Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Gilligan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hutton Inquiry and toning down

As discussed on the Hutton Inquiry page, I toned down (deleted) some of my earlier comments (backing Gilligan) in the interests of neutrality following a suggestion by Pete/Psb21. The remainder is I think factually correct and reasonably balanced. Washington irving 21:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I was probably a little over-dramatic in my comments on the Hutton Inquiry talk page... I think I must be instinctively more suspicious by anon Ip editors than logged-in people. I think the sentence you removed was the only one where it was Wikipedia offering an opinion... which we try to avoid doing at all times :-). The rest of it looks good to me... thanks for all the additions! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You were right. When I looked back, it was just that sentence that stood out. Washington irving 09:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What about Gilligan's career post-BBC?

What about Gilligan's career post-BBC? I realise he is most famous (/infamous) for the Today report and aftermath. (Maybe he wont't have an entry without it.) But, as an entry on Andrew Gilligan, does it need to touch on what he has done since? (Apologies for any break in Wikipedia rules - this is my first contribution). --bentdavid 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions some details, such as his Spectator work and Evening Standard post with Routemaster articles. It could possibly go into more detail. (Incidentally I am glad that it's not original research for me to talk about Gilligan's love for public transport - I can remember him on the top deck of a Routemaster hired to go down to London when we were both at Cambridge, and pressing the bell twice then saying "I've always wanted to do that!". Fortunately he referred to his interest in the Hutton Inquiry so there's an independent source) David | Talk 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement should be added -

To be fair to Andrew Gilligan it should be pointed out that the claims made in his first bbc broadcast have subsequently been shown to be entirely accurate and true and this has been admitted by the Labour Government.

Without this there must be some suspicion that Tony Blair's propaganda team are writing this wiki.

None of the claims Gilligan made in his broadcast have been shown to be true. Show me wherever this has been shown. I'm removing this rubbish. This wiki is not for your opinion to be reported as fact. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me any part of Andrew Gilligans broadcast which has been shown to be not true!

There is no evidence that the government (the politicians) ever had reported to them any concerns over the 45 minute "well sourced piece of intelligence". Gilligan reported that they had been told it was wrong. His report was entirely untrue. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Beckett reopened the controversy over the Government's dossier about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction when she admitted yesterday that ministers had realised before the invasion the claim that they could be deployed in 45 minutes was probably wrong. Daily Telegraph.

Gilligan's track record

I seem to remember the Hutton inquiry heard evidence that Gilligan was rather prone to sloppy journalism before the Kelly affair. I also remember reading in Private Eye other instances of a cavalier approach to truth by him. I will try and find some sources on this. 82.69.28.55 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

As you may have noted there is a revert war taking place regarding Mr Gillian's alleged sockpuppeting. My view, based on the fact that it is referenced in the media, is that it should be in the article. Mr Gilligan has never actually challenged the allegations. He simply said that the user who made the edits in his favour, who went under the name Kennite is his "Partner". Any objections? D-Notice (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It simply isn't true to say Gilligan has never challenged allegations - he has more than challenged them, he has repeatedly denied them, as you yourself concede; Gilligan's partner and Gilligan are different people, are they not? Find it hard to understand why some on here are so committed to reinstating something that even they refuse to claim is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandler151 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Is it untrue that the Guardian have reported this?

2. The entry notes Andrew Gilligan's (weak) denial

3. The evidence is strong - read 4th reference (relevant comments made from Associated Newspaper's IP address, linking from searches for "Andrew Gilligan", relevant comments pre-empt the exact wording used by Andrew Gilligan in articles for the Evening Standard - see below)

3/10/08 - an anonymous commentor uses the phrase ‘a certain mad nobility’ line and the Rose West comparison, on TTT
6/10/08 - kennite uses the phrase ‘a certain mad, self-destructive nobility’ in a comment on CiF.
27/10/08 - Gilligan uses the phrase ‘a certain mad nobility’, plus the Rose West comparison, in a badly aimed attack on me in the Evening Standard

