This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rivalry with Iain Lee

After all the vandalism on here and Iain Lee, is there something happening "on air" that has spilled over onto the Wikipedia?

No it's just Iain Lee's less mature audience getting into a tiz and being silly. It may seem strange but when you have a weekday show on a London radio station and get paid buckets you rarely find the time to organise 'wars' on second rate messageboards, which is what the Wikipedia has become. That said, Iain Lee has made edits himself, some of them including less than friendly comments about callers.

None of this happened before Iain was on LBC.

=More Iain Lee vandalism

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

Iain Lee is brilliant, do not say that he is rebbish. i do prefer clive mind you but iain's listeners are just as intellegent as clive's

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)

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 Those making legal threats will be blocked until such time as their legal threats are rescinded or their legal actions are completed.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)

I do not like the new format. This is done unilaterally. Until we have consensus no new format. . Westminsterboy 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC) This is an indefinitely-blocked impersonator of Westminsterboy (talk · contribs).

Keep the old version, the new one misses a lot of information and is difficult to understand. ZoeCroydon 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I went to the wiki page to request this article be protected and see that those who keep posting the Clive Bull gay comments and other vandalism have cheekily requested protection already. It was also aledged that I keep reverting vandalism without contributing anything. Of course I revert vandalism and if you look carefully you'll see I have recently corrected grammar. Under different IPs I have also made countless contributions to this and many other articles over the last year or so. The last one I can remember making to the Clive Bull article is correcting yet another mistake that said Clive has 3 kids. One thing I haven't done is vandalise wiki entries and keep repeatedly making up lies about Clive Bull and Iain Lee being gay, or hearing it in podcasts when this is clearly false. The user 'JamieHughes' has made one post to the Clive Bull article inserting the 'gay' claims[1] and looking at his posting record shows he also amended a comment on the Iain Lee article saying that he believes him to be gay too[2]. Please protect this article. I didn't do the big rewrite yesterday but it seems to benefit the article (apart from some broken grammar, which I repaired) so leave it in unless someone else can write better. 81.178.125.46 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the recent vandals keep mentioning the need for discussion by 'the users' before changes can be made to the Clive Bull article yet have so far made absolutely no attempt to initiate such a discussion or even mention the changes here. The 'rewrite', from what I can tell, is basically the inclusion of more content that supliments the previous content. It doesn't remove anything and what has been added pretty much improves the article. As such I don't see why it needs to be debated, it's just the work of a valuable Wiki contributer who hasn't just thrown out other peoples' work (something that has happened to mine and other peoples work on many other articles). The only 'damage' that occured was some broken sentences when the new content required the restructuring of some phrases, however I corrected this, and added a minor fact while I was at it, as you can see in the history page. There is one IP that has been very abusive and has had most of their edits reversed across the wiki, though they do seem to have a fixation with Clive Bull, his children and his sexuality. Far from healthy if you ask me. 81.178.125.46 15:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I DISAGREE the old version was much better and the majority of people who care about this article think so ( see the reaction you have caused). Also, why should we take into account the unilateral changes of a non-member! . JamieHughes 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC) This is an indefinitely-blocked impersonator of JamieHughes (talk · contribs).

Please note that ZoeCroydon and JamieHughes appear to be the same person as the vandalism caused to the Olmec article here[3] and here[4] would suggest. Furthermore, there have been identical changes made by ZoeCroydon and the long term vandal at 160.83.73.14[5] so it all points to 'all' the people objecting to the recent changes to the Clive Bull article in fact being one person. If this is the case then it goes a great way to explaining their confusion over Clive Bull's sexuality since they don't know whether they're Zoe or Jamie themselves. 81.178.125.46 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Get stuffed homophobe, I'm a regular on Clives program. ZoeCroydon 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a personal attack ;-) 81.178.125.46 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please work out your differences on this talk page, remembering to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia's policies on

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

A big NO to the changes honey! (I'm sorry for overreacting before but I did take it a little personal). ZoeCroydon

keep ta page as it is now. LBC 97.3 Radio Show 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I made the last big changes to the page. I made the tone of the article more like that of an encyclopedia than a fansite, and rearranged material to a more logical order, deleting about 2 paragraphs which had been copied and pasted, i.e. they were duplicates. I also added more information on what news organisations like the Independent have said about Clive. Please read the revisions fully before making a judgement on it. I would like to know what objections anybody has to the revision, since no detrimental effect was made on the article. Wikipedia should never be in stasis and article should be a dynamic and communal process of knowledge-building, not petty conservatism by fans. Unilateral concensus by editors on decisions is never required, since then no decisions would ever be made.

