Talk:Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia posts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whitehall[edit]

Whitehall is a street in London, which contains the main offices of a number of UK government departments, it is also a commonly understood term for the top echelons of all government departments, regardless of whether or not they have offices on that street. However, the civil service has many many offices all over the country, most of which are on the Government Secure Intranet as well. Most people would not consider those to be part of Whitehall and since the edits could easily have come from one of these offices please use the more accurate and neutral term "government" rather than the more specific and potentially misleading term "Whitehall". 2.25.126.198 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I've tagged this for notability and would like to at least see some discussion here before the tag is removed. WP:EVENT is relevant here, as are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUBJECT so please read. There's also some discussion here, with more general discussion here and here. 2.25.126.198 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, though the Hillsborough vandalism was the original subject the real concern was the use of UK government computers and it has since been broadened to include several other instances. The original subject doesn't seem separately notable to the main article but Wikipedia vandalism from United Kingdom government computers or similar is certainly now a notable topic being extensively covered in RS. Rewriting under such a title seems the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly agree with renaming part. However, the current consensus over on the Hillsborough disaster talk page is that vandalism by a few individuals is not sufficiently notable, even if they are government employees, in the absence of further information (like a coordinated campaign or evidence of negligence).
I don't feel qualified to judge but I am struck by the specific parts of WP:EVENT that deal with the criteria for notability, especially WP:LASTING, WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. It seems to me that what have essentially here is a single news story that finds some vandalism from government IP addresses but makes no in depth attempt to analyse how serious the vandalism is, which is then essentially re-cycled for a few days by the other media outlets. Then, as the story is dying down, a few news outlets breath a bit more life into it by finding some new edits, but again with no serious attempt to analyse how serious they really are. Now the media outlets are generally reliable sources but that's not the same as saying that their coverage is necessarily notable. Maybe when the Cabinet Office completes its investigation we'll be in a better position to judge. 2.25.126.198 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd distinguish the recent moderately high profile of this story from its lasting notability, as above and on a couple more counts. The recycling of the story with extra instances is making it clearer to the general public that such petty vandalism - from government computers and elsewhere - is commonplace and generally ineffective. We'll have to see what the effect of the Cabinet Office investigation is but I don't expect so much drama as the first time. Sure, some of the more opportunistic elements may still insist it's notable, but they'll put "It Will Amaze You!" or "You Will Be Horrified!" on a story about a hamster and a tortoise. And oddly enough, for once many of us here are in a better position than many journalists, even at the most reliable sources, to anticipate some of the details of the Cabinet Office report, because we're so used to extracting information from Wikipedia's contribution histories and appraising it.
I'll admit I am hoping the media don't blow the story up again. The families of the 96 and the survivors have suffered enough without having the horrid little jibes of evil-minded fools being repeatedly thrust in their faces. If ever there was a time not to feed the trolls, this is it. NebY (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has to be said that splashing the details on the front page of the Liverpool Echo, asking family groups for comment and then seeing the story spread across the national media caused a great deal more hurt and distress than the edits ever did (most likely the only people who noticed them were the vandals and the editors who reverted the vandalism). 2.25.126.198 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hillsborough Disaster discussions on this are now at Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 3. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen different sources are supporting this article as references. That's far more than adorn most Wikipedia articles. I've taken the liberty of removing the tag, but I understand if someone feels compelled to restore it (with explanation here). - 2001:558:1400:10:6127:EDF2:956:A0C7 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours of a Civil Servant being questioned[edit]

I've removed this addition to the lead as it's just newspaper speculation and pretty clearly WP:NOTNEWS. Incidentally, the source give was The International Business Times, which even links to the original story in The Daily Telegraph. To quote that story:

"At least one civil servant in Merseyside is believed to have been interviewed by the Home Office after the Telegraph provided evidence of the employee's likely involvement in the abusive online posts."

If the supposedly reliable source for this is only saying "is believed" (which they do, several times in the article) then the information has no place in an encyclopaedia. And that's before you consider that it's just a news piece that will be out of date once the government report is done. Until then (or until someone does some journalism with solid evidence) how about we leave this alone? There's no need to keep up with every tiny development, especially those that could turn out to be nothing more than rumours. 2.25.115.14 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for offensive edits[edit]