4. Just because someone denies something, doesn't make it untrue. I'm sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of articles on wikipedia stating things on biographies where the subject does not necessarily agree with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reluctant as I am to 'hold the ring' on this subject, I am not prepared to see a continuation of the revert-warring. If there is further reverting on removal and replacement of the questioned paragraph then the article will have to be protected from editing until the dispute is resolved. The alternative to that would be to block participants which I am very reluctant to do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that revert-warrior 90.205.17.15 clearly has a personal grudge against Gilligan, since he says that Gilligan has made a "badly-aimed attack on me." I'd suggest his passion for including this unsubstantiated, and repeatedly denied, claim is his own form of attack on Gilligan; and would also suggest that this makes him an unsuitable judge of what's factually sound to include in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandler151 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert-warrior 90.205.17.15 says Gilligan attacked him on 27/10/08. By looking at who Gilligan attacked on that date, we discover that 90.205.17.15 is Tom Barry of the Boris Watch blog. And the "strong evidence" he cites in the discussion above is, in fact, his own blog! Both Boris Watch - and the other one cited as "strong evidence" for this unsubstantiated and repeatedly-denied claim - are fiercely hostile to Gilligan and regularly attack him in intemperate terms. Further evidence that Wikipedia is being exploited by some blogger's private vendetta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandler151 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. That was a quote from the 4th reference (read it), which I did not write. I am not Tom Barry, and I have never met or spoke to him. I enjoy reading his blog.

Try reading this from Dave Hill at Liberal Conspiracy to get a sense of Gilligan's non-denials of the allegations http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/11/25/andrew-gilligans-false-allegations/

These are #17 (doesn't address them, personal attack on author), #30 (personal attack on author, accusing people of 'lacking proportion' over sockpuppeting - hardly a denial).

He denies being one of the alleged sockpuppet identities (Kennite) over at Dave Hill's blog on the Guardian, though refuses to say what his relationship with Kennite is (and why his Standard articles plagarise his and others online comments word for word http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2008/nov/03/gilligan.

Kennite has not posted anywhere since the allegation that he was Gillgan first surfaced.

Maybe the paragraph should be changed to provide two alternatives 1) Gilligan is sockpuppeting (as alleged) 2) Kennite is Gilligan's partner, who has access to the Associated Newspapers office late at night, and searches for "Andrew Gilligan" to defend him from attack and provide support for Gilligan's Standard articles, particularly about Bendy Buses. There is evidence that he ghost-writes some of Gilligan's articles that he uses in his Standard column.

All the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The only other person Gilligan attacked on 27 October 2008 was Val Shawcross, the chair of the London Assembly's transport committee. Don't tell me you're her, 90.205.17.15? What a great story! And how fantastically sad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandler151 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandler, I am not her, no.

I have no connection to this debate at all, other than having read the relevant information on the Guardian and on blogs.

Sam - Sandler has changed the article back to the original. Can we have some independent adjudication, as it seems we are not going to agree.

In my view, the Guardian is a reputable source. I think the controversy over sockpuppeting is highly relevant to Andrew Gilligan's biography. I think the Associated Newspaper IP address of sockpuppeting comment + searches for Andrew Gilligan + Gilligan's denial that the alleged sockpuppet comment is "his partner" give strong grounds for some doubt over whether he is telling the truth.

I'll go with your judgement and desist from further change to what you decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You must be one or the other, 90.205.17.15. I think you're Tom Barry, who barely lets a day pass without penning some sort of attack on Gilligan. And on the IP address - we know Gilligan works from home. Is it, perhaps, possible that Gilligan's partner uses his internet connection from time to time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandler151 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. I am not one or the other. And I have never spoken to any of them, or had any contact, or met any of the people in this debate. I read the Standard. I live in London. I read the Guardian, and various London political blogs.

Some of the relevant comments were from Associated Press's IP address. Are you suggesting Gilligan lives in his office? And that his partner ghost-writes his comments sometimes?

