Talk:Clive Bull/Archive 1

message: The less intelligent of Iain Lee's fans are getting a bit hyperstimulated.--194.32.41.22 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =More Iain Lee vandalism 

message: Please note that the revised veraion of this article, which has now been removed/reverted while the protection is in place, carries more factual information about Clive Bull than the current article. For example, it's more informative about Clive's early overnight show on which Peter Cook would appear, and mentions Clive Bull's interest in sport, appearances outside radio, the Radio Times poll he was placed in, commentry on the style of his show, a little more about celebrity callers and more (including a fixed link to the "I'm a Celebrity..." wiki article at its last revision). I think the revised article is superior to the article currently being displayed, though I still feel there's a requirement for protection, sadly.
I really don't see why there's any need to discuss the matter. Someone simply expanded the article and it at least appears that a single trouble maker has lead us to this situation under at least 3 identities. 81.178.125.46 17:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rewrite

message: :Wikipedia:No legal threats. Those making legal threats will be blocked until such time as their legal threats are rescinded or their legal actions are completed. Please don't make legal threats, even if you aren't serious. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: personal attacks by anonymous user removed. They are defamatory and I will consider legal action if they return 

message: Please work out your differences on this talk page, remembering to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view, citing verifiable, reliable sources, and refraining from personal attacks or incivility. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I personally do not like the new changes. Keep it as it is now. Brucethebiggaybear 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: If someone hasn't already, I'd recommend a request for a sockpuppet check be made at WP:RCU. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RFCU request already made for some of them, and another was made about Jimbolain. --Syrthiss 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: We are four co-workers in London. We do not like the new revision to the article. The original version was mush better than the new one. The new one doesn't read well and misses out on some information on the present version. on my last count 7 people said they didn't like the edits made because the old version is better flow. We got the page held and have made numerous comments on the discussion only to have people start being banned as 'sockpuppets'. We are four people working in the same company and edit the clive bull page in our coffee breaks. Apparently because we edited at the same time we were banned. That is not fair. This user has an agenda. She wants the new version of Clive bull and is trying to get new wiki users banned if they disagree. What can we do to protect ourselves??160.83.32.14 09:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we should keep the old version

message: OK. fine, let's go back to the old one.Minglex 10:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that DebbieatCNBC doesn't post under her own username because she is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of another user as proven by CheckUser.  Both of these recent comments were added by User:66.90.73.96 --Syrthiss 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sockpuppetry to create an illusion of consensus nonetheless seems de rigeur for LBC-related articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think Minglex's version adheres better to the Wikipedia manual of style. --Syrthiss 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking up, a large proportion of this 'consensus' is made up the of the sockpuppeting, impersonating vandal, and various other people who for whatever reason remain anonymous. Whether this is sockpuppetry (again) or not, Minglex is entitled to ignore a consensus that could easily consist of one person. Comments like "Minglex is free to make small changes" borders on patronising ownership. FWIW, I think Minglex's version is more neutral and encyclopaedic and have reverted back to it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please point out exactly the grammatical errors in Minglex' version, or correct them yourself.  Minglex' version is to me more NPOV and as I said above adheres to the Wikipedia manual of style.  As this is an encyclopedia and not a blog we should go for a more professional tone.  --Syrthiss 14:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the number of IPs involved, I'm listing this on requests for comment. This needs more eyes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK. fine, let's go back to the old one

message: I have been viewing this Clive Bull article for a while. It is against wiki policy to label everyone a sockpupet. As far as I can see each oponent to the changes uses a unique IP address. I feel that the in good faith rule should apply and each IP be treated as a unique user. I feel that the changes by minglex disrupt the overall flow of the article. It is disjointed and each section doesn't link well. The original version is much better with its catagorisation of Clives work. Kerry ( work IP address for DB) 07:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is ridiculous. I advise everyone who comments on this article to be on the look out for imposter accounts as their comments may not stay the way they write them otherwise. I edit from an office too but you don't see 5 newly-created accounts with exactly the same prose style and opinions coming into this article on my side. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry luv, we are different people. You can call my employer to confirm but before that remember the assume good faith rule. You have no right to say we are sockpuppets honey. You are WAY off line and I'd ask to to retract your accusation honey. Kerry ( work IP address for DB) 09:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What accusation? I just advised Wikipedia editors to be on the lookout for the same vandalism that has plagued this talk page before. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Honey, ya made a comment that insinuated that me and my work collegues were sockpuppets. I will edit out the insinuations becasue they are against good faith rule. Kerry ( work IP address for DB) 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No. Only personal attacks may be removed, even that guideline is disputed, and my comments do not qualify as such. Do not edit the comments of other editors again. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, he hasn't. The 3RR rule means that users may make three reverts per day per article - in other words, it takes four reverts for a breach. 66 only made three today. Bizarre threats aren't going to do anyone any good either. I'm still waiting for more eyes to fall on this. The fact that opposition to the edit comes solely from a vandal puppetmaster and various other new accounts that haven't yet done anything stupid enough to join the sock drawer tells us all we need to know, but in terms of getting rid of this obstruction to improving the article, there's nothing we can do except wait for other users to deign to look at this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Threats by Minglex's sockpupet

