Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 3

Removal of the section about the government IP edits
NB full discussion of the subject, from the time the story broke: Talk:Hillsborough disaster

With this edit an editor has removed the section about the edits to the article from government IP addresses. This is the reason given:


 * "WP:SUBJECT says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)."

I think this is an invalid removal because the story isn't about the Wikipedia article, it's about government computers being used to edit it. Something that has caused such a stir and is being investigated by the government needs to be mentioned here. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And? The vandalism was banal and minor and something that is encountered in pretty much every article from time to time. There is no evidence that it was a systematic policy, and they didn't try to rewrite the article either. Idiotic, yes. Something that future generations will need to know? I doubt it. When an idiot vandalizes Wikipedia, it isn't newsworthy and when an idiot in a government office does the same thing, I don't see a huge difference. Perhaps the story will develop, but until then, I personally would be very against its inclusion.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to spend much space on this "controversy". Frankly, pretty much all articles on major football clubs and related subjects seem to attract vandalism of this sort from supporters of rival clubs, like s**t attracts flies! This article has had nearly 3800 edits since it was created, and I think it's unfortunate that the Liverpool Echo has caused upset among the relatives of the dead over vandalism that, when all is said and done, was usually visible for less than five minutes before being removed. From what I've seen, the IP addresses the edits came from are gateways which give access to/from most of the government internet, so they were probably made by clerical staff during time they should have been working, but as a taxpayer I hope that not too much money is wasted trying to track down brief edits from many years ago. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please use another website to complain about the government. Inappropriate edits have been made to articles since Wikipedia began—it is no big deal. If something happens (someone resigns or is fired, or similar), the fact that a significant incident occurred may warrant mention. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to remove this. The edits would have been made by public servants goofing around in their lunch hours or something, and are not really any more significant than other vandalism to this and related articles. Edits from government IP addresses don't actually mean that anybody authorised the vandalism, and its massively unlikely that that would have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that if the inquiry led to anyone being disciplined or sacked, it might be worth restoring it. Vandalism to football articles and vandalism from government IP addresses is nothing unusual, and the Telegraph has reported that, amongst other nonsense, Des Lynam was killed by a giant snowball in May 2013. Unless the Government Secure Intranet has logs going back to 2009, don't hold your breath waiting for anyone to be traced for making the Hillsborough edits.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The deleted section about insulting comments


 * "On 24 April 2014, media reports suggested that UK government computers had been used to make "insulting edits" to the Wikipedia articles about the Hillsborough disaster and Anfield. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign condemned the edits and indicated that the victims' families would seek an official investigation. The computers are alleged to have belonged to a number of departments including the Treasury, the Solicitor General, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. On the same day, the government announced that an investigation into the allegations will be carried out by the Cabinet Office.  "


 * So the comments were made by one or two public servants "goofing around in their lunch hours"? "When an idiot vandalizes Wikipedia, it isn't newsworthy and when an idiot in a government office does the same thing, I don't see a huge difference." Just cannot believe that such "reasoning' could have a place here - for these comments might have been taken from the pages of 1984. By down-playing this, Wikipedia is open to the charge of protecting its own self-interest. Since there are few convincing reasons to delete - would not the article be improved by reinstating this useful/telling information? 88.107.50.87 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As the IP that first raised this, I'm happy for the consensus of experience editors on this subject, and can't edit the article anyway. For what it's worth, though,I still think the reason originally given for removal (WP:SUBJECT) was a bit off, however there is still a notability argument that has been made pretty strongly, above. As my protracted discussions with the above IP user (whose IP address also changes) here and here show, I am also skeptical that this amounts to anything much.


 * What concerns me about this, though, is that editors are drawing on their own experience and perspectives here, which is understandable given our knowledge of Wikipedia processes and the very limited impact of vandalism (ie that edits are reverted so quickly that it is extremely unlikely that a general reader would even see them) but is not reflective of anything that a reliable source is saying at present, so seems to me to be straying into original research. The story has been covered by the entire media in the UK and discussed by them, the Hillsborough campaign groups and the government itself as a very serious issue. Who are we, then, to say that it is not of significance? Surely it's better to include this and let the reader decide than rely on judgements biased by our participation in this project?


 * Anyway should the section be restored there are three things I would suggest.


 * Firstly, that "The computers are alleged to have belonged to a number of departments including the Treasury, the Solicitor General, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport." be changed to The computers are alleged to have belonged to a number of departments that could include the Treasury, the Solicitor General, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport." since this better reflects what the original article (by the journalist who did the analysis) said, to quote "The entries were posted from IP addresses used by computers based in government departments including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Office of the Solicitor General."


 * Secondly, that the Cabinet Office statement "At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the Hillsborough edits involve any particular department, nor more than one or two individuals in 2009 and 2012." be added immediately afterwards, clearly sourced as being from the Cabinet Office, since that's an official response to media speculation that gives a different view. Reported here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27165844 amongst other places.