And I note that the only articles you have only posted on since May 2008 (when your account was created) are about Andrew Gilligan. Surely you're not Andrew Gilligan, editing his biog in the 3rd person. Would destroy the argument you use somewhat.

Regards 90.205.17.15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandler, further to above, I note the Gilligan connections of your username. Adam Sandler was trying to launch a project to make a movie version of US TV show Gilligan's Island. Is this coincidence? Or are you inadvertantly proving that the paragraph should remain in? All the best 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)90.205.17.15

Oh, forgot the link http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/sandler%20keen%20to%20revive%20gilligan 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)90.205.17.15


Exactly the same thing seems to be true of you, 90.205.17.15. The only articles you seem to have commented on are about Gilligan. Are *you* Andrew Gilligan? I think not - I think you must be Tom Barry, gratuitously indulging in the very same practice - concealing your identity and vested interest online - which you are so happy to condemn Gilligan for. The only difference is that while there's no clear evidence against Gilligan, there is, thanks to your slip earlier in this discussion thread, very clear evidence indeed against you. To repeat - the only two people Gilligan attacked on 27/10/08 are Tom Barry and Val Shawcross: you must be one or the other; and whichever you are, you're not telling the truth. And on Gilligan's IP thing - have you never heard of remote logins? Sandler151 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll leave it there (and I am not Tom Barry or anyone connected to any of this debate, for the last time. I QUOTED what Tom Barry said in the 4th reference, and did not say that he was attacking me personally).

I think it's fairly clear who you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Tom, you didn't quote yourself - there are no quotation marks round that part of the sentence. You have been well and truly found out, I fear. You might also care in future to remember the cautions at the top of this page about making "controversial" and "potentially libellous" claims on Wikipedia about living people on the basis of material that is "poorly sourced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandler151 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I forgot to put the quotation marks in. You picked up on it. I corrected it.

Look at the original comment. The bit where I say, READ THE 4TH REFERENCE and SEE BELOW.

If you read article the 4th reference referred to http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2008/11/13/mr-gilligan-i-presume/, you will see it was quite clearly a quote.

Interesting that you mention "Tom Barry" without apparently having read the article I put as a reference, and his name having been mentioned once in things a referred to. I never mentioned that person once.

And I am not him anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodnight, Tom/Val. Sweet dreams. Sandler151 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I'm not them.

Good to see your keeping your good reputation Andrew (if it is you). Sockpuppeting on wikipedia to remove references people make to sockpuppeting on your biog would certanly be amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an attempt here to infer to give this credence by saying it was reported by the Guardian. It was not. It appeared on the blog of a freelance journalist - Dave Hill - which is hosted on the Guardian website. He says himself about his position "I'm not ... 'from the Guardian' in that sense, as I'm a freelance who works from home" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2009/jan/28/boris

Also noted the reverts by D-Notice who I believe picketed Gilligan's office with another blogger so I question the objectivity displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.208.250 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The employment status of the journalist is, I think, neither here nor there as to whether he is directly employed by The Guardian or a freelance. The policy on this area is stated in Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources and runs like this: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". A freelance journalist earning a living from journalism does count as a professional. I am unclear, however, as to whether the Guardian subjects his blog to editorial control. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So it comes down to whether the Dave Hill's blog on the Guardian website is edited or not. It clearly is, to protect the Guardian from legal issues that would arise if they allowed columnists to libel people. The Comment is Free blog on the Guardian notes that there is editorial control, and as DH has a permanent blog (and forms a large part of the Guardian's London political coverage) I would suspect the degree of editorial control to be greater. The allegations can also be sourced in the Independent and Time Out, though this refers back to the original Dave Hill piece on the Guardian.

"Sandler" and 80.225.208.250 - I think the reference stays unless you can prove that the Guardian do not edit Dave Hill's blog.

