guidelines state that "All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source". Questionable sources include those "which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion" which a diary column clearly represents. Lastly wikipedia rules state that " If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person, whether in an article or on a talk page, remove it immediately!" So please stop simply adding back things without discussing here Hackneymarsh (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — Hackneymarsh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Firstly, thank you for logging in and discussing. Your edits have been reverted by other editors but I will answer your points anyway: 1. I agree it is not in the ref now. That is because it was removed in the last 5 days - see [1] for article on 30th April 2010. This removal is the only change to this ref in the last 5 days ..."The smallest repayment was less than £4 for Grant Shapps, Welwyn Hatfield MP. He was cleared by the Legg review but was one of a number of Conservatives asked to pay back by its Scrutiny Committee. ". Note the BBC has not updated the change date. 2. Grant and his wife co-owned it is properly referenced. Your reference does not change that they did. It does update his (not her) situation, but it is a primary WP:PRIMARY so counts as WP:OR. Removing properly reffed material and replacing with improperly reffed is censoring the co-ownership issue. 3. Who said this is a contentious issue? Do you have any references? Grant has disclosed How To Corp as a directorship (see ref). (Off2riorob - this is not an outing, this is a disclosed issue.)

More importantly, I assume from the similarity of your edits (removing how to, adding more external refs etc) and that you are a new and single issue editor, that you are the same editor as before doing the IP edits? Can you please say if you have any connection with the subject WP:COI ? Widefox (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: 1. the ref http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8418338.stm is now used as alternative. Please do not remove this reffed content. Widefox (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Expenses/Homelessness Sections

Famously a large proportion of the edits of politicians' pages comes from the House of Commons and it's an area with a high risk of bias. On this occasion there's a separate section to say that Schapps wasn't involved in the expenses scandal(?!?) Surely a line in another section could make this point - probably still a strange point to make, but less excessive than having an entire section. Alternatively we could add a section on him not being implicated in the Profumo affair. Marty jar (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction - on looking at a couple of the other expenses 'saints', their pages mention it, but not in the same section, which is what I've done here. However the section relating to homelessness read like it was, I'll diplomatically say, written by somebody who has an interest in Grant Schapp's work. For example, 'The Homelessness Foundation', was renamed 'The Conservative Homelessness Formation', and was linked to a non-existent page. The detailed story of a night when he slept rough to raise publicity was also a bit excessive in it's detail and drama, but feel free to drop me a note if you disagree. Marty jar (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a large number of amendments were amended with a slightly misleading description. In future could any major changes be accompanied with appropriate notification? A full description of why the reverted changes were made is above. As with many politicians' pages, it failed to meet Wiki standards of impartiality and relevance.Marty jar (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Online activity

Can something be written up about http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/02/grant-shapps-google-howtocorp-adsense he apparently founded a company that sold software that was against Google Rules for adsense, by creating web pages by "spinning and scraping" content from other sites to attract advertising from Google.

And there has been some questions raised about his large twitter following, mentioned in the same article. SimonD (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lord Feldman is not the Conservative Party Chairman. Also, Shapps is Minister without Portfolio with Ken Clarke. You have got your facts wrong. --195.171.221.67 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is [2]. Multiple Ministers without Portfolio are not a shared office or shared role or shared anything else. Stop messing with the Ken Clarke infobox, you have already breached WP:3RR. Leaky Caldron 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added additional info on the issue with his internet businesses; clearly it's going to be something which develops in the coming weeks, so there may be scope for updating, and including a wider range of sources.Marty jar (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Might want to also note that his egotistical tendency to edit his own bio here on wikipedia. I'm sure that would come under online activity. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/08/grants-shapps-altered-wikipedia-entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.224.84 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As the source is excellent, this should be included in the article and we should also check back and re-introduce any well-sourced and notable material he deleted without being honest about who he was under standard BLP protocols. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits by Shapps

These are the edits by Shapps of the Wikipedia article about him that were mentioned by The Guardian newspaper article. — O'Dea (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Another article has now been published by the Guardian, identifying another IP address and two user names. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article doesn't really mention the whole HowToCorp. It reads like a press-release from the party, whereas the only interesting things I've ever heard of about this guy is through the ongoing series of articles on HowToCorp. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-election-guru-grant-shapps-5379086 and http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/mar/16/grant-shapps-business-mp-conservative-chairman-michael-green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.238.152.149 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SDP

Was Grant Shapps a member of the SDP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.183.4.169 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely - Tory Shapps was only 19 years old when the SDP was dissolved. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a source, a member of UKIP, who was friends with Shapps at school. The old school friend posted messages on a web board claiming that Shapps was a supporter of the SDP/Liberal alliance. It's not a source that is suitable for Wikipedia. If anybody knows of a wiki-worthy source, for example an article published in a reputable newspaper about Shapps' connection with the SDP, please share it so that the biography can be accurate. It is relevant because Dave Cameron's modernisation project has many former SDP members working in it. Grant Shapps is being presented in the media as a right wing extremist, when in fact he could be just another wet SDP type of person who has snuck into the Tory Party.

Wikipedia airbrushing and Google blacklisting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200536/Top-Tory-airbrushed-Wikipedia-page-new-chairman-deleted-political-gaffes-altered-exam-details.html

This is important for a politician whose job is to represent justice and the electorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.125.190 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it? And he represents "justice"? And "the electorate"? The whole electorate? And here I thought he represented Welwyn Hatfield. Silly me. Anyway, the WP edits might be relevant, but we have to be careful not to put undue weight on it just because it involves WP. As for the Google thing, is it enough that his family did something? Even if he was involved, does it matter? Violating Google's terms of service just doesn't sound like an important enough event for inclusion here. Nor does it, or the WP thing, seem to have anything to do with justice or very much to do with the electorate. -Rrius (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say I very certainly think there's no argument whatsoever for excluding the Google or Wiki incidents. The suggestion that the Google issue relates to his family rather than to Shapps doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He set up and ran the companies in question, and the transfer to the names of family members seems procedural, rather than a material change in ownership. When such cases are in court they look at the likely de-facto owner/director, and in the case of these internet companies, it's unlikely to be his very elderly mother, but Grant Shapps himself. I agree with you that he doesn't necessarily have to represent 'justice', or to work in relevant departments. If an MP has significant or controversial problems with business interests, then it's very much in the public interest, and needs to be covered. Similarly the Wikipedia editing is certainly a significant moral issue, and could also relate to conflicts of interest. Marty jar (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a valuable resource for many researchers and interested members of the public who want a quick summary of the misdeeds of various MPs - without that, we lose a lot. As long as it's well sourced, we should have it in - any activities like this, especially by ministers, but by any MP in the public eye, are worthy of inclusion, and boy are there a lot of them, despite all those patriotic pronouncements we keep hearing that they are all marvellous chaps and chapesses who are only in it to serve. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, it's already in, no-one has tried to take it out, as far as I can see. Span (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard with controversies here

With articles on politicians, there's always the danger that they become lists of every minor 'controversy' the politician has been involved in. It looks like there have been attempts to do that with this one. Before adding the latest 'controversy' to a BLP article, it's always worth considering how significant it is to the person's life and whether it really belongs there.

In this case, three 'controversies' have been added recently to the article: one about Wikipedia edits, another about a company breaking Google's rules, and a third about Twitter followers. My view is: the first of those should stay, since it's likely to be of interest to Wikipedia readers; the second is more borderline, but is probably worth including. But the third seems entirely trivial to me, and I've removed it. I don't think following and unfollowing large numbers of people is even against the rules of Twitter, let alone unethical in a broader sense. Anyone else have any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of due weight and not allowing the article to become an attack piece. For an example of how an article can be ruined by that sort of editing take a look at BP. It can then be very hard to cut the controversies sections back as other editors will state that it is cited.

Having said that, at present the "controversies" content in this article does not look too long, and the recent Wikipedia issues surrounding Shapps are in my firm view something which it is right that this article includes, as is the Google issue. On the Twitter issue I am personally neutral, although if mentioned it should only be a sentence or two at most. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd liked Twitter kept in, even if only a few words of it. ColaXtra (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the Twitter info, as I thought it said a lot about someone and their media-savviness (or not, as the case may be) that they added 5,000 followers at a time. The Guardian, which is the cited source, thought the same (and that Patrick Wintour is a reputable journo, if I'm not mistaken). Following and unfollowing as against the rules? No. Unethical? Borderline. But it's hardly the behaviour of a normal cove, is it, and worth a mention in the context of a politician for whom the media and his image in it is rather important. That detail about the beekeepers can go, certainly, although it struck me as hilarious and a good example of GS's desperation. Ericoides (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is similar to that of Robofish; the Wiki edits are dishonesty, and I think are a longer-term inclusion. I think the criticisms of his companies (I should say, the companies for which he's the de facto MD - despite them being in the names of family members) is also relevant. If an MP's private business interests aren't considered 'conducive to the public good', or are found to have acted immorally then that directly relates to their public position. As it's up, I don't mind the Twitter story too much, but I'd have to say I think it may be something which lasts a few months while the story's recent. I'm not convinced this kind of marketing is of any note, tbh. Marty jar (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RoboFish about the twitter stuff; it's pretty thin material for an encyclopedia article that GS added and removed some twitter followers. Sounds more like just adding anything to the article just to spite GS. Much more obvious cases of Twitter-manipulation go unmentioned in Wikipedia articles. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The wording of this entry actually minimises the significance of the Google and Twitter references. Breaking one of Google's rules doesn't sound like much of a big deal, but the fact that a member of parliament advocated copyright theft is an entirely different matter. His disingenuous approach to Twitter is actually very common practice (Romney got caught pulling the same trick recently), but this kind of detail is still very revealing. I think the information needs to stay. Foomandoonian (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that all the controversies should stay as they occured by a man which is in public office who is representing the public. Every election time people will look at this site and its important to remember all the dodgy activity which has been going on. It is a strong reflection of the man's character. If there is a reference it is VALID!! ~~John B. 21/09/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Look up Clickfraud. GS software is essentially gaming Adsense in a way that can be characterised as Clickfraud..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.19.29 (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Grant Shapps WP:COI and The Guardian

(continuing the discussion from User talk:Hackneymarsh here...)

The WP:COI problem is not (currently) active, and as we don't take action punitively, is it not an issue that needs dealing with by WP. Although I agree some of Grants Shapps (and/or his office) previous edits removed poorly sourced material, the fair characterisation is that Grant Shapps (and/or his office) edited his own article using several accounts/IPs in 2010 (during the lead up to the general election) - an a non-neutral way without disclosure resulting in bias/censorship as well as correctly removing some poorly sourced content. That poorly sourced content is now well sourced after being covered by the Guardian. Most interestingly, if you check the edit history above in 2010, you'll see me noting that the BBC articles I used as sources were edited to remove mention of Grant Shapps and the last edited dates were not updated.

