Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann

Statement by uninvolved DrKiernan
See also: Requests for checkuser/Case/Theisles, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive118 and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.


 * The article should be deleted or redirected per Biographies of living persons. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kingofmann's statement 3 admits that the heirs of the earlier Earl of Stanley were the later Earls of Stanley and the Atholls, i.e. the heirs general were the people who inherited the title not David Howe's ancestors. All reference works on the History of the Isle of Man ever published agree that the title of King of Mann was inherited by successive Earls of Stanley until the title was changed to Lord of Mann by one of these same gentlemen. In addition, I'm afraid that Acts of Parliament have greater legal authority than announcements in newspapers. Howe's claim is very obviously bogus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note these edits which show that User:Kingofmann has a history of writing articles about pretend countries and titles, and that two of his previous accounts, User:DukeofAntwerp and User:Drewdaily, both contributed to an AfD:  DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 asks why I "indiscrimantly [sic] deleted prior to this RFA". My reasons are given in the deletion logs and edit summaries. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:CarbonLifeForm
This article seems to breach WP:NN, WP:BLP, WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. It is pretentious nonsense. I have put it up for afd here. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * other forms of mediation have not been tried. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by almost uninvolved Angusmclellan
When this article was mentioned at WP:BLPN, I had a look at it. My reaction was negative. The article was several sorts of WP:COATRACK: a collection of trivial press mentions, a grab-bag of badly sourced criticisms, a smattering of innuendo. Basically this is a WP:BLP1E where the event in question - the subject's bizarre claims - never got any analysis, and thus a non-event so far as an encyclopedia is concerned. There'd have been no need for the negative aspects to be so poorly referenced had anyone in fact bothered to rebut the claims. Whose fault is this? Don't care. How do we fix it? WP:AFD not WP:RFAR. If the arbcom are minded to consider whether WP:NPOV is more or less important that WP:BLP, I can save some time and trouble. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. What's could usefully be arbitrated here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Choess
I feel that I should point out that this is not the first time Wikipedia has dealt with self-promotional claims to noble titles. Examining Talk:Earl of Stirling will show a very similar case, wherein an American claimed a British noble title largely by process of assertion. If I recall correctly, the substance of his argument was that according to some procedure in Scottish law, anyone who asserted themselves to be a peer *was* a peer until their claim was disproven, and that with the elimination of writs of summons for the hereditary peers, there was no authority that could disprove his claim, ergo he was the Earl of Stirling. This seems not dissimilar from Howe's claim, which seems to rest largely upon his having published a notice in the London Gazette without drawing explicit contradiction in that venue from the UK government. The difference in Wikipedia outcomes between the soi-disant Earl of Stirling's case and that of Mr. Howe seems to have been that the former rapidly descended to legal threats and was blocked, whereas the latter's case has been advanced by vigorous wikilawyering and invocation of BLP to suppress criticism of his claims.

While I realize that ArbCom will not impose content remedies, it seems to me that the most sensible solution is to redirect Mr. Howe's page to King of Mann and add a line or two noting his claims, the news coverage, and the fact that he has no particular genealogical standing amongst the many descendants of the Stanley Kings of Mann. I think that's in keeping with the overall historical impact of the claims, and it avoids the lengthy sparring over balance of coverage that's characterized the full-fledged article.

With regards to Mr. Howe's concerns, I think the fundamental problem is really, in a sense, that which we ordinarily label original research. He believes, in essence, that he has made new discoveries about the inheritance of the kingship of Mann which entitles him to it and would, naturally, like Wikipedia to reflect it. However, these discoveries are not yet widely accept it and, hence, subject to criticism, which naturally reflects upon him as well. I would respectfully submit that Wikipedia is here to document generally accepted facts and theories, and is a poor venue for trying to determine the truth or untruth of new hypotheses. The criticism he has encountered is the inevitable result of trying to inject a POV not yet widely endorsed into the encyclopedia, and the best way to deflect it is to avoid covering that POV in depth until it has won wider support. Choess (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Thatcher
Some comments following a brief investigation:
 * is virtually a single purpose account editing David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (see wannabee kate's tool); although his earliest edits were adding a heraldry web site to a number of other articles. Only this diff seems like a true BLP problem in that, although it is a quote from a newspaper article, it was selected to make the subject look bad.
 * In fairness, my selection was from the same article that Howe had used selective quotes to make himself look good. The author's main thrust was anti monarchy rather than pro Howe.
 * My primary interest has always been heraldry & genealogy. However, this whole Howe issue has rather resulted in a "spike" of activity. --Heraldic (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * is another SPA who has added personal info about the subject  although this information was apparently published in a local newspaper
 * I object to the characterization of me as a SPA. I have a history of making edits to other accounts, most of which are already written from a NPOV, hence no need to edit them continuously.  Additionally, I have not always signed in to Wikipedia.  Other edits by me (using an ANON IP) can be found at the articles listed at my user page.   Newguy34 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is plagued by original research by multiple users, including Heraldic and Kingofmann ( for example).
 * Users Kingofmann, Heraldic and Newguy34 are not really acclimated to Wikipedia yet, Kingofmann in particular repeatedly objecting to edits on the grounds that since Hu12 started the article, he should be consulted.
 * The advocacy here and in the article for the inclusion of the link to  is an abdication of the external links policy. Even if the site's owner is a respected amateur genealogist, the site is almost entirely original research that is not published in a reputable form as defined by the reliable source policy. (To the extent that the site quotes from secondary sources like newspaper articles, those sources could be quoted directly.)  Whether the site constitutes an "attack" on the subject or not, it is definitely partisan, biased, and not a reliable source per policy.  It also seems that, for a brief period of time, the web site had a page that exposed and criticized editors of Wikipedia .  While it is not really a candidate for the spam blacklist since it is unlikely to be linked from more than one or two related articles, it seems to be unsuitable as a link for BLP and reliable source reasons.
 * Other than the link to , there do not seem to be egregious BLP violations, rather, the disputes are over personal information about the subject that were revealed in other fora and whether they should be included here, and in exactly how to portray his claim to the kingship. I'm not sure there are any wider issues here needing clarification.
 * I suspect that further drama can be avoided by having a couple of editors experienced with BLPs add this to their watchlist and by pointing the subject to OTRS. I'm not convinced at this time that any editor's behavior (save the subject's apparent sockpuppetry) is bad enough to warrant sanction at this time.
 * On the other hand, this is the case to accept if you want something light and easy to balance the stürm und dräng of other cases...

Comment by uninvolved Gnangarra
After reviewing the SSP on Kingofmann I indefinitely blocked the two confirmed sockpuppets being Lazydown and Theisles. The two abandoned accounts which were unconfirmed were also indefinitely blocked.

Comment by uninvolved editor DragonflySixtyseven
After reading the article, and the arguments in the AfD, I have deleted the article so as to purge its edit history, and then recreated it as a redirect to King of Mann. DS (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

=Discussion & Questions=

I am a bit puzzled as to where we are with this Arbitration (hence I set up this area so as not to "interfere" with the various statements). If the article that caused all the editing issues has been deleted does this not make Arbitration irrelevant? --Heraldic (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested input from the parties and other editors as to whether the case has become moot in light of these developments. Please see under "Questions for parties" on the /Workshop page. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is a matter of getting to understand the procedures and where to look. --Heraldic (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)