Any objections to this way of resolving it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You have just illustrated the problem very well. You say that Comment is Free has some form of editorial control, so by this definition, if someone mouthed off on there, it could be stated on Wikipedia that that "Guardian reported/alleged that.." when in fact it was just an opinion piece and they purposely print a varied and opposing array of opinions anyway.

Dave Hill's blog goes from his keyboard to the screen. There isn't an editorial process involved before publication. Of course the Guardian has the power to edit after the event but is that really how we're defining editorial control? They also have editorial control over their comments so are comments that make it through editorial control also to be classified as reliable sources? Just because something appears on the Guardian website which they haven't used their power to remove, can it be quoted as something alleged by the Guardian?

Dave Hill says himself, he is not "from the Guardian" in that sense. I.e his views are his own, and he isn't representing any Guardian editorial line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.192.143 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. But many newspapers publish opinion pieces - are you saying that this discounts them as a reputable source (even with caveats to note that these are allegations)? For example, Andrew Gilligan writes opinion pieces for the Evening Standard. Are you suggesting that they cannot be used as references for Wikipedia pages (I bet Ken Livingston's page has a lot of material sourced from there for example).

The Guardian have employed David Hill to write a blog on London politics for over 4 months now as well, which is a bit different to anonymous commentors on the blog, isn't it? If David Hill wrote libellous pieces for the Guardian, they would be sued and have little defence. So there is an editorial process that is gone through to prevent that from happening.

On the main point, do you think that the validity of the reference depends on whether the Guardian have editorial control or not (in which case, the dispute is settled when we have an answer to that), or do you think there are other factors that should determine whether allegations of sockpuppeting (and Gilligan's claims that his "partner" was behind the relevant comments) should be in his biog or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow night-owl. Firstly, I'm not clear what definition of editorial control Wikipedia are using. I'm suggesting they mean some kind of editorial process with oversight, checks and balances prior to publication. I don't believe Dave Hill's blog has that although clearly the Guardian are clearly able to delete/edit his postings as they can with all content on their site.

Secondly I'm not convinced about the importance of this. If Dave Hill said on his blog that another blogger had seen Andrew Gilligan wearing red socks, would that justify an entry on Wikipedia about Andrew Gillian's interest in red socks? Is the allegation even important enough to deserve a mention here or is it added for embarrassment after a bloggers' dispute? Dave Hill was reporting on other bloggers allegations and not producing any new evidence of his own.

The text that was here looked like it was written to embarrass rather than to inform. In the original paragraph it said the "Guardian newspaper alleged" which was an exageration as it wasn't in the newspaper. It also had a link to the sockpuppeting page followed by an explanation of what sock puppeting is. Again, it appeared written to embarrass - a link OR an explanation would suffice but both were included for maximum effect. I'll leave for others to decide if it should be here but if it is, it should be more neutral and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a tool for needling enemies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

On your first point, that's a valid question and something that could be dug into. The Guardian definitely have editorial control of the blog, and I'm quite sure it meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, and they employ Dave Hill long-term so they must be happy with his coverage of London politics.

On your second point, it is important - the "red sock" comparison is a false one. If allegations are true, it hardly does him credit as a journalist. I believe journalists have been sacked for this type of behaviour in America (have to check that). Anonymously bigging yourself up on the internet in the 3rd person is dubious behaviour. Gilligan understands this, hence his denials and engagement with the original allegations.

Because of this, it is a relevant fact to include to inform about AG, and not to embarrass. I'm happy for you (and others) to suggest textual changes to the paragraph this dispute is over, if you believe that it is not neutral enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it back to the original - I don't think Sandler (and others) managed to prove their contention that Dave Hill's pages on the Guardian do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source.

If we are insistent that we want a source for it that is in the written news media, the whole sorry episode was reported in the Independent on Sunday on Sunday 9th November 2008 [1]. I've added this link to the article too.