 * Lastly, include the response from the Wikimedia Foundation, as this gives some of the context of the lack of seriousness, from a Wikipedia point of view, that people have expressed above. To quote: "Jon Davies, chief executive of Wikimedia UK, said it was "appalled by such vandalism" and that it had systems in place to deal with such incidents. "In this case, none of the offensive comments were up for more than a couple of hours, and most were removed in a few minutes," he said."


 * With the above information, plus anything that emerges from the investigation, I think readers will be able to work out for themselves how significant this is but, given the interest shown by many parties thus far, I don't think that's a decision we can make for them.


 * I'm leaving this be, now, which is why I've taken the time to suggest the three points the need adding to the section, should it be restored. 2.25.112.149 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure. It's a trivial event compared to the disaster itself. But the news story isn't dying, there's more stories coming through (which surprised me). Not sure if there's enough for a spinoff article yet. But I'd say a mention in this article wouldn't be wrong - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We have a policy regarding this WP:NOTNEWS, wikipedia doesn't report on current events and this is very much a current event ie the wikipedia article shouldn't be edited to include a developing or breaking story. I would go further to suggest in reality, this a none story blown out of all proportion.  It was a couple of individuals editing from a Government owned network that were purely vandalism edits and were quickly reverted.  As others have noted this happens all the time and in the scheme of things sadly par for the course.  If at some point, this becomes a controversy picked up and reported in reliable secondary sources that is the time to incorporate it into the article not now.  WCM email 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not quite correct, we report on current events all the time. The spirit of the policy there is that our coverage should be enduring.  We should avoid writing too much about ephemeral facts.  Your most important point is correct, we don't really need to include coverage of this if secondary sources haven't, since that's a pretty strong indication that there are few enduring implications of this.  Gigs (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, WP:NOTNEWS would indicate we wouldn't report on a current event in an existing article but in a specific article for that event. The front page is currently full of examples.  In this case I doubt it is sufficiently notable to make it there.  You're correct in that it wouldn't make it because there are few enduring implications of this.  WCM email 17:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the first of the three three suggestions - should Wikipedia decide to reinstate the deleted section - then it might be more helpful to avoid weakening impact of the ECHO news story by using the direct quote: “Government computers have been used to insert insulting references into Wikipedia entries for the Hillsborough disaster, the ECHO can reveal. A series of sickening revisions to the site began on the 20th anniversary of the 1989 tragedy, when “Blame Liverpool fans” was anonymously added to the Hillsborough section of the encyclopedia site. 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.””

84.13.10.130 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No don't add it, dipshits edit the site all the time. Unless someone gets sacked or resigns over it.--Jackspeck (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the ECHO news report points to Whitehall (and the dip-sticks that work for them) using secure intranet to make insulting comments/smears on Wikipedia - is it not reasonable to directly quote such news reports? 78.147.88.90 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No its not, per WP:NOTNEWS, and anyway the Echo story is frankly hyperbole about a small amount of mindless vandalism that existed for moments before being removed. That shite happens all the time.  WCM email 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't decide whether something is a big deal; reliable sources (such as the Cabinet Office, which has already announced an investigation into the edits) do, and the large number of reliable sources at Hillsborough Wikipedia posts make it clear that this is significant enough to be included. Now that this event has settled down a bit I think that this event being reported as unusually significant should therefore be included in this article and I intend to add it as soon as I save this edit. Of course, you're welcome to try to change my mind if you disagree. Jinkinson   talk to me  01:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is not to include it unless anyone is fired or resigns over it. This is very unlikely to happen, because the government has practically zero chance of tracing the individuals responsible (even the government admits this). When all is said and done, this was some bored dipsticks making edits that were reverted swiftly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a longstanding approach to including in an article material about reporting about the article. WP:SUBJECT puts it clearly: even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself. The general consensus among established Wikipedia editors expressed on this page concurs and includes arguments from guidelines, first principles and the particularities of this article. I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been similar discussion at the article you mention above, Hillsborough Wikipedia posts. I suppose that might be partly because no-one involved in the discussions here realised you'd created it. NebY (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already used more time than I should on this (I'm the IP that raised this and has posted a lot in other sections above), so I won't, but perhaps someone should raise an AfD on that article. If it survives, then a brief mention here with a "see also" link would seem appropriate. At the very least, I think that the discussion that's occurred over here should be mirrored over there, and an AfD would seem to be the best way. 2.25.126.198 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And even if I felt inclined, I can't raise an AfD, anyway. However, I have raised the question of notability over at Talk:Hillsborough Wikipedia posts and tagged the article. 2.25.126.198 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to find a couple of idiots in any large group, and the fact that someone used a work computer to be offensive on the Internet has no significance for this article (unless a secondary source describes how it is significant for this topic). The Hillsborough disaster is a serious issue, both for the immediate tragedy and for the revelation of a nasty incompetence and/or corruption in services intended to help the public. It is not reasonable to pad out the article with a suggestion that a troll at a keyboard deserves a memorial section in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. WCM email 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally Dis-agree! Clearly, a “couple of idiots” using a “work computer to be offensive” would have little or no significance. But, in light of past smears from the British powers-that-be, concerns that Whitehall computers might have been used in yet another smear is of importance. Yes the Hillsborough disaster is a very serious issue, both for the immediate tragedy, and newspaper revelation that the British government department may have planted stories on the Wikipedia site. Given this, the comments about attempts to “pad out the article” are an insult. Another cheap-shot is the remark that a “troll at a keyboard deserves a memorial section”. While this story is might be getting a little dirty for Wikipedia - should it be swept under the carpet? 84.13.12.101 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hate to think that British taxpayers' money had been spent on adding immature nonsense like "Des Lynam was killed by a giant snowball" from government IP addresses. This looks like bored idiots playing around with the office computer, not a vast conspiracy. It is remarkably commonplace from UK government IP addresses, as their talk page history shows. Most of this nonsense gets reverted within a few minutes.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, vandalism of a Wikipedia article for a few minutes is hardly much of a smear, as it is likely that nobody other than the vandal and the reverting editor even read the article while the edit in question was there. And even if they were read, the edits were too crass and offensive to actually influence anyone who hadn't already made their mind up. If these were lasting edits that changed the point of view of an article then that would be a different matter. As it is, offence is only being caused because a sensationalist journalist has dragged these previously unknown edits out of the history and shoved them in the faces of the bereaved and their families.