For the record, the Guardian article [3] has published User:Hackneymarsh's (ie Grant's) confusion - where he actually accused me (in his edit summary) of inserting a claim he is in the Freemasons! I have detailed here User talk:Hackneymarsh#Grant Shapps he is factually incorrect and that I, in fact, removed that vandalism from his page, and User:Hackneymarsh (Grant) has ironically confused me with the vandal editor user:81.134.133.243 (that IP is registered to Carillion Construction Ltd, Wolverhampton). Although Hackneymarsh has still has not apologised, the full details are here User talk:Hackneymarsh#Grant Shapps - where the edits clearly show that I removed that claim, and repeatedly warned that vandal. I cannot speculate why someone at Carillion Construction has vandalised his page, but I do know that I have again reported that IP editor to escalate it and keep such vandalism off Wikipedia. Widefox; talk 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE weight to internet activity section

The Internet activity section is UNDUE weight. Navel gazing interactactions on Wikipedia given status as being important. Also some weird thing about mass twit friending? who the fuck cares - there is no context to show anything but trvia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. The manipulation y Shapps of his social media presence and the relationship with his company and pseudonym make this a fairly big political deal - and one which has received pretty significant media coverage. I suggest reviewing the sources and searching around them. Whilst I'd want to avoid gazing at anyone's navy, there's some merit nd weight to this I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian content is all based on the Observer content, which I think should tell you quite a bit. And the fact that he removed a lot of stuff that should have been removed is also irrel. There are thousands of people and their promoters who are anonymously editing their Wikipedia articles every day. It is not in any way news, and there is no evidence that there is any impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Having its own section is undue weight but it does need a mention. This was widely reported at the time and goes to his credibility. If the implication is that the Guardian/Observer lacked objectivity then this source from the Telegraph can be used. My suggestion is to add the following text, with sources of course, to Section 2, which then is reasonable weight:

"It was reported, in September 2012, that Shapps had been surreptitiously editing his Wikipedia biography, to correct inaccuracies, but also to amend claims about political blunders and private donors. Also he, or a person who was able to use his account, appeared to have been periodically adding 5,000 people at a time to those he followed on his Twitter account. If the people he followed did not respond by following him in return, he then 'unfollowed' them." TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

and goes to his credibility. BINGO - exactly why we SHOULD NOT be adding this content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this content is irrelevant, uninteresting, or given undue weight. Red Pen of Doom, you may believe that this type of activity is commonplace and not worth reporting, but Shapps's internet activity has featured prominently in media coverage, from news sources across the political spectrum. However it might be better if it was in the same section as the material on his web-based businesses. TerriersFan's suggestion could achieve this. To be precise it should say that he reportedly deleted information on political blunders and the identity of private donors (rather than 'amend claims'). (By the way, there is something quite peculiar with Shapps that is difficult to avoid referring to even while trying to avoid navel-gazing and maintain a neutral point of view, namely that while most politicians are proud of their business past and any books they might have authored, and these would normally be prominent parts of their Wikipedia pages, Shapps has systematically tried to hide these things. It's difficult even to find out what books he has been involved in writing.) 2.227.136.105 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That he removed content that was completely inappropriate and should have been removed is not news, in fact Good for him! and shame on us for not having done it sooner! Without a third party covering HOW AND WHY the internet activity is important or impactful and not just that it happened, it is Wikipedia editors pushing content in an inappropriate way to make a point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, he removed a mixture of inappropriate content and content that was appropriate but that he did not like. This already seems to have been debated in the previous sections of this talk page and the page was, I think, moderated to reflect that discussion. TRPoD, can you justify your stance, which seems to be that something needs to have a 3rd party source explicitly explaining why it is important in order for it to be covered? Surely that's not always the case. I realise that not all newsworthy events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia but the ongoing coverage of Shapps's internet activity goes beyond the level of celebrity trivia. And I cannot see that this is a case of 'Synthesis of published material that advances a position' because there is not much synthesising or anything resembling original research going on here. If the content reads as pushing for a particular viewpoint (and I think TerriersFan's suggestion avoids this...) then that sounds more like an argument for careful editing rather than removing the information altogether.2.227.136.105 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

When someone advocating for the inclusion of material specifically calls out that the purpose of inclusion is for reasons that are counter to policies such as WP:OR WP:NPOV, then it is most certainly legitimate to require that there be support provided from non-WP:OR / non-WP:UNDUE third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me that the Granuaid, Torygraph, Daily Fail and BBC are a pretty good range of source. All mention this (heck, it might even have been on Newsnight...) There are a wide range of reliable third party sources on this - I dare say we could add to that list.

It also strikes me that if we remove this content because it's critical then we're suggesting that no critical content about any blp can be added to wiki. Which, frankly, is a bit silly, Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@TRPoD WP:OV and WP:NPOV refer to the nature of the content, not the reasons for including the content. Similarly, the 3rd party support has to back up the factual information, and I don't see anywhere suggesting that the 3rd party sources need explicitly to give reasons why the information is worthy of inclusion. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are largely irrelevant here because no viewpoint is being explicitly advocated so there is no question of giving equal weight to different viewpoints. The question is only the (in this case) highly subjective one of whether the content needs to be rearranged to avoid pushing an implicit point of view. WP:UNDUE concerns viewpoints and theories and does not discuss inclusion or exclusion of facts where there is no controversy as to their truth.2.227.136.105 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

When a simple event of a news story is being pushed to be included because "the event goes to show his nature" it is indeed WP:OR and WP:NPOV non compliant. None of the sources that I have seen do anything other than say a particular odd and inconsequential event happened. "ooh he edited his Wikipedia page". - Without the third parties providing commentary about how or why it is important, it is mere trivia. We are not newspapers trying to fill every moment of a 24/7 news cycle to get "scoops". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@TRPoD. No, WP:OR and WP:NPOV say nothing about trying to impute the reasons for particular content being posted, and indeed it would be absurd if the argument came down to the motivations of various users rather than the verifiable and neutral nature of the claims being made.2.227.136.105 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

we are not "imputing" the reasons. the editor has explicitely expressed their reasons - the bring forth an interpretation of the actions that are not specifically stated within any of the sources directly and content that is designed to bring a particular view of a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is indeed so important that it must be included, then you will easily be able to find reputable sources that tell us why. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether imputed or explicitly expressed, the argument has to be with the content rather than with the motivations of the author. As I mentioned above WP:SYN is not pertinent here and WP:BLP says nothing about whether content was 'designed' for a particular end or not. It does say "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources," and GS's internet activity has had persistent coverage in reliable sources, indeed it is possibly the thing he is best known for. The news sources that have covered these stories are not in the habit of explaining to readers why they think the information is important (beyond noting that it is an "embarrassing revelation"; his "nom de plume continues to haunt his political career – it was one of the references removed from Mr Shapps’s Wikipedia entry"; and |"his online interests have been getting him into hot water"), and even if they did, I don't see that would be the main criterion for choosing whether the information is Wikipedia-worthy or not. 2.227.136.105 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The content is biased UNDUE content about a living person and being blatently pushed by editor with explicitely stated POV / OR rationales for including it. You cannot get any more policy based reason for removing content then that. Farts are "embarrassing" but we dont cover them, and in any matter I would not use the Daily Mail to source anything potentially "controversial" about a living person. The BBC link is dead, but that might be usable if the analysis is included and properly attributed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the BBC link which I have corrected. Thanks for the enlightening fart comparison. As I said though I don't see reasons given in news sources about why this is important as the main justification for including it or not. Persistent coverage in reliable sources (and I don't mean the Daily Mail) is the strongest justification, and is sufficient to warrant inclusion in this case. Policy does not refer to rationales, and policy on POVs is about the POV conveyed by the article, not the view of an editor stated in the talk page or elsewhere. The latter might provide reason to be suspicious of an edit, but is not by itself reason to undo it. 2.227.136.105 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As this discussion seems to have stopped I will make changes along the lines of the suggestion of TerriersFan and remove the undue template unless there are further objections.2.227.136.105 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

it is still undue - the only analysis in the BBC is this one line "But also raising eyebrows is the revelation that Grant Shapps has had an alias -"-- "raising eyebrows" is not encyclopedia worthy.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, persistent coverage in reliable sources is sufficient justification to retain this information. I'll add a request for comment in a new section.2.227.136.105 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

More dodgy behaviour from Grant Shapps

There is more dodgy behaviour from Grant Shapps, albeit relatively minor compared to the fraudulent stuff from before regarding HowToCorp, this time reported on in that hard-left newspaper the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308460/Grant-Shapps-office-online-trickery-sham-used-models-make-Tory-activists-look-youthful-touch-Britain.html Kookiethebird (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

you are citing the Daily Mail? seriously? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually believe that the article is incorrect, or is it just that you don't like any criticism of Grant Shapps no matter where it comes from? Also, for the record, what sites do you consider to be acceptable as sources? Kookiethebird (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a response from you does rather suggest that (1) that you accept that the article is correct and (2) that you don't like criticism of Grant Shapps no matter where it comes from (and (3) that you can't bring yourself to admit to either of the two). Also, I'm still waiting for a list of 'approved' sources. Kookiethebird (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@Kookiethebird. Though I've previously supported retention of various other content about Shapps, I have to say this Daily Mail story is very weak and looks a lot like a hatchet job -- I'm sure it's probably true but only shows that one of his team used a stock photo -- probably why the rest of the press didn't pick up on it.82.15.230.104 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC) (Correction - it's also in the Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservatives-photo-fakery-row-young-1828364) 82.15.230.104 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No I wasn't actually going to add it to the article; I would've done so already if I was going to do that. I was just mentioning it here for future reference. Kookiethebird (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Internet activity - undue?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the section internet activity give undue weight to the information contained there? In a previous section of the talk page editor TRPoD has argued that it does, while others have disagreed. There are at least three possibilities: remove the content altogether; keep the content (perhaps in reduced form) but include it in other sections; remove the undue tag and leave the content as it is. (The previous discussion on the talk page has more details of the arguments and a specific suggestion for reorganising the content.)2.227.136.105 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Retain the core of the content but add to section 2. Not worth its own section but should be retained in a very much abbreviated form. TerriersFan (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Retain in some form. There are sources from reliable, third party publications to support the inclusion of material dealing with Shapps' manipulation of modern media formats. These clearly link to his business activities and his political career and remain, as of now, one of the more notable things about him IMO. To keep NPoV we really need to be able to retain it at present. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

if it were one of the more notable things about him, there should be oodles of pundits commenting about it - do you have any? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of sources have commented about it (see links above). You reject these, as I understand it, because they do not explicitly state the reasons for the story's importance, or give reasons that you don't find adequate. However, I do not see that as a reasonable criterion, nor one which is applied to other biographies, and it also has no basis in policy. Instead policy says "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". (Sorry to repeat myself!) 2.227.136.105 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