Any problems? If so, exactly what are they? Problems with the source we can discuss. Problems with things that do not show Gilligan in a positive light are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. We've lapsed back into revert warring. We need an independent opinion of whether or not the Independent and the Guardian constitute reliable sources as per wikipedia's definition Wikipedia: reliable source

Resolving dispute

I hope you have all got that out of your systems. First, I have protected the page for a week in order to resolve this dispute. If there are other changes which you want or need to make to the page, please use {{editprotected}} to request it here. As is usual the page has been protected on The Wrong Version. Second, please remember to comment on content, not on the contributor - and certainly not on the identity of an editor who chooses not to edit under their own name. Remember to assume good faith. If there are future instances of personal attacks and sniping, then I may be inclined to block the attacker from editing, possibly without further warning. Being provoked is not an excuse. Third, please be aware that you are not compelled to debate the exact same text. If you can produce a compromise text which everyone is happy with, then that would be a big step forward. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The personal agenda of a contributor is entirely relevant here, and their good faith cannot be assumed. Sandler151 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sandler"

1. I am not Tom Barry/Val Shawcross or anyone else connected with this debate or the political scene. You're putting a lot of weight on some missed quotation marks. I have no agenda, other than a wish to make this wikipedia entry more accurate. I think it is highly relevant to Andrew Gilligan's biography.

2. I made an adjustment to Andrew Gilligan's biography based on an article published on the Guardian website. As Sam notes, the validity of this source is good as the Guardian have editorial control of the website. I noted that these were allegations, and that Mr Gilligan denied them and claimed that the alleged sockpuppet identity was actually his "partner". There are unanswered questions about who this "partner" is, why they have access to Associated Newspaper's IP address, why Andrew Gilligan seems to be plagerising the comments his partner writes on online blogs in his Evening Standard column and why comments from his partner come direct from referrals from internet searches for Andrew Gilligan, among others. Hence the comment that Andrew Gilligan has refused to comment further (though I'm sure you could easily clear this up for us "Sandler".

3. You deleted this addition, based on your doubts about the source. The source is good and complies with wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. The claim is not libellous (I note that it is an allegation). So I don't understand what your problem with it would be, other than it is clear from your previous posts and changes made on wikipedia that you hold Andrew Gilligan in high regard(only changes to Andrew Gilligan's profile to make it more positive since you created your username in May 2008). I have my suspicions about why this is, but I'll hold my tongue given Sam's post above (though I would agree with you that if my suspicions are true, it would be entirely relevant and impossible to assume your good faith, or take the changes you wanted to make to the article seriously).

All the best

90.205.17.15 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)90.205.17.15

The source is a blog under nobody's editorial control but the blogger's - a blogger with a clear track record of hostility to Gilligan. Even then, I stress again, it merely asks a question (is Gilligan sockpuppeting?) to which Gilligan has repeatedly answered "No" and provided an explanation that nobody has been able to disprove. It is an urban myth, repeatedly punctured by the courts, that tacking on the word "allegedly" protects you from libel. Sandler151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Sandler - it is under the Guardian's editorial control. No question.

The bloggers feelings towards Gilligan are, to my mind, unimportant. If you are bringing 'personal opinion' into it, can anything in the Evening Standard over the past few months be taken seriously given the agenda of Associated Newspapers and the personal animosities of some of its columnists towards certain Mayors and certain types of buses (and the personal relationships with others).

Gilligan offered a far-fetched sounding denial - that the comments are not him 'sockpuppeting', but his "partner" who shares his exact same opinions, obviously ghostwrites his Evening Standard columns and searches on the internet for "Andrew Gilligan" late at night from Associated Newspapers IP addresses.

RE use of word "allegedly" - I'm happy for you to suggest a more appropriate phraseology if you are concerned with this. Maybe can rephrase around "Dave Hill reported on evidence that suggested that Andrew Gilligan was "sockpuppeting" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: Allegations of sockpuppetry

After a renewed revert-war I have again protected the page. The time has come to invite comments from a wider spectrum of users through a request for comments. The issue can be seen in the edit history of the article: there have been persistent claims that Andrew Gilligan has been commenting on newspaper stories and blogs under pseudonyms and without declaring his identity. Proof is lacking and he has been reported as denying the claims.