 * I also notice that the IP you are replying to seems to have difficulty with the idea that someone who works for the government can act independently of their employers, even though most people with internet access at work have used it personally and not behalf of their employers, including Wikipedia vandals, who edit from within many organisations without representing those organisations.


 * Ironically for wannabe conspiracy theorists on this, our only really reliable source is the Cabinet Office investigation. The IP addresses in question cover too many people, in multiple offices of pretty much every department in government, to say anything at all about who did these things and why. We can't currently say that this is a government plot on the basis of mere speculation; and the only party with the possibility of access to the specific information about this is the government itself. If the government enquiry says they don't know who did this but there was no policy to do it, or they find the individuals responsible and state they acted as individuals, then that will be the most reliable account we have, as nobody else is in a position to do anything other than speculate. If that happens, which is likely, I'd suggest the whole thing doesn't really meet the WP:EVENT notability guidelines.


 * What is also quite amusing in terms of the reaction to edits from these IP addresses is that anyone who wanted to mask them would simply have to create a username on Wikipedia to do so. Equally, they could still edit as an IP while masking their government employment by editing from home, or from anywhere with wifi (or even an old school internet cafe) or via a proxy server. A conspiracy theory requires the people who did this to be both devious and spectacularly inept. Lastly I wonder how the idea that these IP addresses must have been used for sinister things can be squared with the pretty inane edits that have been reported so far (and these are the worst that the press can find) and particularly the anti-Tony Blair edit reported here 2.25.138.103 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I stumbled across this edit to the Health Protection Agency article from, you guessed it, the Health Protection Agency's IP address. More evidence of the nefarious UK government at work. 2.25.112.184 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Set against other planted media stories, is it not possible that British taxpayers' money might have been spent on supporting dis-information? For, even if the press found out, it would be easy to make it simply look like “bored idiots playing around with the office computer”. So Wikipedia editors are pulling together to down-play this story and paint me as some conspiracy supporter? 92.16.153.248 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't British taxpayer's money being spent on dis-information, it wasn't a planted story, it was the cyber equivalent of a couple of idiots writing "penis". No this isn't a conspiracy of wikipedia editors trying to paint you as some sort of conspiracy theory nutter either.  A lot of people have spent their time patiently explaining why this is not appropriate, I would suggest you climb off the high horse.  WCM email 23:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's possible (which it is, although very unlikely) or not, what you need is a reliable source that says that it has happened. Wikipedia doesn't publish speculation about possibilities, it publishes verifiable information from reliable sources. Whether you think we're "pulling together to down-play this story" (itself a conspiracy theory), or not, is irrelevant; the policy is clear and you have to argue in terms of policy to get a change in the consensus on this. Read all the links in this discussion so far to get a better idea of how the project is supposed to work.


 * It seems to me that you have two options: to provide evidence, from reliable sources, that "British taxpayers' money" has (not "might have") "been spent on supporting dis-information"; or to argue that the sourced news stories thus far are sufficient to meet event notability and significant enough in terms of this article's subject to merit a mention here. To do the second of these, you can only rely on what the sources are saying, not speculation about what may be revealed in the future. And remember that the burden of proof lies with you, id you want something adding.
 * Really, I think you should take some time to read and understand the policies of Wikipedia and get rid of your misconceptions about why editors are saying what they are saying and why the consensus is so firmly against you. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