If you have objections to the revisions, you should not revert, but make improvements to the page rather than reverting it outright.Minglex 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but you can'tjust change the whole thing. This is a colaborative effort. Unilaterally changing everything is not wanted! The article was good before your ammendments were too much. As for the fellow below he should get a life and stop imaginging that there is one particular individual who hates the changes. It is a lot of people. 84.13.95.110 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you study the posting history for the main article, discussion page and the page protection page you'll realise no one is really objecting to your changes, it's just the latest tactic of an ongoing agenda of vandalism and senseless meddling. One person appears to be behind at least 5 of the names 'objecting' to your changes, and despite demanding discussion on the matter they havn't bothered to participate in such discussion until the above comments made today. Yesterday they were banned, and the wiki records for those usernames suggest it's not for the first time either. I'm the only one who made a reasonable comment about your improvements, and am in favour of them. These 'editors' tend to appear and disappear together, and as you can see by these links, there is something of a theme to the changes repeatedly made by JamieHughes[6][7], ZoeCroydon[8][9], LBC 97.3 Radio Show[10], Brucethebiggaybear[11], Westminsterboy[12], 160.83.73.14[13] and 160.83.32.14[14]. It's just a constant mission to claim falsely that people are gay or say that these presenters have stated this as fact on the radio or in podcasts when they haven't. Or just throw in random nonsense. I suspect some other usernames of being the same person too. They also repeatedly accuse those who revert their vandalism of being homophobic and demand people do not revert their changes in the edit summary.

I have requested on the page protection page[15] that your changes be used instead of the current version but this has been refused along with the suggestion we work out our differences. I don't think they get that there's no real argument about changes here, it's just a vandal trying to cause trouble and block changes. Clearly they have no real opinion on your improvements. 81.179.242.233 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mate get a grip, I don't like the changes and vote no. The old version is best 84.13.95.110 21:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And your IP is also remarkably similar those those which post the usual comments that people are gay and anyone who reverts the changes is a 'homophobe'. Example[16]. I still think there is only one person against the changes, and question their motives for objecting in the first place. 81.179.252.247 21:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the new version, keep the old one. Rolandaslondon 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If so, specify which part of the new revision you don't like, since I have highliughted in my previous post what I thought could be improved about the old version. Simply stating your dislike is both inarticulate and intolerant. If nobody makes a valid point instead of saying 'I don't like it', I am requesting unprotection.Minglex 10:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the present version read better than your version. The present version provides the information that readers who are interested in clive and his program in a better format. Unfortunatly, the format you choose is hard to read and doesn't flow as well as the present 'tried and tested version.' 160.83.73.14 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the flow in the new version is poor. The article is just better in the original version. Many people worked on the original version and they were very talented. Sorry love but your version doesn't come up well against what is there already. Jimboiain 13:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please not patronise me. I agree that the flow is not as good in the new version, but that can be improved through editing. Anyway, the new version uses all of the material in the old version, and nothing is lost (in fact whole paragraphs were only deleted because they were exact duplicates of each other). By contrast, the facts and sources I added do add greatly to the quality of the article which used to just sound like a fansite and lacked NPOV.

Again, you fail to specify exactly what sections you object to. I will request unprotection unless the user engages in real discussion.Minglex 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mate, don't you get it??? The people have spoken and they do not want a new version. The old version is good. Amend that - don't change it all!!! 84.13.84.22 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone hasn't already, I'd recommend a request for a sockpuppet check be made at

RFCU request already made for some of them, and another was made about Jimbolain. --Syrthiss 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention JimboIain (and that he should suddenly appear!), since he's one of the other usernames I suspect of being the same person. Here are a few more along with examples: Jimboiain[17], IANLEELOVE[18][19] (who also repeatedy moved[20] the Iain Lee article and kept changing his name), 194.203.201.92[21][22], 194.203.201.98[23], 80.41.139.16[24] and 86.137.199.18[25]. There are also new usernames that appear and edit within minutes of the IPs of vandals (Fifilover or Godofbiscuits12, for example). Obviously only the moderators can check whether these new usernames are the same person but it only took a few minutes for Godofbiscuits12 to be blocked after 'participating' in the Iain Lee talk page...