as we discussed above, a declaration that something "raised eyebrows" is not a serious or relevant analysis/commentary. if no one has anything better than those, i firmly stand by my position. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No such criterion needs to be met to retain the content.2.227.136.105 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pundits? Gosh, I rather hoped for some rather more reliable third party sources instead of op ed pieces myself, but since you ask, the Telegraph has at least two articles on just the wikipedia editing, the Guardian 3 (plus the Observer). The Indy's pages seem to have search issues just now and I won't use the Times. A GSearch clearly shows up articles in the Mail as well as a fairly prominent mention in his BBC profile - a subheading for example there carries a fair amount of weight imo. You've also got the Welwyn Hatfield Times, for example, with a prominent article and Computer Active covers it as well - in, imo, it's right place as an extension of Shapps' business career. So, yeah, there's plenty I reckon. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And, as I press Save page, I find that the St Albans and Harpenden Review has an article which mentions it in reference to the trust his constituents seem to be losing in him. Which is probably significant in itself tbh. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

again, NONE of those have any commentary or analysis showing how or why it is anything other than "silly season" hoo ha. the closest any of the articles come to anything relevant is the BBC's statement that it "raised eyebrows". complete and utter nonsense as far as any real encyclopedic content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it includes commentary or analysis is not a question I want to be drawn into. They do, however, show that the incident has been deemed notable enough to have been considered in relation to Shapps over a period of time - at least a month or two. There are multiple, reliable, third party sources (as well as some op-ed pieces in generally reliable sources) some of which go into some significant detail about the events in question. Some also draw links between Shapps/Green businesses and Shapps' political career. At least one comments directly on how events have led to a loss of trust with his constituents. The suggestion below, perhaps extended to show links to his business and the ASA case, seems reasonable to me. On the whole though I rather think that instead of going over the same ground again and again we'd be better off calling for a wider range of opinions on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never stated that is was not part of the 24/7 news cycles and silly season coverage. but we are not a 24/7 news paper needing to fill column inches or put out the titliating trivia to draw eyeballs. we are an encyclopedia that puts day to day news into proper persective, and that means analysis and not just anthenthishappenanthenthishappenanthenthishappen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• delete as WP:UNDUE coverage of trivia until there is any third party analysis that shows it is any more than filler in the 24 hour news cycles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Retain, but minimize The story is at the point where it would be surprising if it weren't included, but the discussion shouldn't be much more than that it exists unless and until it becomes a bigger deal. -Rrius (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Retain, but reduce There has been persistent media coverage over a number of months. Indeed it is arguably the thing Shapps is best known for. It should probably not have its own section. I don't think the content fits under Professional and writing career but perhaps that section heading could be altered to accommodate it. The content could be reduced along the following lines:

Shapps's internet activity has been the subject of significant media coverage. This has included surreptitiously editing his Wikipedia biography, including the identity of financial donors to his private office, and boosting his number of followers on Twitter by following and "unfollowing" large numbers of other accounts. (With references added, of course.) 2.227.136.105 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Retain in its entirety and in its own section - When there's a mainstream controversy like this, people come to the Wikipedia article and want to jump straight to the summarized details of the controversy. Digging through other sections or text searching the article is not really something we should force users to do. Weight-wise, it's pretty minimal. If you are going to mention a controversy, you have to mention both sides of the issue, so while it might inflate the character and sentence count a bit, it's worth it to maintain balance. This is not without precedent, in a lot of WP:BLP's, half the article is devoted to the controversy the person is known for. Deleting a few sentences would either sacrifice the heart of the debate or the balance, both a net loss IMO. And if, as 2.227.136.105 says, it is what he is best known for, we have been very forgiving. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

we are not here to satisfy readers potential tabloid instincts, WP:BLP / WP:NOT / WP:STRUCTURE etc. in fact your statements are reasons to DELETE the section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We are here to inform. If users want to know about the debate, then we should tell them. And listing policies doesn't really help. I can do it too: WP:INCLUDE, WP:BALANCE, WP:CENSOR. Are they actually relevant? Did I even read them? Who knows! But I can certainly list them, lol. Oh, and *clears throat*, "no ur post is reesons to kepe olo". 159.1.15.34 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Retain There's fairly extensive coverage of this in the guardian, and if you read the guardian articles, it becomes clear that either the guardian is making stuff up, or they actually have information from the inside to back up what they are saying. AFAIK the guardian is considered a reliable source, so we must assume the latter. I don't think the current text reflects badly on Shapps—he's correct to say that he has every right to go in and edit his Wikipedia article to fix errors, and while we as wikipedians might call this a conflict of interest, he, as a wiktim of a BLP, need not. I think the text does refer to notable events and is not being given undue weight. If this section were a pure hatchet job, I'd be against it, but as a friend of a wiktim myself, I find that it reads pretty sympathetically. I think "internet activity" is a crappy title for the section, but haven't been able to come up with a better one. I oppose shrinking this section, since I suspect what would be removed would be the quote from Shapps explaining himself. Abhayakara (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• acceptable at the present level of emphasis. If the coverage were just one newspaper, I'd have some doubts, but at this point it's become more general. As it has major political implications---or it would have major political implication in the US--what does or done not get taken a serious delinquency among UK politicians sometimes rather startles me--it is appropriate content. I added a qualifier word to an earlier section of the article. I hate "alleged", but I couldn't think of a better, & something was needed. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Retain per DGG. It's not undue weight given the length of the article. For what it's worth, it does seem a bit strange that we've separated out the 'Michael Green' stuff from the Wikipedia stuff, as the two would seem to go better together than apart. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Negative comments by 85.237.212.58

These are the edit summaries in reverting what were only reversions of my own to the established content. (And just now someone has reverted all that, so clearly I'm not on my own in thinking that removing huge amounts of information is not on.)

1. This contributor has specialised in adding random negative stories. Lacks NPOV.

This first comment in particular I'm very annoyed about. What evidence is there that I "specialise" in adding "random negative stories"? If you can't provide any evidence then you really should act in an adult-like way and apologise.

2. lengthy and appears political + lacking in NPOV

No, just a reversion.

3. Removed bio to publications without ISBN numbers 4. Undid revision - entry far too long and clearly intended as less than NOPV

Except that it was just a reversion, so it can't really be intended as anything very much.

5. Undid revision 564540649

Not even an explanation given here.

Dear Grant Shapps, clearly your and your supporter's dodgy behaviour knows no bounds. Kookiethebird (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing a large section of properly cited text just because it is potentially damaging to Mr Shapps image under the pretence of NPOV is not on as [[4]]. If there is anything that requires a reword due to NPOV then that should be addressed not the removal of an entire section. I will add the section back in and it can be discussed on the talk page as all large or controversial changes should be. I would also remind the IP editor that this page gets immense scrutiny from both Wikipedians and members of the press. Fraggle81 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

---

First of all I have no connection whatsoever with the individual in this wiki entry. I've never spoken to, communicated with - etc. I do think this entry is over the top and unhelpful to the casual reader and to wiki's own reputation. It appears written with considerable political bias, and some contributors appear to take an interest in highlighting negative stories.

So let's try to reach some consensus.

First of all length of the wiki entry:

Shapps's Wikipedia entry clocks in at 3,072 words, detailing his life or rather specific aspects in minute detail; for comparison, that of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, an American Civil war hero, who has had a number of books written about him, statues cast in his image, and is the subject of an Oscar-winning film starring Matthew Broderick, is around 1,300 words.

On your point 1 - 1. This contributor has specialised in adding random negative stories. Lacks NPOV.

My point is that this entry is overlong largely because it lacks NPOV. All politicians from left or right will have natural opponents and so press stories are very likely. Nonetheless, the job of wiki is to boil that down into a neutral perspective. I certainly didn't mean to insult you (so apologies), but you do seem keen to maintain lengthy and specifically negative commentary in this article. We should be aiming for a NPOV throughout. And this article should be shorter and more balanced.

For example, the section on 'Alternative identity practice' is the longest on this wiki and even the title is written to sound negative. Authors frequently write under a pen name. For example, JK Rowling has written under the pen name Robert Galbraith and yet there's no section on her wiki entitled Alternative identity practice. Again, our responsibility is to keep articles in proportion and devoid of imbalanced terminology.

I'm open to suggestions, but it does seem to me that this article should be far more concise and be written far more neutrally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.211.238 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Alternative identity practice - undue?

Although I can see that the issue of what to include on this article has come up a number of times before, I think it's perhaps time to discuss it again. So let's leave the article as it is at the moment while we discuss what should be included. Let's give it one month from today and then let an administrator make the final decision. So editors have until 22nd August to give their views. Kookiethebird (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks excessive to me - there's almost as much content in this section as about his entire political career. The basic points are worth including, but it doesn't seem to me like we need to mention every alleged instance of him using a pseudonym or alternate identity. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's ludicrous, but looking back at the history, any attempt to moderate the article is immediately undone. What to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.232.94 (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finally found the time to at least reply to one point that another anonymous user made:

"Shapps's Wikipedia entry clocks in at 3,072 words, detailing his life or rather specific aspects in minute detail; for comparison, that of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, an American Civil war hero, who has had a number of books written about him, statues cast in his image, and is the subject of an Oscar-winning film starring Matthew Broderick, is around 1,300 words."

I'm not about to start copying articles into Word just to do a word count. But what I would say is that anyone alive today is typically going to have more written about them than someone alive hundreds of years ago simply because it's so much easier to get sources for people alive today. Instead of comparing the amount written about Shapps to someone alive a very long time ago, how about comparing him to politicians alive today, such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? Now of course I would expect more to be written about them, but look at just how much more there is.

As for the anonymous user above, the reason why your attempts to "moderate" the article are being undone is firstly because you're removing huge amounts - 12,650 characters is a huge amount - and secondly because this issue has been debated at length before: just look further up this Talk page. If you want to remove huge amounts, the onus is on you to explain why that should be done, not for others to have to justify adding it back in again. What would also help to reassure about your intentions is if you created an account and then other posters know whether they're talking to the same person as on previous occasions or not. Kookiethebird (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2013

(UTC)

It's pretty naive not to recognize that this biography it's beyond politically bias. it's clearly been written or edited by those with a political axe to grind. there is nothing balanced about it and the section on identity is simply there to list negative links on stories which are themselves politically written. it's surprising that you would want such a bias article to exist in its current form. requires a npov re-write.

the reason that large amounts of text are getting removed is because it's completely out of range from the kind of neutrality that wiki is meant to represent. you've suggested its reviewed above yourself.