In reply to some of the above comments I would say the following: It was an Editor that first mentioned "British taxpayers' money" comment - in relation to a fake story of a sports presenter killer by a show ball. Given that such (needless) remarks can only divert attention away from the main issue - are they not at-odds with the House Rules? While fully aware of the odds against me, and having a general understanding of the House Rules, I would mention the word Context. Set against the context of police and 'newspaper' insults - and given where the 'edits' came from - is there not a reasonable chance that this was an official smear? 89.243.163.65 (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is into the realms of WP:REDFLAG. You would have to ask Cui bono for why nonsense edits reverted within a few minutes would be worth British taxpayers' money. The Liverpool Echo and other sources failed to provide proper context for these edits. Very few people would have seen these edits, and all Wikipedia articles have been edited by bored idiots at some point.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that the edits were from "bored idiots" having fun after-hours and were (anyway) reverted within a few minutes. So it is not worth considering ‘who benefits’ from the smears against the families and supporters? And yet, even if it is not possible to directly highlight or link to issues (that Wikipedia has already mentioned) - is it not possible to restate what was said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality? Also, while the House Rules highlight the need to present articles in a neutral manner - is it not possible to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic? 88.107.54.81 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

British media looking at UK government IP addresses editing WP
Further to the discussions above about the Liverpool Echo story, it looks like the BBC has been trawling through the edits by those accounts for anything else that may be offensive. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't come as a great surprise that UK government IP addresses such as User talk:195.92.40.49 and User talk:62.25.106.209 have a history of vandalism, but it is more worrying that the nature of the Government Secure Intranet apparently makes it almost impossible to trace the individuals making the edits. This leads to questions about the wisdom of allowing edits from this type of IP address without a login, similar to School block. Also, the media needs to learn that there is little point in highlighting very old vandalism as it is unlikely ever to be traced, and that most vandal edits are reverted swiftly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's getting towards off topic for this thread, but here's some detail as to what would need to be in place to trace the people responsible. The two gateways are firewalls provided by Cable and Wireless (formerly Energis) who also provide the infrastructure for the private network that is the GSI. It's not just security that means they all have to share a couple of addresses, the private address aren't unique and so can't be directly reachable from the internet and even without security concerns you couldn't justify a unique internet routable address for ever user when hundreds of thousands can share a single IP address via many-to-one network address translation.
 * So, Cable and Wireless should have logs that show the translations and thus the private IP addresses that initiated them. However, as there are hundreds of thousands of users involved and every connection is logged, the logs held in the memory of the firewall will only be the most recent fraction of the total history. So the logs would have to be sent to a separate server and, in this case, may years worth of logs would have to be kept on that server. It may well have not occurred to anyone to set this up (although I'd imagine they're looking at it now, if they haven't before). Or it may be that logs are removed after a specific time.
 * If they can get the private IP address then that will tell them which local area network the edit came from, which would narrow it down to department, office within that department and (depending on the network setup) possibly something like a floor in that office. To find out the computer that was used you could look at the DHCP logs and get a MAC Address but that computer could no longer be in the office and also that won't tell you who was logged into it at the time. To be sure you need to able to cross-reference the IP address and time with the user authentication logs on the network server, assuming it logs the IP address of the user logging in (and as IP addresses are assigned by a different process, this is not necessarily a given). At that point you would know who made the edit and could discipline them, assuming they still worked for the department (and natural wastage aside, the civil service employs a lot of temporary staff) - and I'm not even that confident they could trace someone who had moved to a different department. Also, each department almost certainly looks after its own IT so there's probably no standard for what it logged and how long the logs are kept for. I'd be surprised if there are still logs for any of the edits mentioned thus far.
 * It would be ironic, though, given the amount of effort that GCHQ has put into monitoring general internet traffic if they can't find out what civil servants have done. 2.25.112.149 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the person who logged on to the machine, was the person operating it at the time. - X201 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In an office situation, where people can lock their machines, it most likely would be. Editing from someone else's machine would mean going to their desk, which increases the chances of you being caught at the time of doing it. If they can get to a specific log in I doubt that "someone else could have used my computer" would be any kind of defence in a disciplinary hearing. 2.25.112.149 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the effort GCHQ puts into monitoring internet traffic, would it not be ironic if they failed to find out just what happened?

(Hope it might be useful to slightly restate your (telling) comment in the form of a question?) 84.13.10.130 (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No don't add it, dipshits edit the site all the time. Unless someone gets sacked or resigns over it.--Jackspeck (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it appears that dip-sticks - such as British government departments - have made 'edits' on this site, is it not reasonable to ask why such departments would want people to know what really happened? 78.147.88.90 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

police coverup term please add to article
Blue Code of Silence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.49.54.35 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Should only be included if that specific phrase has been used to describe what happened here by one or more reliable third party sources. Given that this is a UK event, this seems unlikely. Also, at present everyone has to be careful about what they say about this as the inquest is ongoing, plus there is an IPCC report to come and the possibility of criminal proceedings to follow. Until these processes are complete, it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me to make broad associations about police conduct in this matter. 2.25.112.149 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The mention of a Code of Silence seems fitting - don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.85.7 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk Archive
There's now a bot archiving this talk page, but it has moved its first archiving of posts to Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 7 and the only other archive page is Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 1 plus that's the only one showing. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, hopefully this will have fixed it. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits from government IP addresses
This is starting to break as news at the moment and the government is looking into it. Probably worth adding to controversies once enough third-party detail is out there. In particular, it should be made clear that this doesn't mean this was an official decision, as the Liverpool Echo article says:


 * "However, an official inquiry is necessary to establish exactly which department and which people are responsible for the changes as the IP addresses cover thousands of Whitehall computers."

