User talk:Hackneymarsh

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Widefox (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Shapps

The accusation in the edit summary [1] that I added [2] freemasony to this article is clearly not correct. It is unacceptable and I expect you to apologise. Widefox (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the unregistered editor user:81.134.133.243 (that IP is registered to Carillion Construction Ltd, Wolverhampton) inserted that unsourced claim with this edit [3]. I removed that vandalism here [4] and warned the vandal. The vandal then undid [5] my removal to put back in. Ironic that Hackneymarsh (now exposed as Grant or his office) has confused the edits, falsely accusing me in this edit summary and has still not apologised, when I in fact kept vandalism off his page and repeatedly warned the vandal of this unsourced (mason) claim! Widefox; talk 16:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have escalated the report of this long-term vandal editor user:81.134.133.243 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to completely remove any doubt. Widefox; talk 17:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello. As you may well be aware by now, The Observer has identified you as Grant Shapps. If this is the case, you must read and understand Wikipedia policy before proceeding with any further editing of the article about yourself.

Relevant information:

In a nutshell, you should not edit an article about yourself, and should use its talk page - in this case, Talk:Grant Shapps - to raise any issues or suggest any changes.

I doubt that you will continue editing the article after the media attention you are now receiving, but I must warn you that if you do so, and create a conflict of interest situation, administrative sanctions may result. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further Guardian article has now identified additional user names associated with these edits, bringing the list to:

This potentially brings the issue into the realm of sock puppetry, or the improper use of multiple accounts, a much more serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Investigations will now be undertaken.

I am copying these warnings to each involved user name. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earle, you did notice that all of these accounts stopped editing the Grant Shapps biography (or anything else) more than two years ago, right? And that much of the material they removed was biased, poorly sourced and in violation of Wikipedia's own policies? Nobody else cared about it. What's a biography subject to do then?

For a summary, see the blog post at http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/09/12/this-weeks-news-the-grant-shapps-biography-and-other-stories/ and related discussions at http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=887&p=17298#p17298 (which both you and the holder of this account are cordially invited to join). J N 466 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Shapps WP:COI and The Guardian

(continued from "Grant Shapps" section above, and in reply to further Guardian article)

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, so is moot. Despite that, for the record, although I agree with Jayen466 that some of Grants edits removed poorly sourced material, but the fair characterisation is that Grant edited his own article with a COI (e.g. in 2010 during the lead-up to the general election), failed to disclose his COI, used multiple accounts and IPs, his edits were biased (WP:NPOV issue) bordering on censorship as well as incorrectly (he should have got others to remove it) removing some poorly sourced content. The poorly sourced content was removed by me and others anyway, but now is well sourced as it has all been covered by the Guardian. Hackneymarsh (Grant) mistakenly accused me here of adding adding "Freemasony" to his page - this is clearly nonsense as I explain (in the above section "Grant Shapps").

OK, so he misunderstood the edits, ironically blaming me after I removed that vandalism from his page, and further accused me and others of political bias - without apologising, and only now he has been outed by the Guardian two years later this has come out. Further discussion moved to Talk:Grant Shapps . Widefox; talk 14:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Widefox; talk 09:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation block arbitration proposed decision

Hi Hackneymarsh, in the open Sockpuppet investigation block arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]