But I was only suggesting it should be discussed because people like you were coming along and removing huge amounts. I was trying to encourage people to talk about it first, rather than just going ahead and removing huge amounts, especially as the issue of what to include has been discussed before. And I disagree that it's naive not to recognise that it's politically biased, because I've read it and I don't accept that it is politically biased. I think that it's written in a neutral way, it's just that there are a lot of cases of him using alternative identities to his benefit. And again, what would help to reassure about your intentions is if you created an account. Otherwise it just looks like it's the same one or two personal supporters of Grant Shapps wanting to excise anything negative about Shapps from his article. Kookiethebird (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. If I wanted to remove negative comments then there are plenty more. This is about building an article which is fair and neutral and this one is neither. Reading back through the history it's clearly been trolled for many years. The articles quoted are always the negative, never positive. This section is the most over the top Plenty of people rite under pen names, few of them openly like this particular character, yet none have sections called alternative identity practice. It's just politically driven and isn't doing wiki any good. I don't know whether you are political or not. Let's assume for the moment that you aren't. But even you must recognize that what we have here is an article which looks to be written and maintained by the British Labour party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.232.88 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is only a lot a of negative information because Shapps has done a lot of negative things. If he didn't want negative coverage about himself then he should have thought of that before doing these things, rather than doing them and then expecting Wikipedia not to cover them. Anyway, what I suggest you do is invite Edwardx to comment, as it's currently him who is re-adding the huge amount of information that you keep removing. However, I have to say, I can see that he has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, including creating many articles about people, whereas you only seem to be interested in removing negative information about Shapps. By the way, I'm not a supporter of Labour, I just don't like unethical people. Kookiethebird (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

our interest should be in creating a quality, accurate, representation of someone's life. this wiki page is ludicrous. the fact that it begins by saying that the officialin is also known as two other people shows where some of its contributors are coming from. lots of authors have written under pen names, that doesn't constitute being known as someone else. it's just misleading of the wiki page. I note that this individual did not even write under one of the names attributed, for example. the lengthy extent to which people are going to beba this bio on a guardian view of the world is bringing the page and sure into disrepute when left unchallenged. your comment that you believe all that you've read indicates a loss of balance given that there are positive stories which are instantly removed - view the history. furthermore, Edwards is supposed to be experienced, yet does not bother to come here and discuss his changes. why would you side with that clear lack of wiki respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.232.88 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have reverted your edit once again. If you want others to respect your contributions, you need to be seek a more constructive approach. And write more coherently please. Blanket removals of cited content will not win you any respect here. Much better to propose a rewording. I'm Edwardx, not Edwards. I believe I am disinterested with regard to Grant Shapps, my interest is merely in keeping cited content unless someone can propose a better version. Edwardx (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion on my watchlist. I think that the point about inclusion of the material in the lede is a reasonable one. We're not talking about an explicit alter ego like we might with Madonna or Lady Gaga. Even in J. K. Rowling, we do not have the alter ego of Robert Galbraith in the first paragraph. What we have with Shapps is a man who had these pen names to write these spammy emails. Can we imagine a universe in which Shapps is going to be proud of this kind of thing in ten years time? No.

Should we therefore white-wash the entry of any mention of the Michael Green stuff? No. That's ludicrous too. We need to find a half-way house between white-washing this article of any mention of his online activities and a situation where we are using his article as basically a way to poke him with a stick. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should most probably not be mentioned in the lede. However, blanket reversion of cited content without adequate justification by anonymous IP editors does not encourage me to do the hard work for them! Edwardx (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've no interest in biasing this article in favour of this politician. I just don't think it's appropriate for wiki to carry such a blatantly politically motivated biography either. It's factually incorrect in many regards and the fact that a newspaper wrote a story isn't sufficient to allow misrepresentation to continue. but for reference, neither do I think that every reference needs to be removed. I just believe it could be treated as a less controversial biography might be handled. So in the same way that Edwardx (sorry for referencing you as Edwards previously) says that he can't be bothered to do all the work on research, there isn't much point in anyone doing it currently because the moment the bio is moderated, even slightly (see lengthy history from before I was involved), it's immediately altered back. usually with a couple of additional one sided articles added for good measure. it just doesn't stack up to good Wikipedia practice, yet it's almost being encouraged in this case. back to factually incorrect elements, if you read even the articles linked, probably in themselves politically briefed, you'll see that Shapps never owned the company (at the relevant time) to use the name Sebastian Fox. He did clearly use the name Michael Green and is quoted as saying that he was entirely open about the fact, even including this information in his own online biography. neither of these two key facts is acknowledged in the article. when such balancing info is included it's quickly removed presumably by those who wish to present this politician, or perhaps all politicians in a bad light. the article does need a good deal of fact checking, balance, editing because frankly it's too long.I agree that deleting sections isn't ideal, but nor is sloppily allowing non facts and reputation damaging untrue material to remain surely. so let's fix it properly and base it on real research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.232.94 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You end by stating "so let's fix it properly and base it on real research", and then you do the same blanket reversion as every other time. What you need to do is propose a modified alternative. Edwardx (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is little point in doing this work if you and other delete even the most basic fact checked alterations. yet all you've done is hit revert to a version which is completely over the top. If it were possible to achieve a balanced version then that would be preferable, but I've written in detail above and you've produced a single sentence reply and hit revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.232.94 (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Either deliberately or by accident you've missed Edwardx's point. You say that you're written in detail above but what he said you need to do is to propose a modified alternative.

While I'm writing a comment, let me directly ask a couple of questions: 1. Why are you not willing to create an account? 2. Why are you only interested in editing this one article? Kookiethebird (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolving issues with Grant Shapps article

Please note this conversation with experienced wiki editor Edwardx about the Shapps article before making your own amends. The intention is to get reasonable collective agreement for sensible edits in order to better balance this biography. The removal of large sections or undocumented/unexplained changes are not appreciated. It is also always preferred to edit wiki articles from a wiki user account, perhaps more so with this article which has proved controversial. Contribsx (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The removal of large sections or undocumented/unexplained changes are not appreciated, you wrote, Contribsx, but on 29th March 2015, when you removed 3000-odd bytes saying that you were removing anon edits, most of what you removed were not anon edits? Please don't remove the work that I added today. I've worked on some controversial pages before now. During the last election Russian Presidential election campaign there was an editor called grey... who used every possible reason he could think of to whitewash Putin's page. But Britain is an open democracy? Boscaswell (talk 11:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Having first contacted Edwardx Kookiethebird and others to alert them to my post above about resolving this article, I've waited a couple of days and am now beginning trying to sort out this article. My first amend is to remove the reference to pen-names in the introduction, as per Tom Morris Shapps talk page comments above repeated here for clarity: "I just saw this discussion on my watchlist. I think that the point about inclusion of the material in the lede is a reasonable one. We're not talking about an explicit alter ego like we might with Madonna or Lady Gaga. Even in J. K. Rowling, we do not have the alter ego of Robert Galbraith in the first paragraph. What we have with Shapps is a man who had these pen names to write these spammy emails. Can we imagine a universe in which Shapps is going to be proud of this kind of thing in ten years time? No.

"Should we therefore white-wash the entry of any mention of the Michael Green stuff? No. That's ludicrous too. We need to find a half-way house between white-washing this article of any mention of his online activities and a situation where we are using his article as basically a way to poke him with a stick. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)"

Shapps is the Chairman of the governing party of GB and therefore a very important public figure who has a duty of care to everyone in the country. If he does anything which is remotely dishonest or morally reprehensible, such as lying about pen names or denying a second job or selling plagiaristic software which is designed to abuse Google's rules, then no way can any editor say that any of that shouldn't be in the article about him. The way to include it, surely, is to make clear what has happened, what he has done, but to do it in a non-judgmental way, that is, to merely state the facts. I hope my edits today read in this way. Where it appears that it is disfavourable to Shapps, so be it. I have stated the facts. A high-ranking politician who one day states categorically that he didn't do something controversial and then the next day makes an admission that he did must stand or fall on his own record, however unfortunate his own record is. He cannot in all fairness complain about a biographical article which sets out that day-by-day absurdity. Boscaswell (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be fair comment and we probably all agree. I have left further references in the article itself.

Again, taking this all one step at a time, I next intend to work through the remaining biography and update it. It looks like some notable/significant parts of the article are missing - for example controversy revolving around ending lifetime social housing tenures while Shapps was Housing Minister, whereas there is quite a bit on what appear minor or frivolous sideshows.

However, I don't want to rail-road any of these changes through, so will now wait a day or two to give others the opportunity to comment. This will also allow me to get back to working on other political biographies meantime. Contribsx (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently travelling. I'll have a look at the changes in detail tomorrow. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Morris - I've essentially adopted your approach with this, but have also re-organised the intro to better reflect the style of other cabinet members and ministers. Contribsx (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added citations and missing info (e.g. more sources for cancer treatment/outcome and 2010 election result, etc) to 'Family and early life' and 'Member of Parliament' sections. Have yet to tackle further down article. Working through methodically and working on some other wiki articles in the meantime. Contribsx (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't studied your changes closely, but it all looks good so far. And your attention to detail and referencing are to be commended. Edwardx (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hardergamer, a number of wiki editors have worked together to create a better article (see discussion above). You've added a large +4,286 section which is fine, but you've been a wiki editor for just two weeks and your profile page is missing. Please discuss changes here. Contribsx (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

O-levels

Just raising a minor point: the article currently states that Shapps has five O-levels. According to Welwyn Hatfield Times 24, Shapps has six. The article appears to have been written with Shapps's co-operation, but I thought I'd bring it up here before making changes to the (already) sourced item. --VeryCrocker (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes just saw that too after an anon IP edit which left it at five, but mentioned failing a science O Level. I work on a lot of political articles here and am not aware of any others which actually include references to O levels. It doesn't seem that relevant. However, as background this article original (wrongly) stated four O levels and was wrongly edited again to five. Now that the school report document has been seen we know that it is in fact six. On balance, I don't actually think it really matters and have removed, in part because the last edit was anon, but also because it's largely irrelevant. Contribsx (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why cant he fix his exams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.81.223 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Maggots

Stewart Lee has authored a satirical article in the Guardian about Grant Shapps in which he describes Schapps's business running a maggot vending machine company. It is a joke. Unless anyone objects I am going to remove the reference to maggots in the article. Tripper (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see somebody has beaten me to it. Tripper (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How should Michael Green pseudonym be reflected in infobox?