Links so far:  2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Guardian has got it now see Hillsborough: government computers allegedly used to insult victims.&mdash; Rod talk 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the Telegraph see Insulting revisions to Wikipedia entry on Hillsborough made from Government computers.&mdash; Rod talk 20:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Daily Mirror version Hillsborough insults added to Wikipedia pages using GOVERNMENT computers.&mdash; Rod talk 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ITV now has Hillsborough insults 'traced back to govt computers'.&mdash; Rod talk 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the BBC Hillsborough Wikipedia changes: Government promises 'urgent inquiries'.&mdash; Rod talk 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which edits are being cited? What ip numbers?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Edits during 2009. None so far I can see from 194.60.38.198, our usual Parliamentary friends. Appalling stuff, from individual departments "... entries were posted from IP addresses used by computers based in government departments, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Office of the Solicitor General." From The Guardian Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Liverpool Echo mentions two addresses used from "34 known to public from the Government Secure Intranet (GSI)" Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the mention of the Treasury comes from the written answer (see below) and the other two departments are the Liverpool Echo stirring things up, since they relate to Hillsborough. The two IP addresses are shared by all government departments, so there's no basis for singling out those particular ones and no way of telling, just from the IP address, which department the edit came from. Only the government will be able to trace the sources of the edits, assuming they still have the relevant logs. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 195.92.40.49 and 62.25.106.209 are the IP addresses mentioned in a 2008 written answer from Angela Eagle . In the article that broke the story, the Liverpool Echo journalist has looked at all the edits from those IPs, I think. They don't specify the IPs in the article, but they are clear about their source:
 * "The web of computers is tracked online by a handful of IP addresses, the details of which were released by Wallasey MP Angela Eagle following a parliamentary question in 2008, when she was a Treasury minister.


 * Analysis of Wikipedia’s revision history revealed the same unique ID codes were used to amend the Hillsborough and Anfield pages with a series of sick jokes."
 * The article mentions several edits and gives 2009 and 2012 as the dates for a couple of them.
 * I used to work as a network engineer for the ISP that provides the Government Secure Intranet and I can say that those two address are firewalls that provide internet access (via network address translation) to pretty much the entire civil service - so thousands and thousands of people will be sharing those addresses to access the internet from work, from the lowest admin assistant all the way to the top. Most likely they were by fans of other clubs trolling and unaware that they'd leave a trace. I'd be surprised if the Government has the logs to track down the individuals responsible. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs - this article: ; Anfield:  . I think that covers everything reported - I went back as far as 2007 on both IPs and didn't find anything else. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone in the community for their customary vigilance and competence. If there are any press enquiries that end up here we will be able to explain, yet again, how Wikipedia works. To quote user Rexx about this page 'our system works. But that's not news.' Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Reverted in 4 minutes, 3 hours 28 minutes and 9 minutes respectively, which may even compare well to the comments sections of some of the sites that are carrying this story. NebY (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting picked up widely now, in addition to those already mentioned: Essentially they are all variations on the original Liverpool Echo piece, but I notice that the story is already starting to mutate. From the Daily Mail:


 * "Further abusive revisions were traced to IP addresses of computers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Treasury and the Solicitor General’s office. "

and


 * "The revelations came to light after 34 IP addresses of Whitehall computers were disclosed via a parliamentary question."

Neither of these statements is correct: the parliamentary answer only named two addresses (see above) and neither address can be traced to specific departments without further investigation. The article also gives the impression of many separate changes, but the diffs (above) only show three edits in total from the two IP addresses and all the changes mentioned are covered by just two of them.

