 | This user has been an admin for
18 years, 5 months and 23 days. |
|
Although I grew up in Cornwall, I currently live in rural Warwickshire, and work nearby as an archivist.
My interests include architecture (especially Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Interwar Modernist and Rococo), the armed forces and military history, fortifications, church history and architecture (and no, I'm not religious in the slightest), law enforcement (particularly its history), cinema and television (especially the depiction of historical characters and events), theatre, the British honours system, the 1920s, roleplaying games and fantasy literature.
I've been an administrator since 4 November 2005.
Notability
I have been accused at various times of being both an inclusionist and a deletionist. For the record, I am neither. I probably tend more towards inclusionism than deletionism, but I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people and organisations. People who are friends or relatives of somebody notable are not intrinsically notable themselves. People who were involved in a notable event are not intrinsically notable (although they may warrant a redirect to the article about the event). People who are related to an editor are certainly not intrinsically notable. Neither are local clubs, societies and organisations or companies that do not have at least a national reputation (note that secondary schools are NOT local organisations!). But, conversely, just because something or someone is not intrinsically notable doesn't mean they're not capable of being notable at all. Too many editors slap prod or afd notices on whole categories of articles without bothering to examine their individual merits, and that's just as bad as cluttering up Wikipedia with articles about utterly non-notable subjects.
I have to add that in the last few years I have been getting increasingly frustrated at the growing number of editors (including very experienced editors) who seem increasingly unable to use common sense to determine notability. There is an ever-growing tendency to state that if a subject is not specifically stated to be notable under a narrow set of "rules" (note to these people, we don't have rules on Wikipedia) then it cannot possibly be notable at all. Any appeal to common sense is shouted down and mocked, as these editors seem uncomfortable with using judgement and discretion and instead prefer to obsessively apply dogma and fictional rules. While the majority of AfDs are still closed sensibly, there are certainly now too many where the "rules"-obsessed deletionists win and useful articles are deleted, sometimes with the clear collusion of closing admins who agree with their deletionist opinions and ignore the views of those who prefer to apply common sense to the discussions ("not policy-based" as they smugly say - it's those non-existent "rules" again). This is not of any benefit to Wikipedia and sometimes I almost get the feeling that there is a minority of editors who gain great satisfaction from getting articles deleted. I do not believe this is in the spirit of Wikipedia and I actually find it quite depressing that this great project is being undermined by these people and wonder why I bother contributing at all. Sadly, the bureaucrats seem to be taking over, and that is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about.
As a postscript to this, I am saddened at how unpleasant the deletionists can get when other editors challenge their opinions. There is an increasingly toxic nature to "debate", especially at AfD. A smallish coterie of editors, who often seem to work together, appear to have decided what they think should be on Wikipedia and are working to make sure that the rest of us know it too. They are utterly inflexible, seemingly incapable of using any form of discretion, and will brook no deviation from the fixed "rules" which they have decided Wikipedia has on notability. They try to enforce their will on other editors by bullying, shouting down, patronising, disparaging, mocking and sneering at any editors who disagree with them, often supporting each other to do so. Unfortunately, they're continually allowed to get away with it, seemingly because an increasing number of editors, including administrators, seem to be uncomfortable with the lack of formal rules here and would rather just go along with their strident claims that the (non-existent) rules must be obeyed inflexibly and without question than challenge them. Once upon a time, in more enjoyable days, they would have been rapidly challenged by other more liberal editors and would eventually have got bored and wandered off when they realised that Wikipedia wasn't their own personal soapbox and WP:IAR (one of Wikipedia's cornerstones that they really hate, would clearly like to be deleted, and claim has no relevance), but now they are allowed to dictate to the rest of us (because, you know, we all need rules and better that someone comes along and imposes them on us than we don't have any!). Frankly, without much support from other editors and administrators, I am tired of trying to point out that we don't have rules that must be inflexibly obeyed and that improving the encyclopaedia doesn't mean deleting as much content as possible. I am tired of having to defend my opinions against people who think I should be stripped of my sysop privileges because I don't agree with them, because they believe that somehow they are the true force for good here and I am trying to sabotage their efforts to "improve" Wikipedia. It's a very sad development in what should have been a great project and I really wonder if Wikipedia, like so many other projects with great ideas, will just eventually degenerate into infighting and arguing. Wikipedia has changed immensely since I joined, and often not for the better.