To repeat myself, I think the revised version of the article (by Minglex) should replace what's currently being displayed but if it's unprotected the vandal will just keep reverting it. It also seems that the abusive user requested the Iain Lee article be protected on March 10th and then successfully asked for a moderator to edit the page to include the "Iain Lee is getting married" claim. They're learning to complain about moderators and claim other users are making 'personal attacks' to try and cause further trouble.

This makes it quite frustrating when other moderators refuse reasonable and well explained requests (that haven't received any meaningful counter argument) to revert the Clive Bull article to its state as of March 14th[26]. I assume the idea is that if they make a huge amount of complaints under many usernames and portray things like the simple edit of an article or highlighting (with citations) a history of abuse as hideous acts carried out by bad users, then eventually they'll hoodwink some moderator who will subsequently do what they want.

It's a simple case of normal users making the very changes the Wikipedia was set up to facilitate being effectively blocked by vandals. Their method is to create the perception that there are two sides of an argument when really it's just a vandal meddling with everyone else. 81.178.78.149 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I know that 3 of the people mentioned above work in the same organisation and we like to edit wiki while we are working. Is that a crime? Two of my work collegues were banned from wiki simply because they said they didn't like the changes at the clive bull site. That is very unfair. So you just block people on a bandwagon??? How do we make an official complaint? Editors should have been more throurough before banning everyone. 160.83.73.14 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

hi dude, I'm supposed to be your sockpupet too you know! So where are you based? This wiki stuff is rubbish - when they don't like what you say they just ban you. what happened to assume good faith? 84.13.84.22 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have also been blocked. I work here and me and the other secretaries edit the clive bull article and the Iain lee one. This wiki stuff is getting stupid because they don't understand most companies have one email address. Joanne was blocked on Wednesday and none of us could edit. Is there an offical place to complain, we work for a tv station so that might make them sort this situation out. 160.83.32.14 09:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'editing' attributable to yourself and the 'other secretaries' at the IP addresses you're talking about is consistently of a malicious nature. 81.178.78.149 09:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The old version is better then the new one. The New edit has poor flow then the new one. ( is that malicious?) DebbieatCNBC 09:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this one is it malicious? DebbieatCNBC 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC) I personally think the present version read better than your version. The present version provides the information that readers who are interested in clive and his program in a better format. Unfortunatly, the format you choose is hard to read and doesn't flow as well as the present 'tried and tested version.' 160.83.73.14 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why we should keep the old version

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)

I totally agree with Trish. I have had to change my username too. How do we get this indiscriminant banning to stop. I prefer the original article, has better overall flow. The new one is all over the place and there are even gramatical problems. Minger or whatever she is called said we need to updat the new version to make it as good as the old one. WHY? The old one is good so update it don't just change the whole thing DebbieatCNBC 09:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

DebbieatCNBC 09:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. fine, let's go back to the old one

OK. fine, let's go back to the old one.Minglex 10:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop putting in the changes the whole community didn't want. 147.114.226.175 09:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My friend, I am improving the article if you take the time to read the edits.Minglex 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of the changes. Please include them Minglex and keep up the great work! In fact I don't think anyone has reasonably objected to them at any stage. 81.178.93.235 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You made major changes in the revamp that disrupted the overall flow of the article. If you read through past comments it is clear that at least 9 people didn't like your drastic change. The page was even protected because you and your sock puppet 81.178.93.235 disregarded the wishes of the discussion. Clivefan 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a new user and I see that Minglexx is acting unilaterally. People here didn't like your changes, stop imposing them!!! 66.90.101.225 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<>>>>>> I QUOTE THIS 66.90.73.96 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the flow of the version by minglex either, the original flowed much better. Why are you imposing a complete re-write on this article. The flow of the original is much better and does not contain the gramatical errors of the new version. My two cents. 66.90.73.96 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)