Until the results of the official investigation are published, I'd suggest that any editors who want to add this to the article are cautious about how they use the media reports - the press doesn't currently have enough information to do much more than speculate. Even calling them Whitehall address may turn out to be misleading in terms of how that is typically understood. The 195.92.40.49 gateway is in Leeds and is likely to cover offices in the northern half of the country, the 62.25.106.209 gateway is in Watford and probably covers the south, although not exclusively London or specifically Whitehall. To pick a couple of possible scenarios, a northern edit could have come from Quarry House and a southern one from the DVLA. So nothing is going to be that clear until the government investigates and reports its findings. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I ran some whois and geoip checks on this edit. This was the geoip result on the free geoip site which was most accurate with my own IP. This is the whois result. Thought it might be worth mentioning. Dolescum (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Within Europe, Geolocation software primarily relies on the RIPE NCC database, which is updated by the ISPs who control the blocks allocated to them by RIPE. The accuracy can therefore be pretty variable, especially when you get down to street level (for what it's worth, the link you gave suggests that the IP belongs to the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster - zoom in on the map to see). The reverse DNS for that IP is 213-152-41-250.dsl.eclipse.net.uk which suggests a DSL line provided by Eclipse Internet. This is confirmed by the RIPE whois entry you also link to, which also tells us it's a small allocation of 8 IP addresses (inetnum: 213.152.41.248 - 213.152.41.255) and has a description Westminster Hotel (descr: Westminster Hotel), which fits with it being a small allocation. A bit of searching suggests it could be this hotel, which may be the same as this one. Whatever it is, DSL + 8 IP addresses suggests a small hotel in Westminster and certainly not anything to do with the government. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I spotted all that fairly early on when googling. That's not the only potential hotel in the area to fit the name on the whois but if you're happy there's no connection, might as well leave things there. Dolescum (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, just wow... well Wikimedia by now most likely has the edit history of those involved but this is a good time to raise that this is why it is good to remove the edit summary altogether with these kind of edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean Revision deletion, in which case there is a procedure there for requesting this. However, it should be noted that there will be a large number of vandalism attempts both here and at Anfield which are likely as bad as or worse than the two that have come from government IP addresses. They'll all have been reverted as soon as possible, so the only way to find them is to trawl through a large number of edits - so the potential for causing offence and distress is pretty limited. Obviously we know about the two government ones (see the diffs, above) but I'd suggest that deleting them is pretty pointless now that they've been reproduced and highlighted across the national media. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Any other pages involved?
I'm doing a radio interview about this later today (5 Live). Were any other pages involved? Or are we talking about literally three IP edits from two and five years ago? - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail has two more from Anfield: "The words ‘nothing for the victims of the Heysel stadium disaster’ were also added to a description of the Hillsborough memorial at the Anfield stadium" and "On another occasion, the description of a statue of Liverpool manager Bill Shankly on the Anfield Wikipedia page was revised to change the well-known quote ‘He made the people happy’ to the bizarre ‘He made a wonderful lemon drizzle cake’." NebY (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, those were one edit:, reverted 4 min later. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, only the next edit was 4 minutes later (also from a GSi address, and adding contentious, but not insulting stuff - it was reverted 5 minutes later, but the first edit remained), it took almost two days for that edit to completely disappear . 2.25.115.116 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as a side-note: I've been extra cautious around Daily Mail stories about Wikipedia ever since "Christina Aguilera fluffs the lines to the National Anthem at the Super Bowl - by singing botched lyrics found on Wikipedia", when we found that the lyrics had been changed on Wikipedia after the event but still in time to make a good story. NebY (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, above, they've already managed to mangle the story when simply copying it from the Liverpool Echo original. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The origin of the story is the Liverpool Echo and that only mentions Hillsborough (this page) and Anfield as being changed. Those are the search terms I used when looking through the logs. Of the diffs I provided, above,  isn't insulting and is not referenced in the article. The following quote from the article is covered by this edit :
 * "A series of sickening revisions to the site began on the 20th anniversary of the 1989 tragedy, when “Blame Liverpool fans” was anonymously added to the Hillsborough section of the encyclopedia site."
 * The rest is partially covered by this edit but I'll quote what the article says because that edit doesn't cover everything (I've bolded the bits that aren't accounted for).
 * "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.”


 * "A further amendment from a government machine includes changes to the phrase “This is Anfield”, which appears above the players’ tunnel at the club's ground, to “This is a S***hole.”


 * "The words “nothing for the victims of the Heysel stadium disaster” were also added to a description of the Hillsborough memorial at the Reds’ stadium.




 * "On another occasion, the description of a Bill Shankly statue on the Anfield Wikipedia page was revised to change the well-known quote “He made the people happy” to “He made a wonderful lemon drizzle cake.”"


 * The edit I found changes "This is Anfield" to "This Is A Field" not "This is a Shithole" - and there are no other edits on either page for 62.25.106.209 or 195.92.40.49 that I could find (someone may want to double check this). That means that "This is a Shithole" and “You’ll never wank alone.” were either made by a different IP or IPs or were made earlier than I searched (to about mid 2007), assuming the reporter isn't mistaken. Probably the best thing to do to get the full details would be to contact the journalist, Oliver Duggan, at the Liverpool Echo or via Twitter  or his website . 2.25.115.116 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Interview just done - prerecorded (they're prerecording everything they can about Hillsborough from a great deal of legal caution about the issue) - technical stuff about how to edit (click "edit"), what gets recorded when you edit Wikipedia as an IP, that our policy is to keep things as open as possible and only lock when needed, that we're unlikely to change this policy (since we can revert rubbish easily, and can lock pages as needed if necessary), that anyone can see the history tab and look through it and that if you create a login then people can't see your IP, but they can see your track record of changes 'cos that's how you accumulate reputation. Wonder what they'll use from it ... it'll be on 5 Live Drive this afternoon - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Can the government IP addresses be blocked from editing?