message: 66.90.73.96 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As the new version is in dispute by 10+ contributors keep the old version and only put the new one in when there is consensus

message: 66.90.73.96, you have breached WP:3RR.
There is no 'concensus' on the dated version which you advocate, evident from the fact that your reverts are constantly being changed by both wikipedia Admins and established users. All opponents to the changes have failed to produce a single piece of evidence for bad 'flow', 'grammatical errors', 'spelling mistakes' or any other valid reasons. 
On the other hand new version is better because there is:
*More factual information on Clive Bull's background,
*Website referenced for biographical details,
*Increased NPOV,
*Bullet-list of celebrity callers, with more celebrity callers,
*Increased readability from the new section 'Acclaim', and more information about his awards.
My friend, please cease this edit war. Minglex 21:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, he hasn't. The 3RR rule means that users may make three reverts per day per article - in other words, it takes four reverts for a breach. 66 only made three today. Bizarre threats aren't going to do anyone any good either. I'm still waiting for more eyes to fall on this. The fact that opposition to the edit comes solely from a vandal puppetmaster and various other new accounts that haven't yet done anything stupid enough to join the sock drawer tells us all we need to know, but in terms of getting rid of this obstruction to improving the article, there's nothing we can do except wait for other users to deign to look at this. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I am angry that a large amount of people here do not like the new edit and Sam you are ignoring them. I am a new user but I am part of the majority that do not like the changes. 147.114.226.175 11:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 does not make a consensus 

message: Please revert to the version with consensus ( original version) as the new one written by a user who is making physical threats is only liked by 3 users with 10 users against.
The new version has no consensus, only 3 people in discussion wanted it and now it is permanently protected. Minglex the user who created the new version has made threats of violence against anyone who does not like the new version. It is unfair that a user who threatened violence should have his version protected when the majority prefer the older version. 
I feel that Wiki is not treating threats such as this with the attention they deserve, by supporting a user who has threatened violence when the majority do not want the version. Considering I work for a radio station I don't think it is good for wiki to have ' user Minglex made edits people didn't want and threatened physical violence..." appearing on Clive's program tonight. Clivefan 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Clivefan", Minglex's threats were clearly facetious. Your threats to take off-wiki action to force your edit, however, appear serious on the surface. So you are the only one trying to threaten users with off-wiki repercussions here, a gross violation of one of your favourite "rules". Knock it off or I will be ever more tempted to "abuse" my admin powers. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. Clearly facetious, and he's already apologised to you. Why don't you stop this ridiculous wikilawyering and actually tell people what the specific problems you have with his edit are, now that I've corrected the grammar problems you brought up. Surely you can find at least one example of "poor flow". --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This was resolved in-house when Minglex apologised. I have indefinitely blocked Clivefan under WP:NLT until his threat of police action is concluded or withdrawn. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Threats by Minglex

message: If you want it to flow better, make it flow better- but with all the extra factual information of the current protected version. The point is largely irrelevent because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide reading material that flows well, but which provides information on the subject (or personality) of the article. 
Clivefan, just in case you think your claims against me have any validity or that anybody cares particularly, I think you're wrong on both counts.
Minglex 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is actually protected at the moment. However, if there are any more specific suggestions about how the article can be improved, they can easily be incorporated as soon as we have consensus. Minglex, what do you think about swapping the 'Acclaim' and 'LBC radio show' (so they're 3rd and 2nd sections respectively)? I think it would be a natural change in terms of 'flow', but there may easily be a logic to the current setup that I'm missing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Er... which order, yours or mine? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: First the old version has more info, then it is exactly the same except it doesn't have "stupid sections" interrupting your sacred "flow". Which is it? --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't ban him, I blocked him until his legal case against Wikipedia was concluded in accordance with WP:NLT. That's as within policy as it comes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: He said "If wiki doesn't want to work this out I will have to file a police complaint". That's a clear legal threat, and his next sentence "I am not threatening to do so" rings hollow. As I said, I put my block up for review, and no-one has taken issue. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that a legal threat as well? Hard to keep them all separate. --Syrthiss 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow 

message: So sam, it seems that the people above wern't sockpuppets but you banned them. I think that deserves an appology?
147.114.226.175
:What are you talking about? I haven't banned them yet, and the CheckUser is still pending. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseless sockpuppet accusenations