Some guidance on this would be appreciated as partisan edits keep trying to make it more prominent than, say, a pseudonym in a writer or celebrity's infobox. Zen78 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In the {{Infobox writer}} template there is a field |pseudonym= that renders as a label of "Pen name". The template {{Infobox celebrity}} was deleted as redundant five years ago, presumably because most celebrity bios use {{Infobox person}} or one of its immediate derivatives (Infobox writer has not yet been converted to use Infobox person as a base, as many others have). The template {{Infobox musical artist}} has a parameter |alias= that renders its label as "Also known as". However, {{Infobox officeholder}} has none of those, which probably accounts for the difficulty in keeping it neutrally represented in the current infobox. There is a way to make use of custom parameters in this infobox, however, and I've demonstrated that in an exemplar edit to the article. Please feel free to revert it if it's not what is wanted, or modify it if a different label would work better. As you can see, the position of the parameters in the wikitext of the infobox has no bearing on the position of the resulting row in the table as rendered, so we're stuck with it being at the bottom. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was after. Zen78 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

Please add the following text, reflecting a story published on the Guardian website today adding new details about Shapps's activities on Wikipedia. Sources as discussed in the text. On April 21st 2015, the Guardian published an article entitled 'Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory Rivals' which alleged that Shapps or someone closely connected to him not only edited his own Wikipedia article but introduced negative comments to page relating to Philip Hammond, Justine Greening and Lynton Crosby amongst prominent Conservatives, using the username Contribsx. The user has been banned on the grounds 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.” 134.220.170.63 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Request disabled. See below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Combining sock puppetry and pseudonyms

Given the increasing number of incidents of sock puppetry by/on behalf of Shapps on Wikipedia, a previous instance on YouTube and the range of pseudonyms used in his marketing businesses - is there justification in combining these under a separate section?Zen78 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If we do include it might I suggest waiting until the 8th May to avoid the obvious risk of WP:NPOV accusations? Plus I certainly don't think we are going to use LibDem Voice as a source, particularly in light of this [5] recently engineered [6] story. However given the 2 instances have been reported (how widely?) in the nationals years apart [7], it might be worth a mention. What is the usual practice when somethings notability is due to goings on in Wikipedia itself? --wintonian ^talk 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree on any change being post-GE and the inappropriateness of LDV - first place I saw in Google. There's also the oddness of his, apparently non-existent, middle V initial appearing on candidate registrations for two previous GEs. Were it just the Wikipedia sock puppetry, then I agree it would be navel gazing (as was discussed above) but it seems like a common pattern of behaviour. Zen78 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not unusual for politicians to have a "controversy" section involving well-sourced allegations, and provided a consensus and policy-compliant wording could be achieved I wouldn't see any problem in including it before the 8th May. The wording will need to reflect Shapps' denials, including this new story as at present the evidence of Shapps' involvement is circumstantial. Dtellett (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally disagree on any change needing to be post-GE. I myself have already posted in this talk article that contribsx had said that he was removing 3000 bytes of anon edits, but that what was actually removed by him was not anon edits, while firmly telling him not to delete my edits. His is nothing short of disgraceful conduct and we should not shy away from making this clear in the article simply because to do so might be controversial pre-GE. Boscaswell (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this illustrate the point about WP:NPOV? Judgements about conduct, disgraceful or otherwise, are unhelpful and not a sound basis for editing living persons pages. Zen78 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe a "controversies" section should be added, as a way of tidying up the sections of the page, as well as for the interest of those within the constituency he is running for. As far as it being post/pre Election, as long as it reflects (if and when) Shapps has denied the allegations, it would be as close to neutral as possible, without leaving it out. So, it shouldn't be a problem being pre-GE. Ryan5f (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If edits are to be GE-agnostic then it's very simple: we can forget all about the GE and simply carry on editing as normal. Delaying a valid edit because of the timing of an election allows bias to creep into the process just as much as rushing out a bad edit before and election would. Noel darlow (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think this could be worked into the commentary on his Michael Green pseudonym... [8][9] Dtellett (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This article needs a controversy/allegations section. This should really be part of the template for politicians. Ie: Factual section(s): personal life, career, things we know for certain. Separate section for things which are still under debate. As is the article is confusing. This undermines the authority of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:623:1100:80B9:A141:1F9F:81B0 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There's essays that may help...why we don't create controversy sections WP:CSECTION, while there's no WP:DEADLINE we also don't delay WP:TIAD. Widefox; talk 00:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. WP:CSECTION appears to back the idea of an "Internet activity" (for want of a better title) section. A section on Controversies isn't what I was suggesting, as it would encourage POV spats rather than stating facts/denials/etc. Zen78 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to go with the "Public behaviour" (or likewise) idea proposed in the essay, after all there is certainly enough content for a controversies type section even if we can't call it one. Regarding the activities of Contribsx et al. I agree that Shapps's denial needs to be included. As far as post/ pre GE inclusion is concerned it is only 15 days away and given that this is Wikiepedia it might take us at least that long to stop arguing about it and change the light bulb. --wintonian ^talk 07:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to draw attention to the section above #RfC:_Internet_activity_-_undue.3F where there was a discussion on the Internet Activity section, and a consensus that it should be kept, back in 2012. This got ignored in much of what happened subsequently, but is I think still relevant.82.14.198.97 (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the creation of a "Controversies", "Public behaviour" or similar section whose only purpose would be to shame a living person. These matters should be covered in full with the appropriate level of weight but within the general run of the article and the reader can make up their own mind what sort of person they think he is. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They should be covered, but having a section for them is not the way to do it. I also think the "Wikipedia" section needs a bit of a re-write. I've removed the self-referenced example, we shouldn't be picking one example (that's adding undue weight to that edit) and shouldn't be referencing Wikipedia as a primary source. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why we shouldn't include some detail of what Contribsx did, eg. as I have edited in twice, only for someone else to come along and remove it, that on 29th March he removed all reference to the second job controversy. It is a fact that this occurred, what the heck is wrong with stating facts, irrespective of whether they are wiki stuff. Boscaswell (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of due weight, Boscaswell. The policy WP:BALASPS is worth quoting here: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." If you read the discussions, there seems to me to be a sort of emerging agreement that the activities of Contribsx are only of minor significance in the biography of Grant Shapps. While there seems to be some agreement that a brief mention of Contribsx is appropriate, there seems little appetite to go into any detail; and I'm even having to work at present to find agreement that we ought to at least state the apparent connection. HTH --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry, I disagree, and strongly. It seems to me that every time anyone puts in any detail about Contribsx, including for example that he was traceable back to another sockpuppet of Shapps, someone else comes along and edits it out. It's as if a lot of the people on here editing this page might just as well themselves be Contribsx, as they can better find some reason not to include some detail which might be damning. Let's face it, the detail gives the measure of the man, to say it is of only minor siginificance is ridiculous. When politicians were more honourable, they would have resigned for less. Boscaswell (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You claim that there is some emerging agreement that it is of only minor significance. This is patently absurd. It was on the front page of newspapers! Of minor significance? That idea is completely, utterly, totally ridiculous. Boscaswell (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. A major national newspaper also chose to investigate the WP admin responsible for the allegations in the Guardian story and the block and get the following quote out of him "I can't, therefore, say whether [Contribsx] was Grant Shapps or not", in addition to accusing him of a political conflict of interest. [10] That alone suggests that detailed analysis of Contribsx edits don't belong in a NPOV biography. In addition, as has recently been stressed, Shapps has a long history of attracting media coverage, much of it negative, and the fact this coverage is more recent and involves Wikipedia does not make it more relevant than, say, his business activities or his ministerial career. Frankly, for anyone interested in following the story up there's a detailed article in the Guardian and a wealth of primary source material on the history section anyway. I understand that you were involved in trying to restore appropriate content at an early stage when Contribsx was edit-warring, I understand you may have much stronger views than other editors on the matter, but your reluctance to accept the validity of the opinions of multiple other editors and obvious partisan tone is not also conducive towards writing a biography in a NPOV manner. Dtellett (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusing Boscaswell of being partisan seems uncalled-for. You are entitled to argue for the most favourable treatment possible of Grant Shapp's behaviour, within reason, but remember that we are talking about actions which testify to the lack of character and honesty of a government minister - indeed a history of such actions. This isn't complicated. We are writing an encycopedia and therefore: (1) all relevant factual content must be clearly explained without adding anything or taking anything away and (2) all content must be well-indexed so that it can easily be found. It seems wrong to argue that adding a new section or sub-title adds "undue weight" when in fact the same content is simply being presented in a better-organised, better-indexed way. Noel darlow (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitialisation of "The Clash"

I indevertently re-reverted an edit without an adequate comment. I had intended to cite WP:THECAPS:

Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.:

• Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.

Verbcatcher (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this before reverting User:John. I don't think the MOS is right though. It doesn't make sense not to capitalise a word that is part of a proper noun. – PeeJay 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised by this convention. I was about to revert the original edit, but looked up the MOS. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I haven't put a tag on it but I think the lead could do with a rewrite to better summarise the article, ensure it only contains material cited in the body and to restrict references only to material that may be challenged per MOS:LEAD. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Spam emails

For anyone interested in writing this up, it seems Spamcop blacklisted the IP addresses of Shapps' business for sending spam emails around 2004, to the extent that even his firm's internal emails went to the spam folder. Here's a forum post from the time by Shapps whining about it: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/topic/1029-now-all-my-mail-is-going-to-the-held-folder/ Discussion (caution: anonymous blog, not really an acceptable source): http://cleveryou.net/post/30793174088/grant-shapps-mp-spam 81.136.142.44 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing section

I tidied up the wikipedia editing section - removing the bits that I thought were not relevant and adding a few sources. I see that's been reverted so would like to see some views. My thoughts:

• We should not be including the username used - that's a purely internal thing, and really not useful in an encycloepdic sense. Considering there is also IP editing and a previous username also, it's much better to just not include it.
• We should not include one single example in a diff. It's a primary source and adding weight to that incident. From my reading of the individual's editing there's multiple issues with it, from digs at other politicians to sanitising this biography. Us chosing a single incident that is an "example" gives undue weight to that example. The source (Guardian) has a far more in depth analysis of the editing.
• We need to be careful on the weight we're giving to this entire section in the article - his entire life, indeed his political career, is hardly defined by editing wikipedia.