 * Any chance of the GSI network being blocked from editing wikipedia? This network is only used by ordinary civil servants who during working hours should not have any business editing wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.236.44 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocking those two addresses would probably do it (I doubt they've added another gateway since 2008) although some parts of government probably access the internet from different address (although not technically part of the government, parliament has its own IP range, for example). I think you'd have go pretty high up, maybe start at Administrators' noticeboard and see what they suggest. Certainly I don't think the GSi firewalls will be able to block editing Wikipedia without also blocking reading it, which many civil servants would have good reason to do, as part of their work. So it'd have to be done here - I suspect that goes against the ethos of Wikipedia though and they'd say it's down to the government to police their employees. And the GSi admins can monitor the talk pages here and keep logs of all the activity on their network - so it's not like the don't have the tools to discipline staff members using their time inappropriately. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Media coverage of this has failed to emphasise how old some of the edits are. Much of it was reverted within a few minutes, so apart from the IP address being registered to the UK government, there isn't much of a story here. Unless the UK government has some very old logs, the chances of tracing the individuals concerned looks remote.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I meant is there any reason why Wikipedia could not block editing from those addresses, like they do from other IP ranges that prove to be up to no good? I imagine that staff will be disciplined depending on how far reaching the investigation is 31.87.147.158 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I understood that, maybe my reply wasn't clear enough, sorry. My understanding is that Wikipedia doesn't generally block shared IP addresses indefinitely since it would punish many editors who are not vandals (both address have been temporarily blocked several times, see the block logs). And that whether or not people should be editing from work is not Wikipedia's concern. So I think it would be unusual for them to block these two addresses. I'm not the person you need to ask if you want this doing, though. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Then again, whether or not people editing from work is an issue, should not Wikipedia be concerned as to how and why the British Government departments might have been using them to put out dis-information? 78.147.90.193 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Vandalising Wikipedia articles with tasteless jokes is not putting out dis-information and is reverted as soon as it is spotted anyway. As for actual dis-information (and it'd be nice to see an example), vigilant editors applying WP:V and WP:RS is the traditional remedy, no matter what the source. Blocking government IPs on principle doesn't seem to me like any sort of answer. WP:COI can also be applied in editing decisions without the need for arbitrary blocks. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you have certainly made a good job of down-playing a live issue. Putting this in to some kind of context, since British departments and supporters have already attempted to smear the name of the dead, are there not reasons to ask whether the “Vandalising” of Wikipedia was something more than a lone computer operator putting out “tasteless jokes”? 78.147.89.214 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on what I know about the network itself (having worked for the ISP that provided it) and number and type of people working in the civil service (having briefly done so myself) I think that's unlikely. Even if it was, the effect was minimal, since the edits were visible only for a short time before being removed. Not that I deny the terrible things that have been done, and I'm not trying to excuse them, but I just can see any tangible evidence for anything other than individual actions here. If there was a coordinated smear, you'd expect it to be subtler (ie something like attempting to push the police accounts of the disaster as if they hadn't been discredited), more persistent and made from IP addresses that couldn't be traced back to the government. But my opinion is irrelevant (as is yours): the issue for this talk page is, strictly speaking, improving the article based on reliable sources and not speculation or personal opinion. And if there is a concern about Wikipedia being manipulated and so needing to block certain addresses (a block that it would be trivial to avoid for anyone determined to do so) then it needs to be raised elsewhere. I'm not exactly sure where, but WP:AN would probably be a good place to start. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources - Context Matters

Set against the context of past attempts to smear the dead, say there was yet another planned attempt - but one that wanted to seem that it was not - would the attempt need to subtle? In the unlikely event of it being found out, all the powers-that-be need say is that there was no tangible evidence for anything other than individual actions - problem sorted! Concerning improvements to the article, what about setting government statements against the context in which they were made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.232.6 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well the consensus at present seems to be that the event is not significant enough to merit inclusion the article, which makes all talk page comments about the details spectacularly irrelevant, including mine. If you wish to change that consensus then you'll need to argue your case here - and then I'd suggest going forward by talking about what is in the article itself (if anything) not comments on the talk page, which is not supposed to be for general discussions of the subject. At any rate, there's nothing more to be said in this section. And, again, if you think the IP addresses need blocking from editing, it won't happen by posting on this talk page, suggesting it on WP:AN might be a good place to start. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Move along, nothing more to be seen here? OK,OK, have moved my concerns to the place suggested: 'Removal of the section about the government IP edits'. 88.107.50.87 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Details of government investigation announced
From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27165844

Relevant quote from the Cabinet Office:


 * "At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the Hillsborough edits involve any particular department, nor more than one or two individuals in 2009 and 2012.


 * "As the first incident happened five years ago and there are hundreds of thousands of people on the government's network, it may prove challenging to identify who was involved, but we are exhausting every option."