A reminder of the key policy involved. Biographies of living people policy states that controversial claims should be removed if they are poorly sourced. The claim is self-evidently controversial; the sources cited include a brief reference in a newspaper column, plus lengthy and detailed posts by a Guardian journalist on his own blog as part of the Guardian site. I am as yet uncertain whether this blog is subject to Guardian editorial control, but I am presuming it is because the journalist in question seems to have a regular brief and do news reports for the online version which occasionally appear in the print version. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In his original post on this he wasn't making allegation himself but linking to other blogs which all share a long running antipathy to Gilligan. The veracity of their claims has never been tested or proven and has in fact been denied by Gilligan.
I do also think that its relevant that one of the editors involved in this revert war (D-Notice) happens to share a name with a blogger that went and handed out protest leaflets with another blogger outside Andrew Gilligan's place of work. How about declaring an interest? [www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/11/andrew_gilligan_2.asp] 80.225.211.39 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
"simply because his opinion is known" - The point is that his opinion isn't known unless you have the background knowledge because he doesn't declare his interest. And I think going to hand out leaflets outside a place of work makes him a little more involved than having an opinion.
"Meanwhile would I be correct in assuming that the various contributions from 80.225. IP addresses,and Sandler151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are in fact the same user?" No, that would be an entirely wrong and odd assumption unless you were to think it inconceivable two different people could be of a similar opinion? Actually my interventions on this page have not been to remove the controversial portion but see it finessed to give what I'd consider a fairer and more neutral representation.

80.225.215.19 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would urge you to check out the exact content of the allegations on the blogs - there is quite strong evidence. Someone from an Associated Newspapers IP address, linking to blogs via late night searches for "Andrew Gilligan" on web portals posting content predictive of the exact phrasology (and quite original sounding e.g. "there is a certain mad nobility about defenders of bendy buses" and "reminicent of a campaign to rehabilitate Rose West") that Gilligan later uses in his Evening Standard columns. The alleged sockpuppet and Gilligan also seem to share exactly the same interest and viewpoints on certain issues. Gilligan himself has claimed that the alleged sockpuppet identity is in fact his partner. These facts raise these allegations above the status of gossip - and if true would be quite damning about Mr Gilligan's integrity as a journalist so are highly relevant to the biography (indeed, many journalists have been sacked for this kind of dishonest behaviour). Gilligan appreciates the seriousness of the allegations to his integrity, as he took the trouble to respond to them on the blog in question.

Aside from the allegations not being as soft as Sandler wishes to portray them (actually quite strong - with Gilligan's claims being somewhat unconvincing), both the Independent and the Guardian articles do, in my opinion, qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines.

Read the discussion above to get some idea of Sandler's motives - he obviously holds Mr Gilligan in high regard and I suspect that it is the distate of negative things written about Mr Gilligan rather than the reliability of the source that he has a problem with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.15 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator - you are quite wrong to suggest that 80.225 and I are the same person. We are not - why should we be? I am also surprised that as well as casting aspersions on the two pro-Gilligan editors you are prepared to defend the two anti-Gilligan editors - even though both appear to have pre-existing biases and agendas which preclude a clear appreciation of the facts in this case. The facts are, as you yourself say, that "proof is lacking" on the sockpuppeting allegation. Both "sources" cited merely report - in a very inconclusive way - the claims of blogs which have been virulent in their long-term hostilty to Gilligan. I am most surprised of all that you are prepared to protect an edit which includes a claim on which you concede that "proof is lacking." Sandler151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Sandler - I hope you're right - Sam as a wikipedia editor probably has access to IP addresses remember. I'll have to take your word for it, not that it's particularly important (you both make similarly weak arguments against the content remaining in).

I am certainly not anti-Gilligan - I am pro-truth. The facts are that the mainstream press have reported on allegations that Gilligan has been sockpuppeting. There is strong evidence that suggests he has been, though it is circumstantial and there is no definitive proof.