I'd appreciate any other thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I much preferred your version to the subsequent edits. We have to remember that whilst context suggests that Contribx was probably Grant Shapps or someone working on his behalf, the story is an allegation he denies, so highlighting edits Contribx made is rather more weight than it deserves and also recentism. Especially when the opening sentence of the section already states earlier, more conclusive reports that Shapps or his office edited "both to correct errors and to remove embarrassing information." As an aside, frankly, it's not at all unusual for embarrassing material to be removed from MP bios by those closely linked with them, and not especially unusual for politicians to be accused of it by notable sources. Shapps other business and parliamentary interests - including the scandalous ones - are more significant Dtellett (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll revert back this evening if there's no objections. Worm^TT(talk) 14:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia username – Contribx has been referenced by this name in multiple mainstream media reports. It is a possible search term. Some might argue for a redirect from Contribx to Grant Shapps.
• diff example – If we give an example then this is a reasonable one to give. We should not give more than one example, as this would give undue weight. On balance I would remove this.
• Undue weight – We should not give undue prominence to Wikipedia, however readers are likely to come to come to Wikipedia for information on Wikipedia, and to this article for information on this issue. I think the section has about the right level of prominence. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Giving the name of the account also allows readers to follow up the edits. This is more important if we delete the example. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable - but do we need to mention the username twice? Worm^TT(talk) 14:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you take out the example then we'd only mention it once. In my last edit it was only mentioned once,. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think we can use a primary source on this BLP. --John (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read through the three sources used to support the opening sentence of the Wikipedia editing section, I don't see that there are reliable sources to sustain the claim that the edits were "to correct errors". The three sources all list embarrassing information that had been removed, in the voice of the reporter/editor, so carry the weight of the publication to establish their reliability. However, the only thing that comes close to a mention of correcting mistakes (in the Mail Online piece) is a quotation completely attributed to Shapps and is not reliable for the (supposed) actions of others. I've therefore removed the "to correct errors" part of the opening sentence. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Both Guardian articles from 2012 already in the source make reference to the Wikipedia article apparently reporting the wrong number of O levels, with the second reporting it as fact. This is also supported by this article which has gone to the trouble of identifying his actual results [11] Given this, I don't think the claim that some of the edits aimed to correct errors is really in dispute so I'm restoring it. Dtellett (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, that's one claimed error, not "errors" (plural). Secondly the three sources cited make almost no mention of the correction of errors, but list many edits made to remove embarrassing information. It's simply not neutral to summarise those articles as "both to correct errors and to remove embarrassing information". It is abundantly clear from all the sources that the bulk of CoI edits were an attempt to whitewash the BLP, not a genuine effort to correct inaccurate information and Wikipedia should not be misrepresenting the sources in that way. I've offered an alternative formulation. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your initial edit also gave the appearance of not being neutral, hence why I restored the earlier wording. I'm happier with your updated wording, which is more consistent with the source. (beside the point really, since its not in the source, but some of the less destructive Contribsx edits to this and other pages were also error corrections) Dtellett (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I also see that an example of the edits made by Contribsx was deleted as "primary sourced material", which left the connection of Contribsx to Shapps unstated. If we are going to mention the account, we ought to at least make use of the Guardian source that supports the rest of that sentence to note that it was connected. The source says "Wikipedia tracked a range of IP addresses used by Contribsx to a web hosting service regularly employed by internet spammers. The same service had been used by an anonymous user in 2013 to remove material from Wikipedia related to How To Corp, to Michael Green and to Shapps’ past sockpuppetry. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This is your edit ", which used the same IP addresses as previous sockpuppets of Shapps". I suggest this is much firmer than what you quote above. Please don't downplay or obfuscate edits in the Edit Summary. Referring to the Talk section as if you've acted based on consensus when you haven't is also unhelpful. Zen78 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"...which used the same IP addresses as previous sockpuppets of Shapps..." This is too technical for an encyclopedia. If we keep this we must wikilink or define "sockpuppet" and "IP Address". Verbcatcher (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't need (and probably shouldn't try) to back up our assertions with evidence. Citing a reliable source such as The Guardian is sufficient. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And it should be "previous alleged sockpuppets". Verbcatcher (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Zen78: You'll find it's just what the source that I quoted above said, not anything firmer. I stand by my edit summary: "the significance of Contribsx had been removed as relying on a primary source; Ramesh's article is secondary for the sockpuppetry". Kindly explain how that downplays or obfuscates; or strike your ad hominem above. I'll remind you that on Wikipedia, we comment on the edits, not the editor.

You mustn't remove properly sourced content just because you don't agree with it. When you disagree with a good-faith, well sourced edit, the onus is on you to join in the discussion on the talk page. I had opened debate here prior to your improper reversion, and you need to get it clear that nobody on Wikipedia needs to generate consensus before making good-faith edits. So. please explain how you can read the source stating "a range of IP addresses used by Contribsx ... related to ... Shapps’ past sockpuppetry" as not supporting my edit reading "... Contribsx, which used the same IP addresses as previous sockpuppets of Shapps". It's either what the source says or it isn't. And any unbiased observer will see that it is.

However, if you feel you have a better summary of the source in question, or other policy-based reason for preferring to downplay or obfuscate the connection between Contribsx and Shapps, the let's hear it here. I'm more than willing to listen. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher:. How can "...which used the same IP addresses as previous sockpuppets of Shapps..." be too technical for an encyclopedia when those are simply the terms used in the source? "a range of IP addresses used by Contribsx ... related to ... Shapps’ past sockpuppetry" Are they too technical for an encyclopedia, but somehow not too technical for the Guardian, a mass-media newspaper? Are our readers somehow less acquainted with common online terms than the readers of a printed daily? Nevertheless, I've wikilinked the terms for those whose understanding of Grant Shapps may benefit from the information in those articles.

I agree fully that citing a reliable source such as The Guardian is sufficient. It therefore confuses me why you'd want to insert the adjective "alleged" before sockpuppets. The Guardian doesn't call them "alleged sockpuppets", it refers only to "... Shapps’ past sockpuppetry". On Wikipedia, we assert simple facts. That is, we simply state conclusions reached by reliable sources that are not contradicted by another equally-reliable source. You wouldn't suggest we write "The sun rises in the east, allegedly", would you? And so it is for the conclusions of reliable sources. Find one that concludes these were "alleged sockpuppets" and we can discuss if that's a better formulation than the one the Guardian used. --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight?19:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: The Guardian article says:

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.”

The Guardian is not saying Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts, it is saying that someone in Wikipedia has said this. This is not strong enough for us. A posting by a Wikipedia administrator is insufficient evidence. Later in the Guardian article:

Wikipedia tracked a range of IP addresses used by Contribsx to a web hosting service regularly employed by internet spammers. The same service had been used by an anonymous user in 2013 to remove material from Wikipedia related to How To Corp, to Michael Green and to Shapps’ past sockpuppetry.

Here the Guardian is referring to the content of a Wikipedia article, it is not endorsing this content. The Guardian is saying that someone edited Wikipedia to remove material detrimental to Grant Shapps, and that it is alleged that he was behind this edit. Nowhere does The Guardian say that Shapps uses sockpuppets, it is reporting allegations on and by Wikipedia. So if we decide to refer to sockpuppetry, it should be "alleged sockpuppetry". Verbcatcher (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

When a mainstream newspaper such as the Guardian publishes an article, that source carries the weight of the editorial process. We trust such sources to meet our standards for a reliable source. So of course the newspaper endorses its own content - who would buy a serious newspaper that did not stand by what it wrote?

As I thought I'd made clear, I'm not relying on the first quote you adduced to support my contribution, so let's consign that to the dustbin of crimson cleupeids. Now the second quote from The Guardian clearly uses the words "Shapps’ past sockpuppetry". That's "Shapps’ past sockpuppetry", not "Shapps’ alleged past sockpuppetry", isn't it? In fact you quoted those very words yourself, so how on earth can anyone take seriously your assertion that "Nowhere does The Guardian say that Shapps uses sockpuppets"? The Guardian said it; you quoted it above, so let's dispose of any pretence that a reliable source didn't use the phrase "Shapps’ past sockpuppetry".

So let's get this straight: the Guardian is reporting what happened as it understands it and we don't get to decide that "it didn't really mean it because it is reporting". Am I going to wake up tomorrow and find that Real Madrid allegedly beat Atletico Madrid 1-0? --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast; its clear that the Graun often doesn't know what its talking about. For example, After Wikipedia administrators blocked an account of a user – Contribsx – they believed was linked to Grant Shapps... [12] is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear which edit The Guardian is referring to. Under Shapps’ past sockpuppetry. they give this link, which is to an edit that does not involve sockpuppets. I still hold that when they say to remove material from Wikipedia related to... Shapps’ past sockpuppetry they are describing the material removed, not Shapps' behaviour. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the source for Shapps's Wikipedia article has been edited from his office, to remove embarrassing information multiple times and on one occasion to correct an error? I know there are sources given, the first of which is http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/08/grants-shapps-altered-wikipedia-entry, but what I mean is, what can possibly have been the Graun's source for that story? Its not Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh because that comes after William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This is essentially the same point raised by Pudeo asWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Pudeo. No-one there has answered it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes you the authority on what newspapers do and do not understand? You are removing sourced content on the pretext that you can't work out how the newspaper found its story. Frankly that's not how sourcing on Wikipedia works and you should know that. There are three sources given. Perhaps if you read them you could create a better summary of their content. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting removing some content. Based on the idea that its very hard to see where the Graun can possibly have gotten its info from. I notice you have no suggestions. I think that means that you agree that technical - checkuser-type - cannot be the answer (despite Chase-Me's somewhat contradictory assertions in that respect). So what *is* the answer? The Graun don't say William M. Connolley (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

well I've added another link, this time to a Channel 4 News story, which itself goes into detail about why Contribsx was almost certainly coming from Shapps's office. Rather than edit out stuff in a way rather similar to Contribsx, I've actually done a bit of research. Boscaswell (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Before anyone suggests that I'm not acting on consensus, I'll say that this is rubbish. I have a Thank You message in my inbox for the edits I've done and there are plenty of people posting at various places on this voluminous talk page who also consider it essential that we include detail around the Contribsx scandal in order to get the measure of the man. Boscaswell (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On re-reading the recent Guardian article Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals, I am unhappy with our phrase Shapps was accused by The Guardian newspaper of.... The Guardian does not accuse Shapps of anything, they are reporting accusations elsewhere. I suggest Shapps was accused of.... Verbcatcher (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I much prefer the short version that leaves out the IP addresses comment altogether per Verbcatcher's earlier point that the fact the allegation was reported in the Guardian is sufficient to establish that it is not trivial. It also has distinct advantage of us not tying ourselves in knots over whether "used the same IP addresses" is the same as "used a range of IP addresses associated with a service used by" and whether "previous sockpuppets of" is the same as anonymous IP users making similar edits to the alleged sock puppet. And yes, it should be "the Guardian reported accusations" rather than "the Guardian accused" for strict accuracy

It's also worth noting that this evening's Evening Standard reports him "considering" legal action. If I was a betting man my money would be on him not suing anyone at all, let alone the Wikimedia Foundation (he'd have to be really stupid to want to Streisland himself even more, plus he'd probably lose) But it is a reminder that there are good reasons why Wikimedia has policies of sticking closely to what sources say when they're controversial and not doing original synthesis, especially not on evidence of contentious allegations.