That's already adding context to some of the media speculation so far. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Knowing the turnover in staff through redundancies, there's a good chance that someone employed in 2009 in the Civil Service is no longer there. Not that excuses their edits, of course.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We could help to improve the article by addressing real issues and not getting side-tracked. For how is repeating questionable and self-serving Cabinet Office PR adding any context to this ongoing media story? 78.147.89.214 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a source in a developing situation and the article correctly links to it, as reported by a third-party. My point about context was that in the absence of a statement about how the government network operates we are left with nothing but speculation about how this event came about, based on two IP addresses. The best statement would be from an independent source but in the absence of that a third-party report of a government statement about the nature and scope of their network is perfectly acceptable, and better than not mentioning it at all. If you can find a source for questions about the accuracy of the statement than please suggest it for addition to the article, otherwise you're just pushing a point of view. As the situation develops, we'll have a full scale inquiry and the third party response and analysis of that to draw on.
 * And whatever you think of my comments here, this is just the talk page. The focus for improvement needs to be the article itself, so please be specific about what, if anything, you think needs changing in the Hillsborough disaster section, assuming it gets restored (see Talk:Hillsborough disaster). This is the most recent version of that paragraph, before it was removed:


 * On 24 April 2014, media reports suggested that UK government computers had been used to make "insulting edits" to the Wikipedia articles about the Hillsborough disaster and Anfield. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign condemned the edits and indicated that the victims' families would seek an official investigation. The computers are alleged to have belonged to a number of departments including the Treasury, the Solicitor General, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. On the same day, the government announced that an investigation into the allegations will be carried out by the Cabinet Office.


 * 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so much objecting the reporting of the statement - as questioning whether a government PR statement could really add any degree of “context”? As for Pushing a Point of View, Wikipedia should avoid giving the Cabinet Office statement extra value. Given this government statement is about the nature and scope of this government’s own computer network, might not some people call such statements - ‘self-serving'? 78.147.84.144 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The context comment was one that I've made in the talk page - it isn't in the article. The article should be your concern, one thing I've said here isn't especially relevant. As it stands, the article makes no mention of any of this anyway (which can be discussed here). I appreciate you think I'm shilling for the government and playing down some sort of cover up - but whether I am or not is not relevant. Your concern here should be the article itself, so discuss that and not a remark made in passing. To start with, you could consider trying to get the section reinstated. That's the last I'll say on this. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's late and there does not seem any reason to continue with the context comment. About the removed section, until fully up-to-day on the reasons why it was removed - there seems little point supporting calls to get it reinstated. 92.24.232.6 (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To repeat what I said in the other section, the consensus at present seems to be that the event is not significant enough to merit inclusion the article, which makes all talk page comments about the details spectacularly irrelevant, including mine. If you wish to change that consensus then you'll need to argue your case here - and then I'd suggest going forward by talking about what is in the article itself (if anything) not comments on the talk page, which is not supposed to be for general discussions of the subject. At any rate, there's nothing more to be said in this section. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding important context to an un-informed press story'

Or diverting attention long enough for the media storm to blow over? At this time, there is little evidence to support the suggestion that it was a lone computer operator. But, whether or not it was a few "individuals", there are hints that those involved might never be found. Then again, according to Collins, Damage Limitation is an "action that is taken to make the bad results of something as small as possible, when it is impossible to avoid bad results completely." The best tactic for the powers-that-be? 78.147.90.193 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting off-topic, but I'd be curious as to what plausibly sinister explanation there is for two edits in almost seven years (I looked back as far as 2007) from a network used by hundreds of thousands of civil servants, of all grades, is? Especially when the edits were quickly reverted. It doesn't look like much of a plan to me. I'd suggest it'd be best to concentrate on the terrible smear campaigns which have evidence pointing to them and avoid sullying the campaign with silly conspiracy theories. Also, Andy Burnham is overseeing the investigation, so that should be some comfort. Lastly, the only way they'll find the perpetrators is if they still have logs going back to those dates - if they haven't, that doesn't necessarily mean a conspiracy (given the size and complexity of the network and the time elapsed). Anyway, that's all I'll say - and I'd suggest that this discussion is off-topic for this talk page so shouldn't go much further. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet a few edits, over the years, might have seemed enough to smear campaigners - without the risk of being found out. Well, if that was the tactic, it has clearly backfired - badly. So, to put this to bed, what better way to limit damage than to paint this as another of those “silly conspiracy theories”? Only this time it might well be true? 78.147.90.193 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, you've had your say, but this has no bearing on the article, so it's time to stop. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Postscript
The 24-year-old junior administrator responsible has now been dismissed for gross misconduct:. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia - that anyone can edit?
08:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.85.7 (talk)

...and your point is...? Britmax (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can edit it within the five pillars and talk page guidelines. We've all said enough about the government IP edits for the time being, and the consensus is not to include this. The police cover-up theory is in WP:REDFLAG territory. Let's move on.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And my point is, should Wikipedia say it is an Encyclopedia that anyone can edit when there are House Rules? Also, having headlined on allowing open-access, should Wikipedia prevent reasonable attempts at highlighting Public Interest information? And so, given that Wikipedia refuses to reinstate the information in question - the only opinion is to move on. 78.147.91.84 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)