The Gilligan explanation (as he has indisputably given) is that the alleged sockpuppet is his partner (though he does not expand on this). His partner who has access to Associated Newspapers IP addresses. Who searches for "Andrew Gilligan" on internet search engines to post comments. Whose online comments Gilligan copies in his Evening Standard columns. Who shares Gilligan's opinions and journalistic agenda re bendy buses. Not a very plausible explanation - but it can't be proved that it's false without access to IP address of the comments section of the Guardian website to match Gilligan comments to the sockpuppet comments. Hence why the neutral paragraph in the biography notes the fact that it is unproven and that Gilligan claims that the alleged sockpuppet is his partner.

If Gilligan has been sockpuppeting it is a very serious thing for his journalistic integrity and highly relevant to his biography. Look at the reactions of employers of journalists who have been caught out doing this - many have been sacked for it.

Let's take an example close to Mr Gilligan's heart. Lee Jasper's wikipedia page includes allegations of corruption. This is referenced to an Andrew Gilligan opinion piece in the Evening Standard about the subject. We know that Andrew Gilligan was "virulent in his hostility" to Ken Livingstone and his administration, as you can see in his Evening Standard articles over the past 2 years or so (2 reasons - his employer and their determinition for Boris to be elected as Mayor, and Gilligan's personal quest to get the Routemaster re-instated to London's roads). "Proof is lacking" about these allegations - see the lack of any charges against Mr Jasper, and the inability of a politically-biased "forensic audit panel" stuffed with Tory grandees to find any evidence whatsoever about it. But it is a highly relevant allegation to his biography I'm sure you would agree (you/your hero wrote it), and it is quite right that it is included on wikipedia in a neutral way. To delete and not make reference to it would make the biography less accurate and less relevant. The same in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.186 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sam as a wikipedia editor probably has access to IP addresses remember" Actually the fact that he made that suggestion indicates to me he probably doesn't have access to IP addresses because it was entirely wrong. The fact he made the suggestion at all without any knowledge to support it is a little worrying.

The rest of your comments are irrelevant IMO. If you have an issue with Lee Jasper's entry, go and edit it. The validity of this rests upon the editorial process Dave Hill went through before posting it to his blog. Dave Hill has referenced this discussion page but not answered the question. Additionally, he has been asked by a commenter on his blog and he has ignored it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2009/feb/11/huttonkeyplayers-boris?commentid=1f7e3288-7fab-496f-9eed-babe2afa82fb 80.225.197.250 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

80.225 - Like I said, I'm taking your word for it about whether you and Sandler are one and the same. You say you are not. You're just two unconnected people who both admire Andrew Gilligan, have an issue with sources that qualify as "reliable sources" under Wikipedia's rules and post around the same time. I'll take your word for it.

I do not have an issue with Lee Jasper's entry. It was an example, provided for Sandler's benefit, of why it is unimportant whether the fact "proof is lacking" is relevant, or whether they are claims from sources "virulent in their hostility to Andrew Gilligan".

So, having demolished that part of Sandler's argument, we are back to the dispute over the source.

There are two sources cited - the Independent and the Guardian (I could also cite Time Out magazine, but I'm sticking journalistic sources).

The Guardian employs Dave Hill on a long-term basis forming a key part of its coverage of London politics. They pay him money to do so. They publish his content on their website (indeed, he used to publish it independently, and the Guardian wanted to take him under their umbrella as a result of that - they could have left it and not hired him and he would have continued to publish his blog independently), taking legal responsibility to what is published there. They edit his blog. I really don't understand where the problem lies. Look at Wikipedia: reliable sources and tell me the problems you have with both the Guardian and the Independent as "reliable sources" as defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.186 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"They edit his blog." Do they? Do you know that to be a fact or are you making an assumption? Does his blog go through a sub editor prior to publication? Do you know the answer to this question, and if so, how? What is your involvement with the Guardian or Dave Hill's blog, or do you assume you know because it suits what you want to believe?