Lastly, the detail of the issue is relatively uninteresting compared with Shapp's other activities some of which could be developed more. To put things into perspective, I've responded to two edits on MP pages in the last day which I have good reason to believe were made by close associates of the MPs; both of the editors focused on modifying potentially embarrassing content. Unlike these edits, the allegations against Shapps were a major news story, and also happen to fit well into a narrative of his other internet activity, so they certainly warrant a couple of sentences. But that doesn't mean we want forensic detail on what edits were made and what evidence exists to support it

Dtellett (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

See-also the rather interesting https://theconversation.com/wikipedia-sockpuppetry-is-a-problem-but-baseless-accusations-are-no-better-40670 William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed which used the same IP addresses as previous sockpuppets of Shapps because 9a) this states as a fact that S previously used socks, and (b) makes technical claims about IP that are almost without a doubt wrong; please see theconversation link, above, which was written by a former checkuser William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This wording should not be reinstated, and neither should "the Guardian accused" in the context of Contribsx, since the Guardian actually sourced the accusation to "Wikipedia administrators". The Guardian reported accusations by a Wikipedia admin apparently named Richard Symonds would be technically correct, but since that level of detail is far too long, and reporting names of Wikipedia admins in others' biographies seems like a terrible precedent to set, "the Guardian reported accusations that" would appear to be the best way of phrasing. I also think "largely unflattering" - the Guardian's wording - is a better characterisation of the Contribsx edits than "negative" as well as not being an original claim. (Having looked at the full edit history myself, the majority of the edits on other bios were utterly trivial) Dtellett (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Facts

UK opinion polling_2010-2015.

Why cant he fix his exams? Undue weight indeed.

Wikipedia is no place for humour.Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important especially during an election related smear campaining. We should be talking about the rise of the SNP [13] and [14] along with the Tesco fraud/det issues [15]. Cheep Auldi booze, Liddle value food and cheep Pound £aver beans hit Tesco. Morrison's and the Co-op are falling to, but not like Tesco are.90.244.81.223 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Tesco broadband user, this is why he can't fix his exams: http://www.metropolis2.com/demo/rex.htm - Wikipedia would be in a sorry state if we took as gospel everything that people write about themselves. --RexxS (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

OK.90.244.81.223 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/paddy-ashdown-grant-shapps-is-fine-man-whos-never-done-anything-dodgy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.81.223 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

See also today's Private Eye. Maproom (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The truth of it all

Mr Shapps is not American!

1. IP Location United States United States Secaucus Interserver Inc
2. ASN United States AS19318 NJIIX-AS-1 - NEW JERSEY INTERNATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE LLC (registered Dec 09, 2005)
3. Whois Server whois.arin.net
4. IP Address 69.10.33.199

1. IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom Manchester Adsl
2. ASN United Kingdom AS13037 ZEN-AS Zen Internet Ltd (registered Feb 25, 2000)
3. Resolve Host dsl-217-155-38-72.zen.co.uk
4. Whois Server whois.ripe.net
5. IP Address 217.155.38.72

1. IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom Greasbrough Easynet Ltd
2. ASN United Kingdom AS5607 BSKYB-BROADBAND-AS British Sky Broadcasting Limited (registered Apr 24, 1996)
3. Resolve Host 5ac49a02.bb.sky.com
4. Whois Server whois.ripe.net
5. IP Address 90.196.154.2

1. IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom London Uk2 - Ltd
2. ASN United Kingdom AS13213 UK2NET-AS UK2 - Ltd (registered May 09, 2000)
3. Resolve Host server56782.uk2net.com
4. Whois Server whois.ripe.net
5. IP Address 83.170.117.88

1. IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom Kent Areti Internet Ltd.
2. Whois Server whois.ripe.net
3. IP Address 85.237.212.58, 85.237.211.238 and 85.237.212.58

1. IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom Square Inap Anchorfree
2. ASN United Kingdom AS15570 Internap European Autonomous System (registered Aug 07, 2000)
3. Resolve Host 94.232.118.212.in-addr.arpa
4. Whois Server whois.ripe.net
5. IP Address 212.118.232.94 and 212.118.232.88

WHOARIS check results, sirs. 90.244.81.223 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Look again: User:69.10.33.199 is a blocked proxy contradicting the assumption that it was used locally. The separate assumption that an American IP can only be used by a American is just an assumption, best disproved in this case with a known proxy. Widefox; talk 20:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr Shapps is not American – who says he is? Even User:Contribsx does not claim to be American, and Grant Shapps have not acknowledged that this is his account. There are several ways of covering your tracks on the Internet, or of leaving false trails to implicate someone else. This does not appear to prove any allegations. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Change:

Shapps's Wikipedia article has been edited from his office, to remove embarrassing information multiple times and on one occasion to correct an error.

To:

Shapps' Wikipedia article has been edited from his office to remove embarrassing information multiple times, and, on one occasion, to correct an error.

Purpose:

To correct comma splice, run-on sentence, and incorrect use of plural apostrophe.

82.3.86.216 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not done. Shapps is not a plural entity and British English does not use commas in this way. --John (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A comma splice is where two sentences are combined with just a comma and no conjunction. A run-on sentence is the same thing without the comma. Neither of those two stylistic errors are present in the sentence in question. Nevertheless, I'm sympathetic to removing the comma after "office" as English doesn't insist on treating infinitives as noun clauses in apposition. I would certainly go along with an comma before "and" as the sentence would benefit from a pause at that point. But I'm not at all keen on marking off a short adverbial phrase such as "on one occasion" - that's a very American habit and has no place in an an British BLP.

The apostrophe is not a plural but is a possessive apostrophe. Its use in Wikipedia for singular nouns ending is "s" is summarised in Apostrophe #Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound. This suggests that either form is acceptable and probably depends on whether we would pronounce it as if it were "Shapps article" or "Shappses article". I have no preference, so what do others think? --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Shapps's is fine. One comma would be ok. --John (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

My mistake about the plural apostrophe - I don't know why I called it that. The article has a mixture of Shapps's and Shapps', so I guess either is fine, but it should probably be consistent over the article.

Regarding the commas - I would still move the first comma to after "times"; its current placement is awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.86.216 (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request template disabed until such time as consensus emerges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dean Archer

I'd like to remove this sentence:

Dean Archer, the constituent previously threatened with legal action by Shapps, informed Shapps he would begin legal action against him. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/grant-shapps-was-ambushed-with-a-legal-threat-over-his-alter http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/grant-shapps-dean-archer-legal-action

All the letter posted on Buzzfeed says is that Dean Archer reserves the right to point out Shapps forced him to make an apology under false pretences. The Guardian article is couched in terms of 'could' be sued.

At least I think the statement should be downgraded from "began legal action" to "threatened legal action" or similar. Certainly nothing has been reported since. Zen78 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the Guardian source: I have been bullied and threatened with legal action based on a falsehood. Now I will take action of my own. I am taking legal advice and will be writing to Grant Shapps and his lawyers to demand that they explain the action they took. Did Grant Shapps mislead his own legal counsel? I could go with changing it to "threatened legal action" though, if that seems more accurate. --John (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"taking legal action" implies suing in the context of the article, when the "action" (note not "legal action") Archer suggests in The Guardian and carries out in Buzzfeed is a solicitors letter asking for clarification. As far as I can tell, Archer has not sued or even threatened to sue Shapps. Zen78 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

Can I just add the following to this convo: [16] I think it would be worth adding this link into the accusations of editing in 2015. It seems that The Register is the only news site to actually do some proper journalistic research into the matter. They show that the wiki admin Richard Symonds turns out to be a Lib Dem supporter who was trying to stitch up GS and that the media (including you who edit GS's webpage) are being quite lazy in not getting the facts before publication. Worth a read if not inclusion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.31.207 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I'm familiar with this article and I believe the Telegraph ran the same story. The current version of the story reports the 2015 allegation as an allegation rather than a fact, and in particular doesn't mention the (possibly incorrect, according to the Register) IP based evidence reported by the Guardian. The article also includes Shapps' denial of the allegation. If you actually look at the editing history of Contribsx, the inference that the account was set up for the specific purpose of improving the perception of Shapps is more than plausible though. Dtellett (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are intended only for changes that are non-controversial or have clear consensus in support of the change. Given that this issue is currently under review by ArbCom, I don't see how it's anything but controversial. In the absence of clear consensus, the request cannot be completed at this time. --ElHef (Meep?) 12:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As of 3 May 2015....

I deleted this opinionated write from User:Giano that is totally unsupported by the external link

As of 3 May 2015, the Wikipedia organisation, whose founder Jimmy Wales is close to many leading figures in the Labour party, has neither confirmed nor denied these potentially damaging allegations.

Mariamullins (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing opinionated, just pure fact! Unpalatable as that may be to you. Giano (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not supported in your wp:rs Mariamullins (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)}

It seems to have escaped your notice that Wikipedia's allegations damaging Shapps' reputation are completely unsupported and unproven too. So we have to state that, we wouldn't want people to think we are trying to sway an election - would we? Giano (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the additions by Giano are not neutral (what's Jimbo's politics got to do with anything?), insufficiently sourced (referencing an arb case!), and not suitable for inclusion in the article in that form, so I have reverted them. BabelStone (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your agreement is neither here nor there. Potentially damaging allegations have been made by this Encyclopedia, they have not been proven - which part of that are you disagreeing with? Giano (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please lets try to keep the conversation WP:CIVIL, and the content encyclopedic, reliable and well-sourced. —Sladen (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