There are some topics which I genuinely believe have inherent notability and should be kept irrespective of whether they meet WP:GNG. Sadly some of these have been deprecated at RfCs, but I have not changed my opinion. These include:
- Officers who have held flag, general or air rank in the armed forces of any country (including commodores and brigadiers, who are equivalent in rank to these officers).
- Holders of a first-level award for valour, two or more second-level awards for valour or three or more third-level awards for valour. See WP:SOLDIER and my own guidelines.
- Holders of the CBE or higher in the British honours system or its equivalent in other honours systems. See my own guidelines.
- Ruling monarchs and heads of royal houses (including those which have been deposed) and their spouses, children and grandchildren.
- Holders of cabinet-level and other ministerial-level (including deputy ministerial) positions of national and sub-national governments, whether elected or appointed. See WP:POLITICIAN.
- Individuals who have sat in any national or sub-national legislature, whether elected or appointed. See WP:POLITICIAN. Note that this does not include county or city councils or their equivalents.
- Holders of hereditary peerages of the United Kingdom, whether or not they have sat in the House of Lords. Those who have are clearly eligible per the above and it makes no sense to cut off the line of articles now hereditary peers have lost their entitlement to sit.
- Judges of national and sub-national supreme courts, national appeal courts and the highest-level national courts of first instance. See WP:POLITICIAN.
- National and sub-national government agencies.
- National and sub-national law enforcement agencies.
- Larger local law enforcement agencies with more than about 500 sworn officers.
- Chief officers of all the agencies mentioned above.
- National and sub-national military forces and their branches. See WP:MILUNIT.
- Military units and formations of battalion size or above. See WP:MILUNIT.
- Air force units and formations of squadron size or above. See WP:MILUNIT.
- Warships and naval formations of any size. See WP:MILUNIT.
- Orders, decorations and medals awarded by any national government.
- Recognised government subdivisions at any level. See WP:GEOLAND.
- Recognised settlements of any size. See WP:GEOLAND.
- Buildings and structures designated as built heritage by a national government or by a sub-national government when this responsibility is delegated to them by the national government (e.g. German states). See WP:GEOFEAT. When a group of similar structures is located in a single neighbourhood or along a single street then it may be more appropriate to group these together into a single article rather than having articles on every separate building.
- Diocesan bishops of significant Christian denominations.
- Cathedrals and other major churches (such as basilicas and minsters) of significant Christian denominations.
- Significant military bases and facilities. Bases that house at least a battalion-sized unit should be considered notable, as should all military airbases, naval dockyards, etc.
- Railway stations. Simple tram stops are generally not notable.
- Films and TV shows featuring at least a few actors who themselves have articles.
- Actors who have had long-running roles in long-running TV series, whether or not they have had significant roles outside those series.
- Secondary schools, whether state-run or private. I appreciate we had an RfC on this subject, but it remains highly controversial and I continue to believe that all secondary schools are notable.
- Degree-granting institutions of further and higher education accredited by a government or other reputable body. Contrary to the allegations of some, this does not only include institutions that award their own degrees; it also includes independent tertiary institutions affiliated to another university (very common in India and Pakistan, for example).
- Holders of established chairs at major universities and research institutions. See here for the definition of an established chair.
Note: "Sub-national" in this context refers to first-level subdivisions of federal nations that have independent legislatures, such as U.S., Australian, German or Indian states and Canadian provinces. It does not refer to lower-level subdivisions of these countries or any subdivisions of non-federal nations, which may have councils but not actual legislatures.
And here is a perfect example of the unpleasantness that now characterises Wikipedia. Apparently an admin is not allowed to have an opinion that goes against that of those who believe they are "right", even when citing a policy in direct response to a comment from another editor bemoaning how guidelines are preventing decent editing. I'm frankly glad I was on holiday at the time and didn't notice it until it was closed. From the great project of building an encyclopaedia, we have degenerated into name calling and false accusations over what is considered to be worthy of inclusion, which is incredibly sad, if to be expected.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
_COA.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