Unlike you, I don't claim to know. One person that does know is Dave Hill. He has linked to this page, indirectly, and decided not to answer. Someone has asked him this in the comments of his blog and he has decided not to answer.

"Look at Wikipedia: reliable sources and tell me the problems you have" The part that says: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.. Did Dave Hill verify whether these allegations were true and how? Did the Independent verify these allegations and how? Or did they just link to, and pass on, the allegations of a few bloggers with a well known antipathy to Gilligan who have not had their evidence tested. That's the problem with these sources that you have singularly failed to address. Wikipedia is a place for proven facts, not your allegations and gossip based on assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.200.47 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RE David Hill's blog, it certainly is edited by the Guardian. And, besides, the ball is in your court to prove otherwise - I will continue to point to that fact that it's from a reliable source (the Guardian), from someone who is employed by the Guardian to write a blog that is an important part of their coverage of London politics, and who the Guardian headhunted to do so. If you disagree with that, you've got to come up with a good reason why. You obviously cannot as you note you do not claim to know. So the assumption is it is a reliable source.

RE allegations - the evidence is presented in Dave Hill's piece. He has quite clearly looked at the validity of the allegations and decided that there are questions for Mr Gilligan to answer and wrote that in his piece. Even Andrew Gilligan implicitly admits he had questions to answer them, even if his answers to them seem to lack credibility (his version of events is his 'partner' was posting the relevant comments, but he refuses to expand on this further).

RE Gossip - hardly! It is a reasonable assumption to make that someone:

a) commenting from Associated Newspapers IP addresses
b) from web searches for "Andrew Gilligan"
c) from someone with identical opinions on subjects that are dear to Mr Gilligans heart
d) who defends Gilligan at every turn
e) who writes identical (and original) phrasing in their posts that Gilligan uses in his Evening Standard columns a few weeks later e.g. 'the campaign to rehabilitate Rose West'
f) who Gilligan tried to claim was 'his partner'
g) who vanished without trace as soon as the controversy hit

was Gilligan pretending to be someone else to defend and support himself in the 3rd person and add credence to his views. Gilligan will only admit to being intricatly connected with the commenter and being aware of their activities(without expanding on it)

The wikipedia article neutrally makes reference to the fact that Gilligan has been accused in the Guardian (and elsewhere) of sockpuppeting, (notes the strong) evidence behind this allegation and notes the allegation is unproven and the fact Gilligan denies it. The allegation is highly relevant to Gilligan's biography. There are lots of examples of this neutral presentation of controversies on many wikipedia articles. Are you denying that it is a fact that allegations of sockpuppeting have been made against Gilligan? Thought not.

RE "antipathy towards Gilligan" - I covered this in my response to Sandler, and showed it is irrelevant.

The only relevant fact is whether Dave Hill's blog on the Guardian website is a reliable source. You say you do not know. The assumption - as the Guardian is undoubtedly a reliable source - is that it is. You prove otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.17.186 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point - Dave Hill is up for an award for best digitial journalist of the year from the Press Gazette for his Guardian blog [2]. That's "journalist" because his blog is "journalism" from a reliable source.

Think we can unlock this now, as Sandler and his chum cannot find any evidence that the Guardian do not edit Dave Hill's blog (and that has to be the assumption - there are strong indications that they do), and the blog is being acknowledged as high-quality journalism by the trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.186.2 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment My understanding is that the Guardian blog should be allowed as a reliable source, so the artcile as it stands is fine in my opinion. On another matter, Inquiry or Enquiry, - I think it would be better to stick to one consistent spelling. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a reliable source in that it is a platform provided by The Guardian, and so we can take it as evidence that Hill says this, but not that he is right to do so. The article is therefore right to report the controversy/allegation, but not to try to decide whether Hill is right.Martinlc (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Other languages

Please add fa:اندرو گیلیگان. Thank you. --Wayiran (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I havve done that. You could have added it yourself, you know. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Gilligan/Archive_1&oldid=329383906"