BBC story

Yesterday the BBC had a news item concerning this article. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few more: see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision#Press_coverage William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the article with this Guardian article:[17] As they were the first media source to report the allegations, it seems particularly significant that they've retracted them. Robofish (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tightened the wording slightly to keep it focused on Shapps and the veracity of the claim; I don't think this article is the right place to name the editor and outline his punishment Dtellett (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not? At the very least the punishment should be outlined as it reflects on the claims against Shapps. 147.194.16.123 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The nature of the punishment and Wikipedia admin policies the editor was found to have violated has essentially no bearing on the veracity of the allegation. The arbitration committee's verdict of "no significant evidence" is all that matters here. The name of the non-notable person interacting with a famous person is frequently omitted from other biographies which refer to "a constituent" or "a member of the public". And in general, Wikipedia's editorial line naming and reflecting a POV stance against its own editors is a dreadful precedent to set. Dtellett (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Callous self-involved nonsense. Symonds was stripped of all of his advanced permissions because of misuse of power to lie about and defame a man. The lies about the man - the subject of this article - are fine to insert in the article about him. Mentioning the name of the liar - and the extent of his punishment for his damaging lies - is not because "reflecting a POV stance against its own editors is a dreadful precedent." Couldn't make it up.Dan Murphy (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The existence of the allegations, which I've pretty consistently argued should be reported as unsubstantiated conjecture denied by the subject, are relevant to Shapps. A non-famous guy being censured for misuse of the CheckUser tool following the fallout over the allegations is not. Incidentally, whilst the allegation Symonds made is *possibly* false, the allegation you are making, that he received "punishment for his damaging lies" is definitely false, because the [of reasons things he was *actually* punished for|] doesn't even consider the possibility that his actions might have been insincere. It does contain a disclaimer about limits to standards of evidence and not misusing ArbCom decisions to resolve any other controversies though. It would indeed be "callous self involved nonsense" to name and shame people censured by ArbCom in order to support a particular view of the veracity of a rumour Dtellett (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not in favour of a complete public flogging and flaying, but the present explanation does seem to be something of an oversimplification of the facts. Shapps has been under the cloud of this for well over a month so a full explanation would help. This present version of events seems to be far more protective of Wikipedia than is necessary; the editor concerned was not just a common and garden administrator, and he used that fact and his position to lend his story greater credence; he also seemed to relish the publicity he received; it's a little late in the day to be shy now. He has not just been "censured", but stripped of all his powers in an almost unprecedented act of retribution - that in itself indicates the gravity of the offence. It's not necessary to use Chase's full RL name (anyone that interested can find it on Google), but a fuller account of what took place here needs to be given. Giano (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the stripping of his editorial powers, if you care to read it, concerns bureaucratic procedures over whether he had a right to use the IP lookuptool and share the results, whether he should have consulted other editors first, and whether he should have commented "in Wikipedia's voice", which is not only irrelevant but also incredibly *dull* material. Amongst the long list of other people who had the same privileges revoked "for cause", his case hardly stands out as "unprecedented retribution"; quite a few of the others were actually banned. Much as your indignant rhetoric inclines me to believe you dearly wish ArbCom's decision exonerates Shapps, it does nothing of the sortDtellett (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Dtellett: You seem to be mistaken, Chase's "editorial powers" haven't been taken away - he can still freely edit. If you care to read it properly, only his privileges have been removed. Shapps has been exonerated not only by Arbcom, but also in personal, private call to Shapps from one J Wales himself. Giano (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

James Harding quote

I just removed:

On 22 June 2015, James Harding apologized to Shapps on behalf of the BBC for the networks extensive reporting on the original allegations by Symonds, but then barely noting that the allegations were subsequently found to be false.

Arbcomm hasn't found the allegations false, just unprovable. That link demonstrates that GS has said "BBC apologises over false Shapps Wikipedia allegations" but that's not what JH says, indeed his letter asserts that the Beeb reported accurately and fairly.

William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

allegations of a crime

Where the Guardian source states carefully "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme" it is clear that they are not making any allegations of anything being a "pyramid scheme" which would be a criminal act under UK law. The Independent source also is worded carefully to not run afoul of the UK view of making allegations of criminal acts. Collect (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are quite correct that the previous version of headline was questionable. The quote from the Guardian article however, is verbatim, and the media criticism of his business WP:notable. I've retitled accordingly Dtellett (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Get Rich Quick" is an opinion - thus should be only used as such and cited as such. Try "criticism of publishing company" as being quite neutral. Using any clear opinion in the section header is not a proper use of opinions in a BLP as it implies that Wikipedia supports that opinion in itself. Collect (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not unusual to have a heading quoting using direct quotes but I certainly wouldn't object to your proposed title change, or indeed rolling the paragraph into the "professional and writing career" section without a subhead Dtellett (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

COI editing navbox

Hang on ... will explain navbox revert here. Brianhe (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussing my inclusion of the {{COI on Wikipedia}} navbox here per WP:BRD. The rationale is simple. There's several credible sources asserting that the Wikipedia editing was the offense that caused his dismissal from the cabinet. A short list of examples:

• "Tory chairman Grant Shapps gets dumped from the UK cabinet after claims that he edited his own Wikipedia page", Business Insider
• Tory Party chairman Grant Shapps was unceremoniously sacked from the Cabinet last night... Mr Shapps faced embarrassment during the campaign when he was accused of using an anonymous user-ID to delete embarrassing facts about his past and add unflattering details about his political rivals to the website Wikipedia. Daily Mail
• Former Tory chairman Grant Shapps demoted after series of social media gaffes International Business Times

Whether these actually are the reasons, or actually are unbiased as to glee over his sacking isn't important. The fact that they discussed Wikipedia COI as even a plausible reason for sacking of a national-level politician is extremely noteworthy and really a milestone in Wikipedia's stature as a medium. It is at least as important as any of the other COI-editing articles that exist. Removing this from the navbox would be a mistake and would substantially gut the coverage of the topic. — Brianhe (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But as was later revealed (and can be read in the article), there is no conclusive evidence that he actually was COI editing as ContribsX, and the admin who made the claims was heavily censured. To simply put his name into a template called "COI on Wikipedia" seems a major oversimplification of the situation. Brustopher (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it make a difference to you if the case was covered in an article titled "List of Wikipedia articles that caused cabinet member sacking" or something? I mean, is the problem talking about the incident and linking it to a navbox, or is the problem having the navbox in an article with this person's name on it? — Brianhe (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is linking this incident to the navbox. Let me give you an an alternate example. Suppose a navbox was created called "Armed robbery in Leicester." Now assume that Joe Bloggs MP was once accused of armed robbery in Leicester, attracted a whole load of press attention and lost his spot as Chancellor of the Exchequer in a cabinet reshuffle. Later the charges of armed robbery against him are dismissed. Is it appropriate to include his name in the article "Armed robbery in Leicester" and thereby imply to those who glance at the navbox that he has committed armed robbery? Brustopher (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussing my inclusion of the {{COI on Wikipedia}} navbox here per WP:BRD - you've either misread, or not read, BRD. It says Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a consensus. So discussing, then reverting without waiting for consensus, is not following the policy William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view either way on the navbox, but a few points:

(i) Shapps is quoted by mainstream media as acknowledging that he had edited Wikipedia on previous occasions long before the Contribsx edits. So it's beyond dispute that COI editing has happened at some stage in this article.

(ii)Many other UK politicians (or their offices) have been accused of COI Wikipedia editing by reliable mainstream media sources, sometimes with substantial evidence. Arguably navboxes should be applied consistently, if at all.

(iii)At least 2 of the 3 sources (Daily Mail and Business Insider) wouldn't be considered WP:reliable sources for the claim Shapp's "sacking" was linked to the Contribsx stories. Officially his party backed him over the allegations, and his position changing as a result of a subsequent wider Cabinet reshuffle was a notional demotion rather than a firing. Dtellett (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

One of my old IP addresses

Due to recent events, I came to have a look at Grant's wiki article and noticed you have on your list here one of my old IP addresses, from 2012.

   IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom Greasbrough Easynet Ltd
   ASN United Kingdom AS5607 BSKYB-BROADBAND-AS British Sky Broadcasting Limited (registered Apr 24, 1996)
   Resolve Host 5ac49a02.bb.sky.com
   Whois Server whois.ripe.net
   IP Address 90.196.154.2

This is no one accociated with Grant Snapps, please explain.

Govvy (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think one has to look at this Guardian article: "Sources close to Shapps emphasised that the four usernames – 217.155.38.72, 90.196.154.2, Historyset and Hackneymarsh – could only be linked to "computers in the constituency office of the Tory chairman". I have to say that technically I find this rather dubious. However, the edits by this IP were made in early 2009. It may have been reassigned to different users by 2012, and several times since. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Section about Grant Shapps having been warned about Mark Clarke's conduct

In my opinion, a lot more should be added to this article regarding Grant Shapps having been warned about the conduct of election aide Mark Clarke, which may have led to the suicide of a young Tory activist.

"Grant Shapps’s resignation in the row over alleged bullying and blackmail in the Conservative party came within hours of the Guardian’s incontrovertible proof that as party co-chairman he had been warned about the conduct of election aide Mark Clarke."

There are now many newspaper articles about this issue; here is just one for now:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/29/grant-shapps-resigned-within-hours-guardian-story-revealing-awareness-alleged-bullying

There is also this massive article about Elliott Johnson, the young man who took his own life:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/27/elliott-johnson-young-tory-destroyed-by-party-he-loved-mark-clarke

Allegations of fake website testimonials are almost nothing compared to this issue. Kookiethebird (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you expect us to add? This page is not a biography of Mark Clarke or Elliot Johnson.

(the most relevant other things I can think of which might warrant coverage are the suggestion (denied by Shapps) that Downing Street insisted on his resignation and that Shapps might be taking the fall for Lord Feldman... but both of these are speculation. There's also Cameron's overly gushing post-resignation praise I guess, but probably not what you were thinking of) Dtellett (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have specific article authors, so I don't know why you are acting as if you are responsible for this article. Also, if I knew exactly what needed to be added then I may have added it myself. (But really the problem with a popular article like this one, especially one about a politician, is that if someone adds something, other people can't help themselves but to heavily edit it or just revert it five minutes later.) So I am just giving my opinion that this issue deserves rather more than just a few lines. By the way, you really don't need to respond to this post. Kookiethebird (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary to be a rocket scientist to realise that if a Minister has been demoted, the reason for his demotion should be included in the Wikipedia article about him. In this case, a young man committed suicide as a result of the bullying of a Tory aide of some importance, who worked in the department for which the subject of this article held great responsibility. That alone would have been sufficient reason for an outline of those circumstances to be included; that is, when people 'did the decent thing'. It seems that more is required nowadays and in this case it is clear that Schapps was warned about the conduct of the aide, but chose to overlook the warning. To exclude this information would be in contravention of WP:NPOV I agree wholeheartedly with Kookiethebird Boscaswell talk 16:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grant Shapps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706110334/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/05/16/shadow-chancellor-george-osborne-s-500-000-secret-donations-89520-20419380/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/05/16/shadow-chancellor-george-osborne-s-500-000-secret-donations-89520-20419380/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the duplication below please

In 2012 Google blacklisted 19 of the Shapps' business websites for violating rules on copyright infringement related to the web scraping-based TrafficPayMaster software sold by them.[80][81] The Green's web marketing business's 20/20 Challenge publication also drew criticism. It cost $497 and promised customers earnings of $20,000 in 20 days. Upon purchase, the "toolkit" was revealed to be an ebook, advising the user to create their own toolkit and recruit 100 "Joint Venture Partners" to resell it for a share of the profits.[82] In 2012 Google blacklisted 19 of the Shapps' business websites for violating rules on copyright infringement related to the web scraping-based TrafficPayMaster software sold by them.[83][84]

Is there any reason at all why the two absolutely identical sentences need to be there? Collect (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I've removed the second instance of the sentence. Noting the recent history, I trust @Boscaswell: understands what's happened here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand totally. This was a mistake the like of which I've never made before and never intend to again. My sincerest apologies all round. Boscaswell talk 19:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grant Shapps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202221059/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/word/LIST%209%20June%202010.doc to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/word/LIST%209%20June%202010.doc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0%2C%2C-1180%2C00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/tenant-panel-training-scheme-launched/6517511.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)