Has anyone actually found the diffs claimed by the media with “You’ll never w*** alone” and “This is a S***hole”? After looking around the edit history of Hillsborough disaster and Anfield, I can't find them. Possibly removed from the edit history, but the Liverpool Echo journalist found them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them have been expunged from the edit history, which seems sensible in the circumstances; better to allow them to be found, albeit with some difficulty, and judged than to encourage accusations of a cover-up. Anyway, you'll find links to them, notes on how long they lasted and other technical details at Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Wikipedia edits from government IP addresses. NebY (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but not the material mentioned above. No luck with WikiBlame. Still a mystery here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought we'd listed all of them. Yes, as they didn't last long they may escape Wikiblame's binary search, especially if you don't have dates. You could try the IPs' contribution histories and/or look for the first one in Liverpool F.C.. NebY (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to admit defeat here for the time being. Are we sure that the Liverpool Echo got this right? It was suggested to contact Oliver Duggan, as the article that set it all off gives no diffs for any of the edits.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the story broke, I went back through the IPs contribution histories as far back as 2007 (stopped somewhere through that year, didn't get as far as January) and only found three edits from those IP addresses on the two articles. The two edits, above, covered most of what was reported and the third was at least borderline vandalism, but not offensive and not mentioned in the article. Interestingly, it was probably by the same person who did the "lemon drizzle cake" edit four minutes earlier as looking at the recent contributions from both IPs suggests that the way the network is set up means that users can end up using either gateway and switching between them after only a short time. Unless Oliver Duggan made as mistake (but it seems too specific for that, although he is a trainee reporter for The Telegraph on secondment to the Liverpool Echo) or made them up (seems unnecessary the stuff we can find is bad enough) then he must know of other IPs (he did mention 34 known IPs). The two we have were the only ones mentioned in the parliamentary answer. So, guessing aside, the only way to find out would be to ask him, I suspect, his contact details are easy to find (and on the Hillsborough Disaster talk page). If it is a different IP then I'm pretty sure it'll be from a part of the government that doesn't use the GSI to access the internet. 2.25.115.122 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duggan's story says "Computers on Whitehall’s secure intranet were used again in 2012 to change the phrase “You’ll never walk alone” to “You’ll never walk again” and later “You’ll never w*** alone.”" Since this is specific about the year, I am fairly sure that the w*** edit is not in the 2012+ edit history of Hillsborough disaster or Anfield. I am also fairly sure that 62.25.106.209 and 195.92.40.49 did not make the w*** edit. This is also the case with the S***hole edit. If it is in another article or by another IP editor, it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack without knowing which one. The vandal concerned seems to have added nonsense rather than swear words, so this is part of the puzzle.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's basically doubled-down on his position in this article (which is the one I removed mention from in the article, as too speculative, see above). He even goes as far as to say it was the same person who did the stuff we know about, which makes me wonder if he's not checking his own work properly. He's also persisting in making two edits, one of which changed several things, look like lots of separate edits from different people. This makes me suspect he is more committed to sensationalism (and developing his fledgling career) than to clarity and accuracy. And how he thinks he's managed to locate the person responsible (with help from the "watchdog" Wikipediocracy) I've no idea. There are no details forthcoming from The Telegraph or on the Wikipediocracy website. Maybe there will be in the future. It'll be interesting to see if they try to spin this a failure of Wikipedia. In this instance, the case seems pretty week since the edits were all reverted pretty quickly and people only know about them because a journalist has dredged them up. Ironically, if the people who did them wanted to make an impact, it's only now that they have. 2.25.115.122 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is peculiarly specific for edits from a shared IP: "Evidence also suggest that he has made additional edits to a celebrity’s biography, as well as footballers entries and the online description of his hometown in southern England." Maybe these are edits made from a registered account or (as some may have lead to blocks) string of accounts that are fairly easy to connect (SPI archive?). If the WP editor left clues to a Facebook account (could be as simple as username, could be too much info on a userpage - often done when starting out on Wikipedia and deleted later), the fb account could carry mentions of work, or a real name that's also on LinkedIn, as well as mention of a hometown that the WP account also edited, enough confirmation for "evidence also suggests". NebY (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of all of this, I am tempted to contact Oliver Duggan and ask where the w*** and S***hole edits are. It doesn't alter the fact that some offensive and silly edits were added from UK government IP addresses, but the whereabouts of these edits remains unclear. It is fairly clear that they are not in Hillsborough disaster or Anfield.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - reasonable to expect he'll be open about where & when they are even if unwilling to explain his magic search skills. NebY (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4453 - nothing more than what we already know, but if details of what they've found out appear it should be here. Also includes some reporting not covered in the article, which may be worth adding (I can't be bothered, but someone else may want to assess it). 2.25.115.122 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the edits we couldn't find did come from a user account rather than an IP. Probably not more than circumstantial that the IP edits were the same person (although it could be strongly circumstantial).
"Of course, Mr You'll Never W*nk Alone also had a "proper" Wikipedia account where he gave his full name. And date of birth. And place of residence. Pretty pictures of him and his mates, too.
He was easy enough to find, and we could have doxed him in public back in April, and made David Gerard and his cronies look nicely incompetent in the process. But we're not Wikipedia." http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=100789#p100789
Media is reporting he's been sacked, but not named. Should be an official statement today (see new section, below). 2.25.122.92 (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of detail in The Telegraph plus the statement. 2.25.122.92 (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news of a sacking, statement expected wait?[edit]

From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27882680

Also suggests the investigation is going to be wound up. Still a little speculative at the moment, so I'd suggest WP:NOTNEWS applies until there's a statement in parliament (should be later today).

For reference, here's their take on the Telegraph story about this (includes some responses): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27503257

2.25.122.92 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's lots of detail in The Telegraph plus the statement to the House that Frances Maude will make today. If someone wants to pick the bones out of those, it'd be appropriate to add, I think. I may give it a go, later today. 2.25.122.92 (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth mentioning in the article. The junior civil servant concerned also wins an award for stupidity for mentioning Borehamwood and other things to which he had a personal link. If he had not done this, he would probably never have been caught as the IP address information was too old.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's just the 2012 edit that they're talking about. The older one has insufficient evidence. I'm guessing concerns about what may happen if his identity is revealed means that he's been disappeared. Also, extra stupidity points for doing this while living and working in Liverpool (insert generalised speculation about Chelsea fans here, if you wish). 2.25.122.92 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hillsborough Wikipedia posts → Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia posts – I usually prefer a more concise title, but in this case, just one word more will do wonders for recognizability. This matches the parent article Hillsborough disaster, and note that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Hillsborough. For context: I came to this as a reader, seeing it listed in {{Wikipedia}} and wondering what it meant. I assumed it was something referring to a local government of a place named Hillsborough. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillsborough_disaster_Wikipedia_posts&oldid=1207531375"